Is the Book of Mormon a Pseudo-Archaic Text? | Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship | The Interpreter Foundation

As mentioned, the Book of Mormon is uncorrelated with the King James Bible in this domain. The Book of Mormon is negatively correlated with all four pseudo-biblical writings, usually strongly negatively correlated, and especially with Gilbert J. Hunt’s The Late War, the text compared most often to the Book of Mormon. Based on the above figures, The Late War correlates with the King James Bible at 0.32 and with the Book of Mormon at –0.96. Two of the pseudo-biblical writings are positively correlated with the King James Bible — the oldest one, Leacock’s text, correlates most strongly at 0.8.

Again, an analyst might claim the Book of Mormon overuses personal which as a biblical hypercorrection. I will briefly note two things here. First, heavy use of personal that is the most likely biblical hypercorrection. Second, it is unlikely Joseph Smith could have successfully dictated against subconscious relative-pronoun tendencies approximately 1,000 times. The four pseudo-biblical texts support this view. The more likely divergence from Joseph’s own linguistic tendencies would have been something like Leacock’s distribution, which is heavy in personal that. Familiarity with biblical usage and internalizing it to a degree might have led to such a result.

Periphrastic did

In this section, periphrastic did means the use of the auxiliary did or didst in declarative contexts with an infinitive and without not, as in [Page 198]“they did go forth,” without full or contrastive emphasis on the auxiliary. To be clear, I have counted phraseology such as “neither did they go,” headed by a negative conjunction, as an instance of periphrastic did, since “neither went they” was possible in earlier English, and the simple, non-periphrastic option was available to pseudo-biblical authors. Phraseology such as “neither did they go” could be considered a type of negative usage along with did not, but I have chosen to follow Ellegård 1953 in the matter.

The two main syntactic types of non-emphatic periphrastic did are differentiated by whether did and the infinitive are adjacent. It is important to note that non-emphatic non-adjacency has persisted in English, in limited fashion, while non-emphatic adjacency has not. Thus, the two syntactic types followed distinct paths, diachronically speaking. Texts with very high levels of adjacency are uncommon and mainly confined to the first half of the early modern period (specifically, from the 1530s to the 1560s).

Other than a recent dissertation by Bowen referred to above, I have not read any studies by linguists of the Book of Mormon’s periphrastic did. (Bowen’s treatment is only preliminary, and besides some brief comments [see page 156], he doesn’t treat present-tense and past tense usage separately.) My own analysis of periphrastic did in the Book of Mormon, following Alvar Ellegård’s approach in his wide ranging work on the subject, has shown that the Book of Mormon’s past-tense syntax matches some 16th-century texts in their rate and syntactic distribution. There also appears to be some correlation with individual verb tendencies of the early modern era, as I discovered by performing many nearly comprehensive searches of the EEBO Phase 1 database. Thus, the Book of Mormon contains an early and robust form of periphrastic did, something chiefly found in the middle of the 16th century. A book written by the Cambridge theologian and mathematician Isaac Barrow, A Treatise of the Pope’s Supremacy [1683, EEBO 31089], first published posthumously in 1680, may be the latest one whose past-tense rate exceeds that of the Book of Mormon.

[Page 199]Ellegård estimated that the King James Bible’s overall periphrastic do rate (both present-tense and past-tense) was 1.3 percent. In 2014 I estimated that its past-tense periphrastic did and didst rate was 1.7 percent. This rate, however, is conspicuously skewed by more than 95 percent usage of did eat instead of ate and an outsized rate of periphrastic didst (more than 10 times the overall periphrastic did rate, and about 20 times the periphrastic did rate when did eat is excluded). Notably, there is no significant skewing present in the Book of Mormon with either did eat or any other verb, and not even with periphrastic didst, since neither type of periphrastic did makes up a significant percentage of examples.

Joseph Smith’s own language, as determined from an analysis of his 1832 manuscript history, lacked periphrastic did. Bowen’s dissertation provides supporting evidence from Joseph’s letters (see Table 37 on page 167). This agrees with independent linguistic assessments.

None of the four pseudo-biblical writers produced anything like what the Book of Mormon has in this regard. One text barely employed periphrastic did. The two pseudo-biblical texts with the most examples — Snowden’s and Hunt’s — are almost completely modern in their implementation of the periphrasis, especially in their wholly modern syntactic distribution of did and the infinitive (non-adjacent). Specifically, Snowden and Hunt almost always inverted the order of the grammatical subject and the auxiliary. Their syntactic distribution is negatively correlated with that of the Book of Mormon: about –0.4 and –0.6, respectively.

The Book of Mormon is much closer to the King James Bible in syntactic distribution of the did auxiliary and the infinitive. The Book of Mormon has more than 90 percent did–infinitive adjacency, while current estimates indicate that the King James Bible has close to [Page 200]72.5 percent did–infinitive adjacency. The inescapable difference between the two scriptural texts is that they are very far apart in overall textual rates of periphrastic did. And their individual verb use with did is also substantially different, correlating at only 0.3.

Three of the four pseudo-biblical texts have very little did–infinitive adjacency. The oldest one, Leacock’s text, has 10 cases of adjacency, but eight of these occur in one stretch of about 500 words in the context of proving, feeling, and concluding; all but one of these eight instances appear to be emphatic. The first two adjacency examples are did eat (biblical). Another candidate of did–infinitive adjacency is exceptional since it is a case of did resumption, at the end of a complex intervening adverbial used in a proclamation (the lengthy adverbial phrase is bracketed below):

1774–1775, John Leacock, American Chronicles, 4:28d

the Usurper . . . did [most daringly, wantonly, abominably, wickedly, atrociously and devilishly, and without my knowledge, allowance, approbation, instruction or consent first had and obtained, and without my name, and the imperial signet of the Commonwealth affixed thereunto,] did presume, and ipso facto issue forth and publish a most diabolical and treasonable proclamation,

I have counted this as an intervening adverbial example. Ultimately, Leacock’s text doesn’t have much interesting periphrastic did usage in it. It is infrequent and sporadically concentrated.

There are 11 examples of periphrastic did found in Snowden’s book. The only time he used the periphrasis with adjacency was when he wrote “thou didst take,” thereby avoiding simple past-tense tookest, a verb form that is found five times in the 1611 King James Bible. The syntactic [Page 201]distribution of periphrastic did in Snowden’s text is 9% adjacency, 91% inversion, and 0% intervening adverbial.

Linning’s text has only one example of periphrastic did, with inversion of did and the subject: “nor did they seek further to molest the Albions” (63). As far as archaic periphrastic did is concerned, there is nothing of note in this pseudo-biblical text.

The sole use of did–infinitive adjacency in Hunt’s text is “the king did put … and give.”: The syntactic distribution of periphrastic did in Hunt’s text is 4.8% adjacency, 95.2% inversion, and 14.3% intervening adverbial (in three cases there is both inversion and an intervening adverbial phrase).

The following table summarizes these periphrastic did findings:

Table 2. Estimates of periphrastic did adjacency rates

and shares of non-adjacency.

Past-tense rate of Share of

did–infinitive adjacency Share of did–infinitive

non-adjacency King James Bible 1.2 > 25 percent Book of Mormon 24.0 < 10 percent American Chronicles 0.8 > 50 percent Book of Napoleon 0.0 one example Snowden’s and Hunt’s texts 0.1 > 90 percent

In summary, the text of the Book of Mormon does not follow scriptural style authors, the King James Bible, or Joseph’s own language in its past-tense usage. Book of Mormon periphrastic did usage is well distributed in past-tense passages throughout the text, although usage rates do ebb and flow, as is the case in some high-rate, 16th-century EEBO texts. No single verb dominates periphrastic did in the Book of Mormon, and periphrastic didst makes up a small part of the overall usage.

In contrast, both did eat and periphrastic didst in the King James Bible are noticeably out of line with the rest of its periphrastic did usage. If these two types are eliminated from rate calculations, then the biblical rate of did–infinitive adjacency drops significantly, to less than one percent. On the other hand, neither eliminating did go from Book of Mormon rate calculations (the most frequently occurring [Page 202]periphrasis) nor eliminating periphrastic didst causes its did–infinitive adjacency rate to change appreciably.

More–part usage

In the Book of Mormon, the phrase the more part (and close variants) is used at nearly 40 times the rate of the King James Bible. It is accurate to state that the Book of Mormon follows the most common Early Modern English formulation of this phrase (Coverdale’s usage in Acts 27:12: the more part of them), and not King James style (the more part), since a prepositional phrase always follows part (or parts), 26 times. In addition, the more part of X in the Book of Mormon cannot be said to stem from pseudo-biblical writings, since they have no examples of the obsolete phrase. And it matches several historical works from the late 15th century and the 16th century, both in usage frequency and in the various forms of the era (some rare). One text that stands out is a 1550 translation of Thucydides by Thomas Nicolls [EEBO A13758]. It employs more–part phraseology at nearly double the rate of the Book of Mormon.

n Comment King James Bible



Book of Mormon



Pseudo-biblical texts 2



26 (3 rare)



0 Never post-modified

by a prepositional phrase

Always post-modified

by a prepositional phrase

no examples

The two exceptional forms of this phrase type — with an indefinite article (a more part of it, Helaman 6:32) and with plural parts (the more parts of his gospel, Helaman 6:21; the more parts of the Nephites, 4 Nephi 1:27) — provide support for the view that more–part phraseology in the Book of Mormon is Early Modern English usage and not a conscious revival by Joseph Smith of earlier language, which is what we find in some of Robert Louis Stevenson’s novels and elsewhere.

Those who used the archaic phraseology the more part in the second half of the 19th century (and later) were literate authors who had read widely from older writings. Joseph certainly did not fit their educational or experiential profile in the 1820s. Based on what is currently known, linguistic revivalists of the usage, such as the Oxford historian Edward Freeman, the medievalist William Morris, and the novelist Stevenson, did not employ a more part or the more parts with this particular meaning. Because the phrase the more part was in obsolescence and not productively used in [Page 203]the late 19th century, they naturally did not employ rare, alternate forms (which they may not have encountered), but merely reproduced the most frequent and more easily known form.

The Book of Mormon’s more–part usage is quite unexpected from a perspective of Joseph generating it from his own biblically-styled language. One must go back in time 250 years to Holinshed’s Chronicles (1577) to encounter a text with the level of usage found in the Book of Mormon. As a result, its more–part profile fits the occasional use found in the first half of the early modern period and no other time. Intimate knowledge of neither the King James Bible nor pseudo-biblical texts would have led to the distinctive and relatively heavy use of the more part found in the Book of Mormon.

Had (been) spake

There are 12 instances of pluperfect had spake in the Book of Mormon, but none in the King James Bible or in pseudo-biblical writings. There are also 48 instances of had spoken found in the earliest text (for both these counts I exclude passive constructions involving had been). The more common form of the past participle occurs 80 percent of the time in the pluperfect tense in the Book of Mormon; the less common form, had spake, occurs 20 percent of the time.

I have found, by carefully searching EEBO and Google Books and rejecting many false positives, that the only time had spake wasn’t rare in the textual record was the latter half of the early modern era. Even then, however, this particular leveled past participial usage was quite uncommon. The other minority variant of the past participle used in the pluperfect — had spoke — is found much more often than had spake in earlier English. (Had spoke is typical Shakespearean usage, but it is not found in either the Book of Mormon or the King James Bible.) After the year 1700 we hardly encounter original instances of had spake in the textual record. Because of an explosion of publishing there are cases of it, but very few. One example is found in an 1812 book published in Troy, [Page 204]New York. As a result, we must accept that there is a slight possibility the Book of Mormon’s had spake could have come from Joseph Smith’s dialect. As a result, we must rely on ancillary evidence to determine whether the Book of Mormon’s 12 occurrences of had spake are best viewed as examples of Early Modern English or modern dialectal usage.

Two items of related past participle evidence lend support for viewing the 12 instances of had spake in the Book of Mormon as an archaism rather than examples of rare modern usage. First, we note that had been spake occurs once at Alma 6:8. As of now, the two-word passive phrase been spake has been found only three times in the textual record: “this had not been spake of at all” [1646, EEBO A26759]; “the spiritual afflictions have been spake of much” [1659, EEBO A30566]; and “one had been spake to about it” [1699, EEBO A48010]. The bigram been spake has not yet been found after the year 1699, suggesting that any late modern example that might turn up in the future will be quite rare. Second, we note that the distinctive five-word phrase “of which hath been spoken” — meaning ‘previously mentioned’ or ‘aforementioned’ — occurs twice in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon. (Variants with the expletive subject it are known — that is, of the form “of which it hath been spoken,” so the syntax is probably singular.) Currently there are approximately 30 known instances of this phraseology in the EEBO database of approximately 60,000 texts, but none attested after the year 1685. These two related items support the Book of Mormon’s use of had spake as an archaism.

In summary, it is unlikely that we would read “had (been) spake” and “of which hath been spoken” a total of 15 times in the canonical Book of Mormon text if Joseph Smith had been responsible for its wording, from either his own language or an attempt to follow King James style. We encounter this same set of circumstances repeatedly in the Book of Mormon: lexis and syntax that Joseph probably would not have produced by following 1820s American dialect, pseudo-biblical writings, or King James language.

The {-th} plural

Lengthy biblical passages in the earliest text contain instances of what may accurately be called Early Modern English modifications that are not biblical in nature. These include cases of {-th} inflection used with persons other than the third-person singular, such as “them that [Page 205]contendeth” (2Nephi 6:17), “they dieth” (2 Nephi7:2), and “I have put … and hath covered” (2Nephi 8:16).

Even though {-th} inflection could occur historically in all person number contexts, linguists have come to call the inflection — when used with subjects that aren’t third-person singular — the {-th} plural, since that was the primary usage in the past. It was a less-common option of the early modern period, emanating from southern varieties of Middle English. The {-th} plural can be found throughout the early modern era, but it was used at a diminishing rate over time. By the 18th century, only vestigial use of the {-th} plural remained, usually with the auxiliary verbs doth and hath.

The two earliest pseudo-biblical writings examined in this study have examples of the {-th} plural, with the earliest one containing five of them:

1774–1775, John Leacock, American Chronicles, 1:5, 1:10, 2:33, 4:15, 6:47

their ships, that goeth upon the waters

these letters in mine hand witnesseth sore against them

these are the extortioners … that causeth the kingdom to pass away

the pious ashes of them that sleepeth

for blessed are all they that shaketh hands with them in peace

Leacock employed a somewhat limited variety of the {-th} plural, four times after the relative pronoun that, and once in a possible case of proximity agreement with singular hand.

Snowden’s text has two examples:

1793, Richard Snowden, The American Revolution, 18:14, 34:17

Nevertheless there were some who maintained their integrity,

and were as the strong oaks in the forests of Columbia,

that feareth not the windy storm and tempest.

for vice and luxury weaken the people,

and the rulers causeth them to err.

In verse 18:14 the agreement controller is oaks. In this case there is also the possibility of proximity agreement with the nearest singular [Page 206]nominal Columbia. In verse 34:17 the {-th} plural occurs after a plural noun-phrase subject, something that was very rare by the end of the 18th century. Notice that there is also nearby variation, since weakeneth wasn’t used after the complex subject “vice and luxury.”

Linning’s text has two possible examples, but the subjects are probably singular:

1809, Matthew Linning, Book of Napoleon, 6:11, 12:7

by means of your wisdom and counsel,

which reacheth from the earth beneath unto the heaven above,

so in like manner doth the prince and his people.

The first example has two conjoined abstract nouns; multiple nouns of this kind often resolve to a singular noun phrase in English, even up to the present day. This example is similar to the language of 1 Kings 10:7 — “thy wisdom and prosperity exceedeth the fame which I heard” — where the verb translated as exceedeth precedes the abstract nouns in the Hebrew and is singular in form (although many later translations into English do use a plural verb). In the second case, the conjoined agreement controllers follow the verb, and the closest one to the verb is singular. It may be helpful to consider that for many English speakers — if not most — similar phraseology would be unobjectionable (e.g. “so does the queen and her people”).

At first blush, Leacock’s and Snowden’s {-th} plural usage suggests that Joseph Smith might have been able to produce the archaic {-th} plural of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon. I will mention here a few things to consider on this point.

First and foremost, there is no {-th} plural usage immediately following pronouns in these pseudo-biblical texts, such as “they dieth” or “we layeth” or “ye doth.” The Book of Mormon has 13 of these, setting it apart from what we find in the King James Bible and in the four pseudo-biblical texts.

Second, there are close to 150 instances of the {-th} plural in the Book of Mormon. Despite its relatively late date of composition, the earliest text of the Book of Mormon employs the {-th} plural at nearly twice the rate of Leacock’s text and at about 20 times the rate of Snowden’s text.

Third, overall usage patterns in the earliest text match Early Modern English tendencies non-superficially. The {-th} plural is employed with [Page 207]all the variety of earlier English: after noun phrases and pronouns; after relative pronouns and in conjoined predicates, with different kinds of nearby variation; and with first-person and second-person subjects. Also, there is little of its usage after pronouns and heavier rates of use after relative pronouns, as in EEBO Phase 1 texts. None of the pseudo biblical texts have enough data to be sure of this; they have no usage after pronouns or first- and second-person subjects, and none in conjoined predicates. The fact that there is no usage of the type “they dieth,” or “we layeth,” or “ye doth,” or “I have … and hath,” as we encounter in the Book of Mormon, means that these texts are somewhat limited in their usage of the {-th} plural.

Fourth, taking the two Linning examples shown above to be singular means that the 19th-century pseudo-biblical writings do not have examples of the {-th} plural. These pseudo-biblical authors were further removed from the end of the 17th century, when the {-th} plural was becoming rare. Consequently, they were less likely to be aware of the historical usage of this particular verb morphology. Therefore, it isn’t surprising that they didn’t employ the {-th} plural, and it also makes the robust usage of the Book of Mormon exceptional.

The following Book of Mormon passage contains two examples of the {-th} plural as well as nearby variation:

Mosiah 3:18

but men drinketh damnation to their own souls

except they humble themselves and become as little children,

and believeth that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

In this verse {-th} inflection is employed after the noun men (similar to Snowden’s “rulers causeth”) and also in a conjoined predicate. “They humble themselves and become … and believeth” is an example of an optional Early Modern English they-constraint, where the {-­th} inflection is used only in a predicate linked to they but not immediately after they. It should be noted, however, that in both Early Modern English and in the Book of Mormon counterexamples are found — that is, where the {-th} inflection is found immediately after they, but not in the conjoined predicate. The reason linguists write of a they-constraint is that in Early Modern English and later the pronoun they used next to a verb in {-th} was much less common than verbs in {-th} used in conjoined predicates (and in relative clauses).

[Page 208]Thorough analysis of the earliest text’s {-th} plural patterns demonstrates that the Book of Mormon’s systematic usage in this domain is attested, archaic, and well-formed from the point of view of Early Modern English. This is one way the present-tense verbal system of the Book of Mormon is archaic and extra-biblical. This also points to the occasional third-person singular usage of {-s} forms in the earliest text being typical Early Modern English variation rather than occasional slip-ups by Joseph Smith.

Verbal complementation patterns after five verbs

This next section mainly focuses on whether the verbal complement following five high-frequency verbs — cause, command, desire, make, and suffer — is infinitival or finite. Also of concern is whether finite cases are simple or complex, and whether a modal auxiliary verb occurs in the complement. As an example, consider the following Book of Mormon excerpt:

3 Nephi 2:3

causing [them] object 1

[ that they should do great wickedness in the land ] object 2

This is ditransitive or dual-object syntax: the verb cause takes two objects. The first object in the above example is a pronoun and the second object is a clause: a sentence follows the conjunction (or complementizer) that. In this case the following sentence is “they should do great wickedness in the land,” and it contains the modal auxiliary verb should. Modal auxiliary usage is a sign of archaism, especially shall, and the Book of Mormon has plenty of it. The above syntax can also be called a complex finite construction, since an extra constituent occurs before the that-clause. Complex finite syntax is a strong marker of archaism.

The one-object equivalent of the above 3 Nephi 2:3 language would have no them: “causing [ø] that they should do great wickedness in the land.” Such simple finite syntax is by far the most common type of finite complementation found in the textual record of English.

The infinitival equivalent of this 3 Nephi 2:3 language would have to instead of that they should: “causing them to do great wickedness in the land.” Infinitival complementation is the most common type in English after many verbs, including the five studied here. The Book of Mormon has more than 100 examples of all three types: the infinitival, the simple finite, and the complex finite.

[Page 209]There are different ways to count complementation, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. For the following analyses I have adopted a conservative approach and have not counted any conjoined cases unless there is a switch in complementation type. There are arguably errors in the counts I have made, and perhaps a few examples that have been overlooked, but none that should affect the results materially.

In general, the Book of Mormon has much more finite complementation than the King James Bible and pseudo-biblical texts. The differences are quite large with four of the five verbs, none more so than in the case of cause.

Complementation patterns following the verb cause

Finite complementation rates

(finite clauses governed by the verb cause) King James Bible

Book of Mormon

Pseudo-biblical texts 1.0%

57.6%

0.0% (out of 303 instances)

(out of 236 instances)

(out of 37 instances total) Instances of archaic, ditransitive syntax King James Bible

Book of Mormon

Pseudo-biblical texts 0

12

0

These two shorts lists show that verbal complementation following the verb cause in the Book of Mormon is utterly different from that of the King James Bible and the pseudo-biblical texts. As indicated, the above figures are based on an examination of hundreds of examples in both the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible, and 37 examples total in the four pseudo-biblical texts. Chi-square tests run on simple finite, complex finite, and infinitival counts — comparing the Book of Mormon with the King James Bible or with the four pseudo-biblical texts — are statistically significant to a very high degree. This is true for the verbal complementation patterns after four of the verbs. This means that the [Page 210]syntactic differences are almost certainly not accidental. In the case at hand, it means either that Joseph deliberately produced these syntactic structures (since the patterns were vastly different from his own modern patterns), or that they were part of the English-language translation transmitted to him.

As indicated, pseudo-biblical texts only employ infinitival complementation after the verb cause. The chi-square test indicates consistency with biblical influence, in this case. For Leacock’s text, I have counted 14 infinitival instances of extended cause syntax, for Snowden’s text 11, for Linning’s text 4, and for Hunt’s text I have counted 8. This consistent pattern matches modern tendencies and is similar to what we see in authors contemporary with the initial publication of the Book of Mormon, such as Walter Scott and James Fenimore Cooper. I made two small corpora of about five million words each from dozens of texts written by these prolific authors. After isolating hundreds of examples in past-tense contexts, I found that these two authors employed only infinitival cause syntax.

The King James Bible is 99 percent infinitival in its cause complementation: it has only three instances of finite cause syntax. In contrast, the Book of Mormon has 136 cases of finite cause syntax. One might assert that Book of Mormon usage was a vast expansion based on these three biblical examples. But what about the other extra-biblical, archaic cause syntax present in the earliest text? Most obviously, how does one account for the 12 dual-object causative constructions, exemplified by 3 Nephi 2:3 above? How are they biblical hypercorrections when there is no such syntax in the King James Bible? These are the kinds of questions a thorough analyst must confront.

The level of finite cause syntax in the Book of Mormon is very high — much higher than Early Modern English averages, which probably varied between three and one percent, in a roughly descending trend over time. Of course, outliers do exist in the print record. For example, one mid-16th-century text I inspected employed finite cause syntax about 13 percent of the time (6 out of 45 instances). Thus, a textual rate [Page 211]significantly higher than the currently estimated upper-bound average of three percent is attested.

Overall, cause syntax with verbal complements was implemented in the Book of Mormon in a variety of contexts in a principled manner, pointing to tacit knowledge of various tendencies of Early Modern English.

First, the Book of Mormon has 12 instances of dual-object complementation, as in the above example from 3 Nephi 2:3. This uncommon archaic construction can be found a few dozen times in EEBO, but it may have been obsolete by the late modern period. The high number of archaic ditransitive structures decisively marks Book of Mormon cause syntax as Early Modern English in character.

Second, the Book of Mormon exhibits extra-biblical auxiliary usage in the embedded clause with shall (13 times) and may (3 times). Although such usage can still be found in the late modern period, its rate of use by then was low compared to the rate of the earlier period.

Third, the earliest text contains one case of mixed complementation, also characteristic of the earlier period:

Mormon 8:40

why do ye … cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord,

and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto theLord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads?

1643, William Prynne, The Popish Royal Favorite [EEBO A56192]

He caused the image of the cross to be redressed,

and that men should not foul it under their feet.

The following nominal example has the same order of complementation as Mormon 8:40:

1651, Jeremiah Burroughs (died 1646), An Exposition

[on] the Prophecy of Hosea [EEBO 30575]

for the act was so foul, that it could not but make

all the people (as Jacob thought) to abhor him,

and would be a cause that they should all rise against him,

and utterly to cut him off,

Fourth, the earliest text optionally leaves out that in finite complementation with the verb cause, but only in conjoined syntax, as in the following example (where [ø] indicates a missing that):

3 Nephi 3:14

he caused that i fortifications should be built round about them,

and [ø] i the strength thereof should be exceeding great

[Page 212]These constructions can be explained by possible analogous usage after many other verbs, but the that-ellipsis is constrained in Book of Mormon causatives — that is, restricted to this particular syntactic context. The that-ellipsis is similar to the syntax of the following Early Modern English examples, which have mixed complementation:

1566, William Adlington (translator),

Apuleius’ Metamorphoses [EEBO A20800]

When the people was desirous to see me play qualities,

they caused the gates to be shut, and [ø] such as entered in

should pay money,

1629, Nathanael Brent (translator),

Paolo Sarpi’s The History of the Council of Trent [EEBO A11516]

He caused a bull to be made, and in case he should die before his return, [ø] the election should be made in Rome by the College of Cardinals.

The following nominal example has more obvious that-ellipsis:

1678, Thomas Long, Mr. Hales’s Treatise of Schism

Examined and Censured [EEBO A49123]

It was none of the old cause, that i the People should have liberty,

and [ø] i the Magistrate should have no power,

To finish this subsection on extended cause syntax, we consider the following rare language, which was removed after the 1830 edition (page 513, line 10):

3 Nephi 29:4

if ye shall spurn at his doings

he will cause it that it shall soon overtake you

The first it was removed for the 1837 edition, although not marked in the printer’s manuscript for deletion by Joseph Smith. The reader may consult Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon for a good discussion, as well as Skousen, Grammatical Variation, 308, 1050.

The above excerpt is a poor candidate for biblical hypercorrection for the following three reasons (arranged according to currently perceived significance):

the pronominal it redundancy isn’t implemented in other similar, dependent complementation in the biblical text where an infinitival to could have replaced the that it shall part (generally, “that it [<auxiliary>]”);

[Page 213] the verb cause never governs a dual-object complement in the biblical text (the above construction was rare in the early modern period, and is currently unattested in the late modern period, suggesting 18th-century obsolescence);

the verb cause never governs a dual-object complement in the biblical text (the above construction was rare in the early modern period, and is currently unattested in the late modern period, suggesting 18th-century obsolescence); the auxiliary shall is not used in the complement after the verb cause in the biblical text.

Here are the four examples of the “cause it that it” phraseology of 3 Nephi 29:4 that I have found thus far:

1616, translation of La maison rustique [EEBO A00419]

To prevent the decay of beer,

and to cause it that it may continue and stand good a long time,

1626, Henry Burton, A plea to an appeal

traversed dialogue wise [EEBO A17306]

For how is it mere mercy, if any good in us foreseen,

first caused it, that it should offer a Savior to us?

The larger context does not clearly point to the comma indicating a purposive or resultative reading.

1634, Thomas Johnson (translator), Ambroise Paré Works [EEBO A08911]

which causeth it that it cannot be discussed and resolved

by reason of the weakness of the part and defect of heat

1697 [commonly misattributed to John Locke] A common–place book

to the Holy Bible [EEBO A48873]

When this Epistle is read among you,

cause it that it be read also in the Church of Laodicea,

Earlier and later editions don’t have the ditransitive syntax. This is a paraphrase of Colossians 4:16, which reads as follows:

And when this Epistle is read amongst you,

cause [ø] that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans;

From all the causative structures I’ve been able to study and compare — in EEBO, Google Books, the scriptural texts, and elsewhere — neither the King James Bible nor the four pseudo-biblical writings appear to [Page 214]have been adequate models for the archaic implementation of cause syntax found in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon.

Complementation patterns following the verb command

In the case of the verb command, both the King James Bible and the four pseudo-biblical texts have appreciable levels of finite complementation, but nothing that approaches Book of Mormon levels:

Finite complementation rates

(finite clauses governed by the verb command) King James Bible

Book of Mormon

Pseudo-biblical texts 25.5%

77.2%

25.7% (out of 167 instances)

(out of 165 instances)

(out of 35 instances total) Instances of archaic, ditransitive syntax King James Bible

Book of Mormon

Pseudo-biblical texts 19

99

1



(Snowden)

The Book of Mormon is again markedly different from both the King James Bible and the four pseudo-biblical texts in terms of extended command syntax, in the two ways shown above and in other ways. The four pseudo-biblical writings analyzed for this study do not employ dual-object syntax except in one complex case involving mixed complementation. Their finite complementation rates are similar to the King James Bible’s.

We must go back almost 350 years to find a text that has close to the number of instances of dual-object command syntax that the Book of Mormon has. William Caxton’s translation of The Golden Legend [1483, EEBO A14559] has about 65 instances of dual-object command syntax in fully active constructions; the Book of Mormon has about 75 instances [Page 215]of dual-object command syntax in fully active constructions. (These texts have many additional examples in passive structures.)

The biblical hypercorrection view takes the Book of Mormon’s heavy finite usage — both simple and complex — to be an overexpansion of the King James Bible’s finite syntax. Yet there are other considerations that a thorough analyst must take into account.

First, the Book of Mormon employs the auxiliary shall in the complement clause seven times. This is absent from the King James Bible and from pseudo-biblical writings and is either early modern usage or uncommon late modern literary usage.

Second, the tendency of Holinshed’s Chronicles (1577) to not use a modal auxiliary verb after second-person embedded subjects is present in the Book of Mormon, as is an infinitival tendency when the verb command is in the passive voice.

Third, the Book of Mormon is almost completely consistent in employing finite complementation in several specific contexts with complex embedded syntax: with embedded negation, reflexives, passives, and multiple verb phrases. In other words, “heavy” verbal complements are usually finite.

Fourth, should (not shall) is used after non-past passive command verbs (e.g. “we are commanded that we should … ”), in line with Early Modern English tendencies (this conclusion is based on extensive searches of the EEBO Phase 1 database).

Fifth, there is an unlikely match with the nearby shall/should variation employed by the following prolific translator:

1608, Edward Grimeston (translator), Jean François le Petit’s

A general history of the Netherlands [EEBO A02239]

The said magistrates therefore command

that every man shall govern himself …,

and that every one should behave himself peaceably,

without upbraiding or crossing one another,

Textual analysis reveals that the presence of the reflexive pronouns in this example made the choice of finite complementation more likely for the translator Grimeston. For example, the King James Bible employs finite complementation at a significantly higher rate with embedded reflexives.

[Page 216]Alma 61:13

But behold he doth not command us that we shall subject ourselves to our enemies, but that we should put our trust in him, and he will deliver us.

Alma 61:13 combines several Early Modern English possibilities: finite complementation with a reflexive verb, a dual-object construction, and a switch in modal auxiliary marking (from shall to should). It seems unlikely that Joseph would have produced such a mix of archaic syntax.

In conclusion, had Joseph followed the usage of pseudo-biblical writings or the King James Bible to formulate the Book of Mormon’s extended command syntax, either consciously or subconsciously, we would expect few instances of the archaic, ditransitive construction, not 99 of them. In addition, complementation would have been mostly infinitival, similar to what is found in the pseudo-biblical texts. All this reduces the likelihood that Joseph was responsible for formulating the wording of the text in this case.

Complementation patterns following the verb desire

For this subsection I have examined contexts in which the subject of the verb desire and the subject of its complement are distinct. This keeps the analysis in line with the syntactic structures involving the verbs cause and command (in the active voice).

Finite complementation rates

(finite clauses governed by the verb desire) King James Bible

Book of Mormon

Pseudo-biblical texts 66.7%

93.1%

50.5% (out of 18 instances)

(out of 58 instances)

(out of 2 instances total) Instances of archaic, ditransitive syntax King James Bible

Book of Mormon

Pseudo-biblical texts 9

16

0

Finite complementation in the Book of Mormon in this domain exceeds what is found in the King James Bible, both in numbers and in rate: 58 instances versus 18 instances; 93 percent finite versus 67 percent [Page 217]finite. But against what we see in extended cause and command syntax, an object occurs before a that-clause at a lower rate in the Book of Mormon than it does in the King James Bible: 30 percent of the time versus 75 percent of the time. In other words, ditransitive desire syntax is the most common type in the King James Bible but not in the Book of Mormon, which often employs a simple finite structure. Furthermore, while the biblical text strongly prefers the auxiliary would, the Book of Mormon prefers the auxiliary should, the least common of the three principal modal auxiliaries used after the verb desire in the earlier print record of English (shown by extensive searches of the EEBO Phase 1 database).

In the four pseudo-biblical texts examined for this study, there are only two instances of desire used with verbal complementation — one is finite, the other infinitival:

1809, Matthew Linning, Book of Napoleon, 18:9

And the angel yet again desired me to turn mine eyes the way toward the north,

1793, Richard Snowden, The American Revolution, 33:14

Now he had desired that the usual ceremonies of the dead should be omitted,

The Book of Mormon employs a wider range of auxiliaries than the King James Bible does, including may and might as well as non past shall (EEBO shows that shall auxiliary usage after the verb desire was uncommon in Early Modern English). In addition, the Book of Mormon also matches earlier English by employing several objects in of-constructions and two instances of that-ellipsis in contextually favored environments: in a conjoined clause and after a wh-phrase.

The wide array of archaic, finite syntax after the verb desire found in the Book of Mormon clearly could not have been derived from pseudo biblical writings, since they only have two examples total. Rather, the Book of Mormon is the consummate example of archaic possibilities in this domain.

[Page 218]The closest match between the scriptural texts occurs in the case of infinitival complementation; in both texts the infinitival option is employed with verbs whose argument structure is simple (usually intransitive), but the Book of Mormon is stricter in this regard.

Complementation patterns following the verb make

Finite complementation rates

(finite clauses governed by the verb make) King James Bible

Book of Mormon

Pseudo-biblical texts 0.3%

55.6%

0.0% (out of 291 instances)

(out of 9 instances)

(out of 11 instances total) Instances of archaic, ditransitive syntax King James Bible

Book of Mormon

Pseudo-biblical texts 1

4

0

One apparent difference between the scriptural texts resides in the frequency of verbal complementation after the verb make. The Book of Mormon has far fewer examples of this syntax than the King James Bible. The rate of usage of this syntactic structure in the biblical text is about 10 times higher. The Book of Mormon prefers to express the notion with the verb cause.

The Book of Mormon is close to 56 percent finite in its verbal complementation after the verb make. In contrast, the King James Bible is nearly 100 percent infinitival, and pseudo-biblical writings are 100 percent infinitival. Specifically, Leacock employed seven infinitival instances, Snowden three, Linning one, and Hunt zero.

Clearly, syntactic patterns involving the verb make and verbal complements in the Book of Mormon are distinct from both King James and pseudo-biblical patterns. The one biblical example of finite complementation was apparently too obscure for pseudo-biblical writers to notice or to prompt them to adopt language mirroring this characteristically archaic usage. This particular case stems from Tyndale’s earlier phraseology:

[Page 219]2 Peter 1:8

they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful

in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1534, William Tyndale, The New Testament [EEBO A68940]

they will make you that ye neither shall be idle nor unfruitful

in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

they wyll make you that ye nether shalbe ydle nor vnfrutefull

in the knowledge of oure lorde Iesus Christ

If one wished to sound archaic, this would be an ideal structure to emulate. Yet the pseudo-biblical texts do not have anything that comes close to it. In contrast, the Book of Mormon employed this type of syntax several times (with different auxiliaries, both with and without a noun phrase object after the verb make). In this way, it once again surpassed pseudo-biblical writings in archaic usage. And in the case of the verb make, the Book of Mormon also exceeded the King James Bible in archaic usage, implementing the less common finite construction at 15 times the rate of the biblical text and employing three specific structures not found in the biblical text.

Embedded auxiliary usage in the Book of Mormon is varied after the verb make — may, could, shall, and no auxiliary — and the match in this regard with broader Early Modern English is solid. As one example, the simple finite syntax of 1 Nephi 17:12 (“will make that they food shall become sweet;” structurally “make that <subject> shall <infinitive>”) matches earlier English usage, including one translation of an Ezekiel passage by Tyndale.

Finally, there is a striking match between the curious language of Ether 12:24 and that found in a 1675 example with the verb cause:

Ether 12:24

for thou madest him i that the things which he i wrote were mighty

even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them

1675, John Rowe, The Saints’ Temptations [EEBO A57737]

it was Christ’s prayer for Peter,

that caused him i that his i faith did not fail.

In both cases — ditransitive causative constructions — the first object of the causative verb (him) and the subject of the complement clause are distinct, but the embedded subject contains a pronoun (he or his) that refers to the preceding object (shown by the index i).

[Page 220] Complementation patterns following the verb suffer

Finite complementation rates

(finite clauses governed by the verb suffer) King James Bible

Book of Mormon

Pseudo-biblical texts 4.6%

62.6%

6.9% (out of 65 instances)

(out of 99 instances)

(out of 29 instances total) Instances of archaic, ditransitive syntax King James Bible

Book of Mormon

Pseudo-biblical texts 2

15

2



(Leacock and Snowden)

The Book of Mormon is the text that exhibits a comprehensive match with much of Early Modern English usage after the verb suffer. It easily surpasses the four pseudo-biblical texts in the use of a variety of syntactic structures found in earlier English with the archaic verb suffer. Though King James translators knew of this usage, they employed very little of it.

The Book of Mormon employs finite complementation after the verb suffer nearly 63 percent of the time. Dual-object constructions occur 15 times in the text after the verb suffer: five times with should, four times with shall, twice with may, and four times with no auxiliary. This is an exceptional level of archaic usage. In contrast, the four pseudo biblical texts contain 29 instances total of the archaic verb suffer used with verbal complements; their combined infinitival rate is 93 percent. The King James Bible’s infinitival rate is close to this at 95.4 percent. The Book of Mormon’s infinitival rate of 37.4 percent is clearly very much lower than either of these.

Early Modern English employed infinitival complementation exclusively (or nearly so) with reflexive objects (e.g. “Christ suffered himself to be taken”). The Book of Mormon is sensitive to this tendency, employing infinitival complementation in such contexts 12 out of 14 times, strongly against its typical usage. This makes it difficult to argue that finite complementation in the Book of Mormon was employed in an [Page 221]unprincipled fashion, without regard for tendencies of earlier English. Instead we find that finite suffer syntax wasn’t employed indiscriminately in the Book of Mormon text.

The best fit between the Book of Mormon and the textual record of English in this domain is the 16th century. My current conclusion is that neither the King James Bible nor pseudo-biblical writings could have served as adequate templates for the wide variety of syntactic forms found in the Book of Mormon after the archaic verb suffer.

A comparison of verbal complementation after five verbs

Now that we have considered the verbal complementation of five high frequency verbs — cause, command, desire, make, and suffer — we can make a side-by-side comparison of the patterns found in the Book of Mormon, the King James Bible, and the four pseudo-biblical writings:

Table 3. Finite complementation rates

(object clauses governed by the verb).

Verb King James Bible Book of Mormon Pseudo-biblical texts desire 66.7 93.1 50.0 command 25.5 77.2 25.7 suffer 4.6 62.6 6.9 cause 1.0 57.6 0.0 make 0.3 55.6 0.0

The large differences in finite complementation rates are apparent. Simple statistical tests of standard deviation indicate that Book of Mormon verbal complementation after these five verbs is more consistent than that of the King James Bible and more consistent than that of the pseudo-biblical set of texts, taken as a whole. The five-term correlations are all strong, but the closest is between the King James Bible and the pseudo biblical set at 0.998. What is more noteworthy, statistically speaking, is that the pseudo-biblical set does not approach the Book of Mormon’s rate of finite complementation in every case but the verb desire, which isn’t sufficiently represented in the four pseudo biblical texts.

The Book of Mormon adopts higher finite complementation rates across the board, independent of biblical usage, and similar to the high command syntax rates found in at least two of William Caxton’s [Page 222]late 15th-century translations. By employing high doses of finite complementation after verbs, the Book of Mormon contains language that is, from a syntactic standpoint, plainer and more versatile.

Such high finite rates are neither biblical, pseudo-biblical, or modern. Averages of the early modern period are also lower than Book of Mormon rates, though closer than the very low averages of the late modern period. Auxiliary usage of the earlier period is a very good match with Book of Mormon usage, as well as dual-object tendencies and other less noticeable features mentioned previously. This means that if Joseph Smith was the author or English-language translator of the Book of Mormon, then he must have deliberately produced all this divergent finite syntax that was a best fit with early modern usage, including ditransitive syntax:

Table 4. Archaic, ditransitive rates (instances per million words).

Verb King James Bible

(~790,000 words) Book of Mormon

(~250,000 words) Pseudo-biblical texts

(~250,000 words total) command 24 396 8 desire 11 64 0 suffer 2 60 16 cause 0 48 0 make 1 16 0

Moreover, Joseph must have dramatically increased biblical levels of finite complementation while not doing so indiscriminately — that is, he must have occasionally departed from heavy finite usage in a principled manner. It seems quite unlikely that he would have been successful at such a task. No pseudo-biblical author came close to what is found in the Book of Mormon. There are a number of archaic features of complementation missing from the four pseudo-biblical writings in this domain. This argues against Joseph having been the author or English language translator of the Book of Mormon.

If we approach this from the angle of the pseudo-biblical authors, we realize that they give us an indication of the archaism that Joseph Smith was likely to have produced in this domain, if his effort was a conscious attempt to imitate biblical archaism. He went beyond them in almost every [Page 223]way possible. We reasonably assume that he lacked native-speaker Early Modern English competence, as the pseudo-biblical authors did. They could only go as far as persistent use and biblical knowledge could take them, along with making a reasonable number of analogical connections. Joseph exceeded biblical archaism in a number of ways, matching broader Early Modern English usage as he did so. The pseudo biblical set informs us that the verbal complementation he dictated was unlikely for him, on multiple levels: rates of finite complementation and ditransitive syntax, as well as modal auxiliary usage. On top of that, the Book of Mormon text contains archaic variational patterns that are not present or discoverable in the pseudo-biblical texts.

To finish this discussion of verbal complementation after these five high-frequency verbs, I present here a case of a passive command verb whose embedded verb is suffer, which itself takes an infinitival complement:

1523, John Bourchier (translator),

Froissart’s Chronicles (Books 1 and 2) [EEBO A71318]

but they were straitly [strictly] commanded

that they should in no wise suffer him to pass out of the castle

The Book of Mormon example that matches this language is particularly interesting because of the ungraceful switch from a that-clause (after the verb suffer) to an infinitival complement:

Mormon 6:6

And knowing it to be the last struggle of my people,

and having been commanded of the Lord

that I should not suffer that the records

which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred,

to fall into the hands of the Lamanites

Yet there are occasional cases in the textual record of this same mid stream complementation switch. Here is one with the same verb suffer:

1598, A.M. (translator),

Jacques Guillemeau’s The French Chirurgery [EEBO A02364]

which was also an occasion of his resanation [cure],

because he suffered that the truncheon of the lance,

which stuck clean through his head,

to be with force and violence drawn thereout.

And here is another example of this same syntax, after the verb command:

[Page 224]1485, Thomas Malory, Le Morte d’Arthur (written about 1469) [EEBO 21703]

And anon the king commanded that none of them upon pain of death to mis-say them [revile them] ne [nor] do them any harm

And anone the kynge commaunded that none of them vpon payne of dethe to myssaye them ne doo them ony harme

Various idiosyncrasies of earlier English, such as the above finite-to-infinitival complementation switch, are often found in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon. Many of these textual oddities are not clear candidates for being examples of the “bad grammar” that Joseph Smith might have employed.

Verbal complementation after the adjective desirous

Closely related to verbal complementation after the verb desire is complementation after the adjective desirous. This subsection briefly discusses the usage, since once again Book of Mormon syntax is utterly different from the corresponding biblical and pseudo-biblical syntax.

Finite complementation rates

(finite clauses governed by the adjective desirous) King James Bible

Book of Mormon

Pseudo-biblical texts 0.0%

43.1%

0.0% (out of 3 instances)

(out of 58 instances)

(out of 3 instances total)

The sheer number of instances of the adjective desirous taking verbal complements in the Book of Mormon differs from the usage found in the King James Bible and in the four pseudo-biblical writings considered here. An examination of the EEBO database suggests that this Book of Mormon syntax corresponds best with language from the middle of the early modern period.

Pseudo-biblical texts have very few examples of this language (Leacock’s and Hunt’s texts do not have any instances of the adjective desirous). The few instances they do contain are either infinitival or participial (modern) in construction:

1793, Richard Snowden, The American Revolution, 9:4

yet he was desirous to do something to please the king his master,

and gain a little honor to himself;

1809, Matthew Linning, Book of Napoleon, 13:12, 36

and that thou art desirous to foretaste the dreary night of death?

[Page 225]If, O people of Albion, ye are truly desirous of preserving

and enjoying the many and invaluable blessings which

the goodness of Providence has vouchsafed to you,

Linning’s second example employs of with two present participles rather than to with infinitives. According to the Google Books Ngram Viewer, desirous of became the favored form only after the middle of the 18th century. By the year 1800, desirous of was more than twice as common as desirous to. The Book of Mormon doesn’t have of usage after the adjective desirous. In this way, syntactically speaking, it is not a modern text in its verbal complementation following the adjective desirous, dozens of times.

Excluding the Apocrypha, the adjective desirous takes verbal complements in the King James Bible only three times, despite having nearly three times as many words as the Book of Mormon. This means that the biblical usage rate of desirous in this regard is less than two percent the rate of the Book of Mormon. In each of the three biblical cases the complements are infinitival:

Luke 23:8 for he was desirous to see him of a long season, John 16:19 Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, 2 Corinthians 11:32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me: The governor is the understood subject of the desirous-clause, and the verb be is ellipted.

Based on little data, the finite complementation rate of the King James Bible following this adjective is zero percent. In contrast, the Book of Mormon’s finite complementation rate is close to 43 percent (25 of 58 instances).

Because the King James Bible and two of the pseudo-biblical texts are strictly non-finite in their scarce usage of the adjective desirous with verbal complements, they have no examples of the following finite syntactic structures, which are fairly common in the Book of Mormon:

<subject> i <be verb> desirous

that <subject> j should <infinitive> (19 instances)

<subject> i <be verb> desirous

that <subject> i might <infinitive> (6 instances)

[Page 226]The Book of Mormon has six examples of the second type listed above — where the subjects are the same (shown by the index i): 1 Nephi 10:17, 1 Nephi 17:18, Mosiah 25:17 (two instances), Alma 14:2, Alma 23:16. Two of these are shown below. That the Book of Mormon has six of these is noteworthy, since this figure is close to the number that I have currently been able to isolate in approximately 25,000 EEBO Phase 1 texts. As a result, had Joseph Smith been responsible for the wording found in the six examples of this grammatical construction, it is very likely that the phraseology would have been infinitival or participial.

In the two examples that follow, I have recast the language into what I have determined to be the more likely wording for Joseph to have used if he had been responsible for rendering the words into English. In the following recasting of these excerpts, the same substantives are used along with the adjective desirous:

1 Nephi 17:18

And thus my brethren did complain against me

and were desirous that they might not labor,

Recast: And thus my brethren complained against me

and were desirous not to labor.

Alma 14:2

But the more part of them were desirous

that they might destroy Alma and Amulek;

Recast: But most of them were desirous to destroy Alma and Amulek.

This same reality is present throughout the text of the Book of Mormon, making it highly improbable that the wording flows from what Joseph’s own biblically influenced language might have been.

Summary of Findings

Areas addressed in this study have included the following items of linguistic usage: agentive of and by, lest syntax, personal that, which, and who(m), periphrastic did, obsolete more–part phraseology, pluperfect had spake, the {-th} plural, and patterns of verbal complementation governed by the verbs cause, command, desire, make, and suffer (also the adjective desirous). Here is a summary of the comparative grammatical findings:

Agentive of and by: The Book of Mormon is broadly archaic in this regard, approaching King James levels; pseudo-biblical writings have little agentive of usage.

of by: The Book of Mormon is broadly archaic in this regard, approaching King James levels; pseudo-biblical writings have little agentive of usage. [Page 227] Lest syntax: The overall Book of Mormon pattern is not biblical, pseudo-biblical, or modern; shall is used as a modal auxiliary more than a dozen times and there is rare, mixed should/shall use; the entire King James Bible has only one passage with shall (three instances) and no mixed should/shall use; pseudo-biblical writings do not have any examples with shall.

Lest The overall Book of Mormon pattern is not biblical, pseudo-biblical, or modern; shall is used as a modal auxiliary more than a dozen times and there is rare, mixed should/shall use; the entire King James Bible has only one passage with shall (three instances) and no mixed should/shall use; pseudo-biblical writings do not have any examples with shall. Relative – pronoun usage with personal antecedents: The Book of Mormon’s overall personal relative-pronoun usage pattern is not biblical, pseudo-biblical, or modern; this solid authorship marker argues strongly against Joseph Smith wording the earliest text.

– The Book of Mormon’s overall personal relative-pronoun usage pattern is not biblical, pseudo-biblical, or modern; this solid authorship marker argues strongly against Joseph Smith wording the earliest text. Periphrastic did: Joseph Smith was unlikely to have produced the ubiquitous past-tense syntax of the Book of Mormon; its high rate and syntactic distribution are 16th-century in character, not pseudo-biblical or biblical.

did: Joseph Smith was unlikely to have produced the ubiquitous past-tense syntax of the Book of Mormon; its high rate and syntactic distribution are 16th-century in character, not pseudo-biblical or biblical. More–part phraseology: Book of Mormon usage is similar to what we see in several writings of the first half of the early modern era; we don’t find this obsolete phrase in pseudo-biblical writings; scant King James usage left no impression on them in this regard.

Book of Mormon usage is similar to what we see in several writings of the first half of the early modern era; we don’t find this obsolete phrase in pseudo-biblical writings; scant King James usage left no impression on them in this regard. Had (been) spake: This leveled past-participial form is absent from the King James Bible and pseudo-biblical writings; the Book of Mormon’s use of “had been spake” and “of which hath been spoken” — rare and very uncommon usage of the 17th century, respectively — strongly suggest that the 12 instances of had spake in the earliest text are best classified as Early Modern English morphosyntax.

The {-th} plural: The Book of Mormon provides a nearly complete view of the diverse possibilities of {-th} inflection in earlier English; neither the King James Bible nor pseudo biblical writings do.

The Book of Mormon provides a nearly complete view of the diverse possibilities of {-th} inflection in earlier English; neither the King James Bible nor pseudo biblical writings do. Verbal complementation: One cannot generate the Book of Mormon’s heavy finite complementation rates from biblical, pseudo-biblical, or modern syntactic patterns; only deep knowledge of Early Modern English possibilities generates its archaic auxiliary usage, heavy doses of ditransitive syntax, and principled variation.

[Page 228]The above comparative linguistic evidence indicates that the Book of Mormon was not fashioned in the image of pseudo-biblical writings, or in the image of the King James Bible, or in the image of Joseph Smith’s own language. Nevertheless, Book of Mormon language contains a wealth of archaic forms and structures. This runs counter to the received view of many commentators who have imagined it to be a flawed imitation of biblical language. A variety of substantive linguistic evidence argues that Book of Mormon grammar is deeply and broadly archaic and very different, in one case after another, from both pseudo-biblical grammar and King James style. Many more types of syntax could be given, but the above is sufficient to dismiss the view that pseudo-biblical writings approach the Book of Mormon in archaic form and structure. Those who espouse such a view have ignored crucial syntactic and morphosyntactic evidence.

Biblical Hypercorrection

It is often possible to come up with creative links between Book of Mormon and King James usage. It would be no problem for me to do so in many instances. However, if biblical hypercorrection is properly constrained to cases of actual biblical usage, then it ultimately lacks explanatory value vis-à-vis Book of Mormon grammar, as it fails to explain many individual cases and plenty of systematic usage. In the following list, I mention a few of the issues beyond a lack of pseudo biblical support (which is generally the case):