B. H. Roberts’ list of objectionable Book of Mormon grammar
Eight types of grammar briefly analyzed.
Roberts listed some grammar in his book Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Salt Lake City, 1907). The following twelve passages, set forth on page 294 of volume 1, have eight types of targeted grammar in them:
mh0813
and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he had not ought and he should perish.
aa3630
my son, . . ye had ought to know as I do know that inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God
mh0817
But a seer can know of things which has passed, and also of things which is to come; . . . and things which is not known shall be made known by them,
aa3216
Therefore blessed are they who humbleth themselves without being compelled to be humble.
aa3223
Little children doth have words given unto them many times which doth confound the wise and the learned.
aa3618
O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who art in the gall of bitterness and art encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.
aa3915
it is him that surely shall come to take away the sins of the world.
aa4109
my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine which ye hath hitherto risked to commit sin.
aa4115
that which ye doth send out shall return unto you again and be restored.
aa3109
but they had fell into great errors,
aa4424
thus ended the record of Alma, which was wrote upon the plates of Nephi.
hn1337
this shall be your language in them days.
I have reorganized and grouped these passages into types, as well as italicizing the grammar in question in order to clarify the usage that B. H. Roberts objected to.
The following discussion does not attempt to prove that the above grammar was early modern usage that Joseph Smith did not author. Other types of grammar, syntax, and vocabulary show that. Rather, the following shows how the above questionable grammar fits quite well within a view that the Book of Mormon has a large amount of Early Modern English in it, some of which he might not have employed.
In the first two examples above, Roberts found the use of “had (not) ought” inappropriate; “ought (not)” (without had) was generally considered to be the acceptable expression with this verb. “Had (not) ought” might have arisen as an emphatic usage in Early Modern English. The earliest example that I found a number of years ago was this one:
1535,
and yf it be not so / than tell thou me, In what thynge he meaned, that euery soule shulde be subiecte to the po[w]ers. &c. For yf euery soule hadde oughte to be subiecte to Timotheus, and Titus, In suche maner iudgemente he shulde in vayne haue sayde admonysshe them.
In mh0813, “had not ought” is preceded by the subjunctive phrase “except he be.” This exact phrase occurred approximately seven times as frequently in the sixteenth century as in the eighteenth century, so it is early modern in character rather than late modern.
The passage with “had ought” is followed by a subordinate clause headed by the subordinator “inasmuch as.” The clause has a modal auxiliary verb shall, which marks the grammatical mood of the clause as subjunctive. The Book of Mormon has more of this future subjunctive syntax following archaic “inasmuch as” than any other text. The syntax is not in the King James Bible or in the writings of biblical imitators, and it occurred almost exclusively in the early modern period. Thus Joseph Smith was unlikely to have worded this subordinate clause; by extension it is unlikely that he worded the Book of Mormon’s “had (not) ought” grammar.
In mh0817, Roberts objected to “things which has” and “things which is.” Besides the Book of Mormon, the text with the most instances of “things that/which is” was published in 1582 (
The specific phrase “things which has” — where things is the agreement controller of has, and the relative pronoun is which — rarely occurs in texts. On the other hand, the specific phrase “things which hath” occurs a few dozen times in early modern texts, as well as once at 3n0519. Here is a rare match with the language of mh0817, along with one that has “things that has”:
1683,
Durst . . attempt those things which has given the greatest disquiet that ever could have been given to his sacred Majesty,
1690,
that whensoever any violence is offered to any thing, more especially to things that has passed thorough firmentation,
aa3216 and aa3223 have examples of verbal {-th} inflection used with third person plural subjects. This was early modern usage. Here is an early example where the same verb form humbleth has a plural subject:
1510,
[Latin: Omnis qui se humiliat exaltabitur.] All men the whiche humbleth them and boweth downe shal be exalted.
The above language is equivalent to “all men who humbleth themselves.” The verb form humbleth is plural because the antecedent of which is men; the pronoun them is equivalent to themselves.
The usage seen in aa3618 could have been used in order to heighten or sharpen the expressed emotion, and it is also similar to some early modern usage. The verb form art, when the subject was not second person singular, was primarily used in plural contexts in Early Modern English. There was, however, some rare usage in third person singular contexts, as in the following:
1662,
But Ah miserable man, who art only miserable, that hath no Portion there, what ever Portion he hath here,
The above is perhaps the clearest example of usage similar to aa3618. In the following example, the art is probably linked to a vocative instance of flesh (second person singular). However, “with me” is an accompanying feature, and the me might be the antecedent of that:
1622,
O wretched flesh / with me that art forlorne,
Here are two possible examples of conjoined “and art,” as in aa3618, but with plural antecedents:
1577,
albeit they are conteyned in place as creatures (though not limited) and art moued with a certeine order and manner agréeable to that spirituall nature.
1610,
these men come for water, and find none: and art ashamed of their hope:
These transcriptions have not been checked for accuracy.
“It is him” in aa3915, with him in subject position, was quite uncommon in the past as well, yet it is attested:
1672,
even because it is him that worketh in you to will and to do all good things,
The objection to the language of aa4109 and aa4115 was probably twofold. First, ye is used by Alma in speaking to one son; second, verbal {-th} inflection is used after ye. However, it should also be noted that aa4115 has two other potential early modern features: non-emphatic, periphrastic doth; and again pleonastically reinforcing the sense of ‘back’ in the verb return.
The use of “ye doth/hath” was present already in Late Middle English, and it persisted in a minor way in Early Modern English. Here are two examples, the second one showing ye doth used for singular address:
1565,
Dout ye not, but I wyll excuse,
those thynges which ye doth playnly denye
1608,
Hold thy selfe here good Fryer, and we shall soone agree. For if you swarue from the Law, then doubtlesse, ye doth not keepe it.
Most people are unaware of how many early modern features the original Book of Mormon text actually has. Here is a little-known match with uncommon early modern usage, where the complementizer that following “how long” is the uncommon archaic feature of the syntax:
mn0805
And how long that the Lord will suffer that I may live, I know not.
1560,
Here is deuysed how long that the noble arthur liued and how that he was buried.
The 1560 example was written by John Bourchier (Lord Berners) a few decades before that. There are mostly false positives of this archaic grammar in the databases.
The grammatical issue with aa3109 and aa4424 is that past tense verb forms are used instead of past participles. This was a common grammatical feature of Early Modern English. Various writers and translators used such language, especially in the 1600s. The
Finally, “in them days” occurs twice in the original Book of Mormon text, both times in the book of Helaman. “Them days” was occasional usage of the early modern period (more generally, “them <plural noun>”). Here is an exact match with the prepositional phrase:
1660,
when he came he was not received but by the Remnant in them dayes, as he is received now in these dayes;
From context, we can see that “them days” was used by this author for “those days.” Here is another example, from a Scottish clergyman:
1661,
publick fasts are generaly upon them days.
⬥ ⬥ ⬥
As mentioned, this has been only a brief analysis of these eight types of Book of Mormon grammar. Many of these have already been given fuller treatments in text-critical publications and papers. Over time, more analysis will be available here.
⬥ ⬥ ⬥