Cognate Accusatives
Posted by Connor on November 24th, 2006
A couple of weeks ago I noticed in the scriptures something I had learned from a Hugh Nibley article a few years back: cognate accusatives. They are a literary element found in Hebrew, also making an extensive appearance in the Book of Mormon.
Definition
A Students’s Dictionary for Biblical and Theological Studies defines the cognate accusative as, “A noun, derived from the same root as the verb, that defines, explains, or strengthens (emphasizes) the verbal idea” (Huey and Corley 1983:45).
This page from Ohio State defines it as “the easiest form of the internal accusative to identify; it is called a “cognate accusative” because the noun in the accusative case uses a same linguistic stem or root as (in other words, it is cognate with) the stem or root of the verb.”
Examples
Old Testament
cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry (Genesis 27:34)
we have dreamed a dream (Genesis 40:8)
vowed a vow (Judges 11:30)
thundered with a great thunder (1 Samuel 7:10)
lamented with this lamentation (2 Samuel 1:17)
devise devices against Jeremiah (Jer. 18:18)
Book of Mormon
curse them with a sore curse (1 Ne. 2:23)
I have dreamed a dream (1 Ne. 8:2)
yoketh them with a yoke (1 Ne. 13:5)
work a great and marvelous work (1 Ne. 14:7)
desire which I desired (Enos 1:13)
succor those that stand in need of your succor (Mosiah 4:16)
taxed with a tax (Mosiah 7:15)
And that, ladies and gents, is another example of why the Book of Mormon is of God. You’d be hard pressed to convince me that an unlearned boy in rural New York knew anything about Hebraic literary patterns (chiasmus being another example). While such things should not serve as the only proof of the Book of Mormon’s validity, they are indeed interesting and reaffirming. I testify that the Book of Mormon is true. It has changed my life for the better, and in it I find priceless counsel, wisdom, and guidance.
Since they also appear in English in JS bible, they can’t be used as a strong evidence of the Hebraic background of the Book of Mormon.
Comment # 1 left by Ben on November 24th, 2006
Ben:
Is it not at least impressive that these types of things are in the BofM?
Comment # 2 left by Eric Nielson on November 24th, 2006
Ben, I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. By “JS bible” are you referring to Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible? Can elaborate on your statement to clarify it a little?
Comment # 3 left by Connor Boyack on November 24th, 2006
I agree with Ben. What he means is probably this: The presence of cognate accusatives in the BoM could have come from imitation of the AV — the so-called King James Version.
A “strong” proof would have to be some aspect of classical biblical Hebrew syntax that is NOT also found in the AV so that there is no chance of imitation.
In the last ward I was a member of, the EQ president would routinely bear his testimony in good KJ (Jacobean) English, complete with cognate accusatives. He just thought that was how religious leaders ought to talk, so he imitated it.
Very odd, of course.
Comment # 4 left by Mogget on November 24th, 2006
Thanks for the translation Mogget
I have an unpublished list I’ve made myself of Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon that are worthless as arguments in favor of the BoM’s authenticity, since they all appear in the fairly literal Old Testament translation of the KJV. These include first-person pronoun order (”I and my Father” instead of “my Father and I”), and other things. It’s very interesting stuff, but it’s not possible to prove that their presence in the BoM stems from its Hebraic background and not the literal KJV.
Comment # 5 left by Ben on November 24th, 2006
I think Connor has pointed out that it doesn’t actually count as a proof of the BofM. But its presence is necessary to show consistency with the book’s claim. And this consistency stands as a further assurance of the validity of the BofM.
Comment # 6 left by Doug Towers on November 24th, 2006
The presence of the cognate accusative is not necessary for consistency with the BoM’s claims. It is perfectly possible to translate the Bible without the explicit cognate accusative, which actually arises from an overly literal (wooden) translation.
An interesting proof would be, for example, a quotation or allusion to a passage in the LXX that is not found in the Masoretic text.
Comment # 7 left by Mogget on November 25th, 2006