Cognate accusatives

[canterdogs]

A popular piece of linguistic evidence claimed for the Book of Mormon is what is known as the "cognate accusative". A cognate accusative is where a verb is used in conjunction with an object that contains that verb or is related to that verb. For example, in the KJV we have this cognate accusative in Genesis 37:5:

"And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it his brethren: and they hated him yet the more."

The bold font represents the cognate accusative. Cognate accusatives are quite common in Hebrew and appear in the Bible - and in some very famous passages such as the above. It might seem redundant to ask, then, why should the apologists use this argument as evidence for the Book of Mormon when it appears also in the Bible, which Joseph Smith definitely had access to. When I search the BibleGateway KJV for the phrase "dreamed a dream" I came up with about half a dozen examples. It does not seem striking at all that cognate accusatives appear in the BoM.

I think the same could be said about chiastic structures. One young Mormon apologist points to the presence of chiasmus on nearly every page of the BoM. But if one is mimicking the Bible style of writing, then this is hardly surprising. Richard Packham has stated in his convincing presentation on Youtube that chiastic structures were present in Joseph Smith's letters and even in John Taylor's writings.

Other linguistic oddities such as Liahona and Irreantum are also unexplainable.

[Glenn101]

A popular piece of linguistic evidence claimed for the Book of Mormon is what is known as the "cognate accusative". A cognate accusative is where a verb is used in conjunction with an object that contains that verb or is related to that verb. For example, in the KJV we have this cognate accusative in Genesis 37:5:

"And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it his brethren: and they hated him yet the more."

The bold font represents the cognate accusative. Cognate accusatives are quite common in Hebrew and appear in the Bible - and in some very famous passages such as the above. It might seem redundant to ask, then, why should the apologists use this argument as evidence for the Book of Mormon when it appears also in the Bible, which Joseph Smith definitely had access to. When I search the BibleGateway KJV for the phrase "dreamed a dream" I came up with about half a dozen examples. It does not seem striking at all that cognate accusatives appear in the BoM.

I think the same could be said about chiastic structures. One young Mormon apologist points to the presence of chiasmus on nearly every page of the BoM. But if one is mimicking the Bible style of writing, then this is hardly surprising. Richard Packham has stated in his convincing presentation on Youtube that chiastic structures were present in Joseph Smith's letters and even in John Taylor's writings.

Other linguistic oddities such as Liahona and Irreantum are also unexplainable.

It is evident that you have just come upon the scene here. There is a body of literature at the Mxwell Institute that has information about those subjects. It is freely available. It would help if you would do some homework on the subjects in question. And you can google for other sites also, in order that you not be brainwashed by the Maxwell Institute scholars.

Glenn

[canterdogs]

It is evident that you have just come upon the scene here. There is a body of literature at the Mxwell Institute that has information about those subjects. It is freely available. It would help if you would do some homework on the subjects in question. And you can google for other sites also, in order that you not be brainwashed by the Maxwell Institute scholars.

Glenn

I am familiar with FARMS and their arguments. This is precisely where I learned of the alleged Hebraisms in the BoM.

[TAO]

A popular piece of linguistic evidence claimed for the Book of Mormon is what is known as the "cognate accusative". A cognate accusative is where a verb is used in conjunction with an object that contains that verb or is related to that verb. For example, in the KJV we have this cognate accusative in Genesis 37:5:

"And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it his brethren: and they hated him yet the more."

The bold font represents the cognate accusative. Cognate accusatives are quite common in Hebrew and appear in the Bible - and in some very famous passages such as the above. It might seem redundant to ask, then, why should the apologists use this argument as evidence for the Book of Mormon when it appears also in the Bible, which Joseph Smith definitely had access to. When I search the BibleGateway KJV for the phrase "dreamed a dream" I came up with about half a dozen examples. It does not seem striking at all that cognate accusatives appear in the BoM.

I think the same could be said about chiastic structures. One young Mormon apologist points to the presence of chiasmus on nearly every page of the BoM. But if one is mimicking the Bible style of writing, then this is hardly surprising. Richard Packham has stated in his convincing presentation on Youtube that chiastic structures were present in Joseph Smith's letters and even in John Taylor's writings.

Other linguistic oddities such as Liahona and Irreantum are also unexplainable.

I think one needs to notice that there are some remarkable similarities, such as those listed, and also some remarkable dis-similarities, such as the phrase "It came to pass" which is used much more in the BoM than in the Bible. The fact that it is somewhat similar to the Bible, but not similar in other ways points to it's truth.

[canterdogs]

I think one needs to notice that there are some remarkable similarities, such as those listed, and also some remarkable dis-similarities, such as the phrase "It came to pass" which is used much more in the BoM than in the Bible. The fact that it is somewhat similar to the Bible, but not similar in other ways points to it's truth.

The "It came to pass" phrase is similar to the Bible - it just gets overused in the BoM. I note that critics such as Richard Packham do not think that the "it came to pass" criticism is valid because the Hebrew term it is translated from is quite common in Hebrew. However, it is my belief that the phrase was taken from the KJV and was overused in the BoM and this does not point me to the BoM's authenticity.

[TAO]

The "It came to pass" phrase is similar to the Bible - it just gets overused in the BoM. I note that critics such as Richard Packham do not think that the "it came to pass" criticism is valid because the Hebrew term it is translated from is quite common in Hebrew. However, it is my belief that the phrase was taken from the KJV and was overused in the BoM and this does not point me to the BoM's authenticity.

Yes, but it gets overused at time by aproximately 7X normal rate in comparison to one book. 3X normal rate overall. That's excessive to be excused.

Chart is here: http://www.google.co...iw=1366&bih=591

[maklelan]

The "It came to pass" phrase is similar to the Bible - it just gets overused in the BoM. I note that critics such as Richard Packham do not think that the "it came to pass" criticism is valid because the Hebrew term it is translated from is quite common in Hebrew. However, it is my belief that the phrase was taken from the KJV and was overused in the BoM and this does not point me to the BoM's authenticity.

It's more complicated than that. The phrase is Hebrew occurs only in narrative, and the Hebrew Bible is roughly only half narrative (no one has ever countedtotal poetic verses to narrative verses, but poetry occurs in historical books far more than narrative appears in poetic books, and poetic books make up a little more than a third of the total chapters in the Hebrew Bible). In the Hebrew the phrase occurs more frequently than in English translations, since it is grotesquely redundant sometimes, and most English translations prioritize variation in passages which seem redundant. Taking those things into consideration, the frequency of "and it came to pass" found in the Book of Mormon is not aberrant.

[Brade]

It's interesting to me, as I reflect back on my mission and read my missionary journals, that as I studied scripture and studied the words of church leaders I began to express myself similarly, especially in my journal writing.

[canterdogs]

It's more complicated than that. The phrase is Hebrew occurs only in narrative, and the Hebrew Bible is roughly only half narrative (no one has ever countedtotal poetic verses to narrative verses, but poetry occurs in historical books far more than narrative appears in poetic books, and poetic books make up a little more than a third of the total chapters in the Hebrew Bible). In the Hebrew the phrase occurs more frequently than in English translations, since it is grotesquely redundant sometimes, and most English translations prioritize variation in passages which seem redundant. Taking those things into consideration, the frequency of "and it came to pass" found in the Book of Mormon is not aberrant.

I think this was the point that Richard Packham makes. He doesn't believe that this is a valid criticism of the BoM. Perhaps he's right.

In any case, there are anachronisms galore in the BoM. Baptism in OT times (btw the apologetic arguments are not convincing at all!), use of the name Jesus Christ in OT times, use of the Christ (Greek) and Messiah (Hebrew) in OT times, use of the term "church" in OT times and so on.

[TAO]

In any case, there are anachronisms galore in the BoM. Baptism in OT times (btw the apologetic arguments are not convincing at all!), use of the name Jesus Christ in OT times, use of the Christ (Greek) and Messiah (Hebrew) in OT times, use of the term "church" in OT times and so on.

Uh, I'm pretty sure Nephi explained how...

3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ

[canterdogs]

Uh, I'm pretty sure Nephi explained how...

That's a perfect example of an anachronism! Christ is a Greek word - it is a title! It means "the anointed one" and has the exact same meaning as the Hebrew word Messiah! I wonder what reformed Egyptian word would be translated as Christ, and what reformed Egyptian word would be translated as Messiah - they are both the same thing and they both appear in the BoM!

[canterdogs]

Here we have both Messiah and Christ used in the same verse (2 Nephi 25:19):

19 For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

We have the Greek and Hebrew here in the same verse. This is probably the most striking case of an anachronism in the BoM. It also demonstrated that the author did not know the difference between the title of Jesus (i.e. the Christ or Messiah) and his name, simply Jesus

[canterdogs]

We have the mixing of Greek and Hebrew in the BoM, and its clear that the author didn't know the difference between the two.

[TAO]

That's a perfect example of an anachronism! Christ is a Greek word - it is a title! It means "the anointed one" and has the exact same meaning as the Hebrew word Messiah! I wonder what reformed Egyptian word would be translated as Christ, and what reformed Egyptian word would be translated as Messiah - they are both the same thing and they both appear in the BoM!

No read it again "the last night the ^aangel spake unto me that this should be his name". It clearly tells why Christ appears in the Book of Mormon.

[canterdogs]

No read it again "the last night the ^aangel spake unto me that this should be his name". It clearly tells why Christ appears in the Book of Mormon.

I don't think you're getting it. His name was not Christ. His name was Jesus (the Greek form of Jeshua). His title was Christ. Jesus Christ simply means Jesus the anointed. that text is an anachronism.

[TAO]

I don't think you're getting it. His name was not Christ. His name was Jesus (the Greek form of Jeshua). His title was Christ. Jesus Christ simply means Jesus the anointed. that text is an anachronism.

2 Nephi 25:19 For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Apparently, still told by an angel.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't copy over right.

[canterdogs]

Apparently, still told by an angel.

umm apparently you're still not getting it....

Messiah (Hebrew for Christ) and Jesus Christ (Greek) are used in the same passage. Why are the Hebrew and Greek terms for the same thing present in the same passage? And, again, Jesus (Greek) is His name, Christ is His title.

Let me illustrate how out of place this verse is. Suppose the reformed Egyptian term for Christ or Messiah (remembering that they mean the same thing) is "Carrot". The text would then read as follows:

19 For according to the words of the prophets, the ^aCarrot cometh in ^bsix hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the ^cangel of God, his ^dname shall be Jesus Carrot, the ^eSon of God.

Do you see? Messiah and Christ are the same thing. How could one have Messiah (Hebrew) and Christ (Greek) in the same sentence, or, more generally, in the same text? That's my point.

[Doug the Hutt]

Yes, but it gets overused at time by aproximately 7X normal rate in comparison to one book. 3X normal rate overall. That's excessive to be excused.

Chart is here: http://www.google.co...iw=1366&bih=591

Interesting charts. Interesting point -- that the phrase "and it came to pass" is overused extensively throughout all the BoM books and points to a single author. Let me arrange my loose-fitting-apologetic TBM hat:

General/Prophet/Historian Mormon was the single author who lambasted us with "and it came to pass". His big pet project when he wasn't out cutting down Lamanites with a 1000-year-old-imported-steel-sword was to gather up all the historical records and make one volume of Nephite history covering a hundredth of the data that were available to him. He must have been used to phraseology such as "and it came to pass" which served as connecting speech for him to join parts of a story together. "And it came to pass" was just his natural way of preparing his own mind to present an idea and used it himself when he chiseled the Book of Mormon onto the plates (with the appearance of gold but not necessarily gold...could be copper....). It's very similar to how my mother rambles on & on by connecting completely unrelated stories together by saying '<very long diatribe on how she feels the presence of spirits and how she's always had this ability>...."and-a-"....<another very long story about how she can't do the canning/bottling anymore>..."and-a"...<overly-detailed description of everything she bought at Walmart>...'"and-a"......etc, etc, etc. (I am not making this up). Latinos back in my mission would often connect things they were saying together with the word "....este....." (but they'd drag out the two-symbol word over a few seconds -- "es-teeeeeeeh....{"-- far longer than it should take but long enough for the brain to structure the coming ideas) which I think was equivalent to an American saying "um.....". "And it came to pass" therefore is just another jumble of words a person might express to allow the rest of the thoughts to continue to flow which General Mormon delivered to us in his bestselling book: The Book of Mormon.

Or the 19th century author was trying to imitate Bible-speak, hoping that the mostly-protestant, mostly-peasant populace would believe the words that came from the Gold Bible to be legitimately from God based on how they sounded similar to the KJV of the Bible (partially because 31 chapters or so were copied verbatim from the KJV Bible). The 19th century author's motive for writing it was because he too was a peasant with little future other than one he would make himself. His great enterprising, salesmanship, charisma and natural leadership should be recognized. And maybe he really did believe God was operating through him -- there's no way for me to know either way.

[maklelan]

I think this was the point that Richard Packham makes. He doesn't believe that this is a valid criticism of the BoM. Perhaps he's right.

In any case, there are anachronisms galore in the BoM. Baptism in OT times (btw the apologetic arguments are not convincing at all!), use of the name Jesus Christ in OT times, use of the Christ (Greek) and Messiah (Hebrew) in OT times, use of the term "church" in OT times and so on.

Regarding baptism, the Book of Mormon does not mention the practice as a transplant from the ancient Near East. In the Book of Mormon it is done in imitation of the revealed baptism of Christ, and it first takes place well after the Lehite migration. In effect, you're saying the Nephites and Lamanites couldn't have had baptism in the Americas because they didn't have it in Syria-Palestine at the same time. How do you support this assertion of synchronic socio-religious integrity between first millennium BCE Syria-Palestine and first millennium BCE Mesoamerica?

Regarding Jesus' name, it is described as having been revealed to Jacob well after the migration to the Americas. The fact that it is not found in any extant literature from before the Common Era hardly means that it could not have been revealed to anyone anywhere.

Regarding the Greek term, it's an anaphoric translation. There's no reason to chide Joseph Smith for picking a lexical equivalent that was familiar to him. Regarding the notion that using the Hebrew "messiah" is anachronistic in Jewish circles in the first millennium BCE, I would invite you to look up the earliest occurrences of that word in the Hebrew Bible. The term "church," by the way, is a perfectly valid translation of a Hebrew word found throughout the Hebrew Bible that can be translated "congregation," "assembly," or a number of other ways. "Church" is simply another anaphoric choice. To assert that the word as it appears in the Book of Mormon suggests its exact 19th century Protestant semantic range is being communicated from the Vorlage is gross presentism.

[maklelan]

That's a perfect example of an anachronism! Christ is a Greek word - it is a title!

Can you count how many English words appear in the Book of Mormon? And they didn't exist at all in the first millennium BCE. That's the nature of translation.

It means "the anointed one" and has the exact same meaning as the Hebrew word Messiah! I wonder what reformed Egyptian word would be translated as Christ, and what reformed Egyptian word would be translated as Messiah - they are both the same thing and they both appear in the BoM!

Have you ever translated a chapter from any book in the Bible? I'm curious if you're aware of what kind of issues confront translation from an ancient language.

[maklelan]

We have the mixing of Greek and Hebrew in the BoM, and its clear that the author didn't know the difference between the two.

Or the translator didn't care about taking an anaphoric approach.

[canterdogs]

Regarding baptism, the Book of Mormon does not mention the practice as a transplant from the ancient Near East. In the Book of Mormon it is done in imitation of the revealed baptism of Christ, and it first takes place well after the Lehite migration. In effect, you're saying the Nephites and Lamanites couldn't have had baptism in the Americas because they didn't have it in Syria-Palestine at the same time. How do you support this assertion of synchronic socio-religious integrity between first millennium BCE Syria-Palestine and first millennium BCE Mesoamerica?

Regarding Jesus' name, it is described as having been revealed to Jacob well after the migration to the Americas. The fact that it is not found in any extant literature from before the Common Era hardly means that it could not have been revealed to anyone anywhere.

Regarding the Greek term, it's an anaphoric translation. There's no reason to chide Joseph Smith for picking a lexical equivalent that was familiar to him. Regarding the notion that using the Hebrew "messiah" is anachronistic in Jewish circles in the first millennium BCE, I would invite you to look up the earliest occurrences of that word in the Hebrew Bible. The term "church," by the way, is a perfectly valid translation of a Hebrew word found throughout the Hebrew Bible that can be translated "congregation," "assembly," or a number of other ways. "Church" is simply another anaphoric choice. To assert that the word as it appears in the Book of Mormon suggests its exact 19th century Protestant semantic range is being communicated from the Vorlage is gross presentism.

That fact that the American Israelites were shown baptism and told the Greek name of Jesus and the Palestinian Israelites weren't is a huge red flag. I don't think it is valid to say that "just because the Palestinian Jews were not revealed these things, doesn't mean that the American Jews could not have been told these things". Especially when there is no trace of Christianity in the Americas before the European settlement. the far more likely explanation is that the text was invented in the 19th century. In the Bible we have no muddling of Hebrew and Greek scriptures. They are separate and linguistically distinguishable. We don't have this in the BoM. What we find is a mixing of the two testaments.

the word "church" as it is used in the NT refers to the organization of believers in Christ. This could not have been used in OT times before Christ appeared. The Hebrew word for congregation etc could not mean church.

Further, there are yet more errors in the text. The King James grammatical rules are not followed in the BoM. For e.g. the word "have" is not found in the King James Bible. Rather, "hath" is used. What do we find in the BoM? "Have" is certainly used there. Why are the grammatical rules of King James English not followed in the BoM? Either you translate using the KJV English properly or you use the English of your day - you can't have a mixture of the two. The likely reason why we see these grammatical errors: the authors of the BoM were simply ignorant of this.

[maklelan]

umm apparently you're still not getting it....

Messiah (Hebrew for Christ) and Jesus Christ (Greek) are used in the same passage. Why are the Hebrew and Greek terms for the same thing present in the same passage?

Because using the same word can be redundant.

And, again, Jesus (Greek) is His name, Christ is His title.

And a young 19th century Protestant farmer probably isn't concerned with the minutiae of translation equivalency. Likely he's just going to pick stuff that sounds biblical to him. That's hardly evidence that he's not translating from a real document.

Let me illustrate how out of place this verse is. Suppose the reformed Egyptian term for Christ or Messiah (remembering that they mean the same thing) is "Carrot". The text would then read as follows:

Do you see? Messiah and Christ are the same thing. How could one have Messiah (Hebrew) and Christ (Greek) in the same sentence, or, more generally, in the same text? That's my point.

And it's a myopic point. "The Messiah" is perfectly natural, and for a 19th century Protestant, "Jesus Christ" is going to be more natural later in the same verse than "Jesus the Messiah." It's redundant and departs from the more formulaic equivalent.

[canterdogs]

Can you count how many English words appear in the Book of Mormon? And they didn't exist at all in the first millennium BCE. That's the nature of translation.

Have you ever translated a chapter from any book in the Bible? I'm curious if you're aware of what kind of issues confront translation from an ancient language.

No I haven't. But its clear that if "Christ" and "Messiah" have the same meaning, and they must represent the same reformed Egyptian word (note the "if/and clause I have used in this sentence lol). Why then are they translated differently? This doesn't happen in the Bible.

[Hamba Tuhan]

As part of my PhD research, I have translated several thousand pages of old texts. It has been my experience that those who insist they know precisely how translation should be done are those who've engaged in very little of the act themselves.