Title The Systematic Text of the Book of Mormon Author(s) Royal Skousen Reference M. Gerald Bradford and Alison V. P. Coutts, eds., Uncovering the Original Text of the Book of Mormon: History and Findings of the Critical Text Project, 45–66 (published in lieu of Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 11/2 [2002]). ISBN 0-934893-68-3 Abstract Royal Skousen explains in detail the internal con- sistency of the original text of the Book of Mormon. He references several verses of the Book of Mormon to discuss five main points: consistency in mean- ing; systematic phraseology; variation in the text; conjectural emendation; and revising the text. By examining these five aspects, Skousen shows that neither the message nor the doctrine of the Book of Mormon loses credibility as a result of textual changes. Skousen also mentions that the consistency in the manuscripts suggests that Joseph Smith did not receive the text as a concept but rather received it word for word. The Systematic Text of the Book of Mormon royal skousen In my initial work on the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, I was always excited to discover the occasional error that had crept into the text. But over time I have become more amazed about the nature of the original English-language text of the Book of Mormon. One aspect of the text that has surprised me is the internal consistency of the original text. (For the meaning of the term original text, see the discussion on page 5.) Occasionally a mistake in transcription or printing has introduced a reading into the text that is inconsistent with all other usage in the Book of Mormon. Even some cases of editing have led to such inconsistency. These changes do not affect the message or doctrine of the Book of Mormon, but it has been marvelous to see just how consistent the original text was. In this paper, I will provide evidence for 56 proposed textual changes in the Book of Mormon. The term textual change means an alteration in the words or phrases of a passage or a consistent change in the spelling of a name. Of these proposed changes, 38 are textually significant, but only in the sense that they would also show up when translating the text into other languages. On the other hand, 18 of the changes involve minor variation in the phraseology of the text. These changes do not involve any significant change in meaning. Nonetheless, these minor errors show how consistent the original text was, even in its phraseology. The language of the original text was very tightly controlled. Consistency in Meaning I begin this paper by discussing a good number of textual changes which show that the semantically better (or more appropriate) reading is found in the earliest textual sourceusually the original manu- script, but sometimes in the printer’s manuscript when the original manuscript is no longer extant. The symbol © will be used to stand for the original manuscript; and ® will stand for the printer’s manuscript, the copy of © that the scribes prepared for the printer of the first edition (1830, Palmyra, New York). ©2002 Royal Skousen. All rights reserved. [ 45 ] [ 46 ] royal skousen Editions are identified by the year in which they were published (from the 1830 edition to the 1981 LDS edition). Unless otherwise noted, Book of Mormon passages and names will be cited as they are found in the earliest textual sources. 4 The devil is the proprietor, not preparator, of hell. 1 Nephi 15:35 and there is a place prepared yea even that awful hell of which I have spoken and the devil is the proprietor of it prepriator: scribe 2’s original spelling of proprietor in © preparator: Oliver Cowdery’s interpretation, in ®; followed by 1830 and 1981 father: Joseph Smith’s first emendation, in ® f oundation: Joseph Smith’s second emendation, also in ®; followed by 1837 and all subsequent editions except for 1981 In the original manuscript, scribe 2’s prepriator is quite unusual, especially his spelling of the first (unstressed) vowel as e rather than o. Oliver Cowdery misinterpreted the word as preparator, a virtually nonexistent word in English; according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a preparator is a preparer of medicines or specimens. Oliver was probably influenced by the earlier occurrence in this verse of the word prepared. The difficulty of the word preparator explains Joseph Smith’s varying attempts to come up with a better reading for the 1837 edition (first, father, then foundation). The devil as proprietor (or owner and operator) of hell makes very good sense. (Renee Bangerter first suggested this reading as a conjectural emendation.) 4 The wicked are separated, not rejected, from the righteous and the tree of life. 1 Nephi 15:36 wherefore the wicked are separated from the righteous and also from that tree of life seperated: scribe 2’s spelling of separated in © rejected: Oliver Cowdery’s misreading, in ®; followed by 1830 and all subsequent editions Oliver Cowdery miscopied scribe 2’s seperated as the visually similar rejected. Elsewhere in the Book of Mormon text, people can be separated as a result of sin and judgment. Note in particular the usage in nearby verse 28: “it was an awful gulf which separateth the wicked from the tree of life and also from the saints of God.” We get the same meaning as in verse 36: the wicked are separated from the righteous saints of God and from the tree of life. 4 Alma did know about the persecutors of the church. Mosiah 26:9 and it came to pass that Alma did know concerning them for there were many witnesses against them did know . . . for: original reading in ®, in scribe 2’s hand; © not extant did not know . . . for: Oliver Cowdery’s later correction, also in ®; followed by 1830 and most subsequent editions did not know . . . but: 1920 emendation; followed by 1981 The Systematic Text of the Book of Mormon [ 47 ] The unknown scribe 2 of the printer’s manuscript originally wrote “Alma did know concerning them / for there were many witnesses against them,” a reading which makes perfectly good sense. Oliver Cowdery later corrected the text here by inserting the word not, perhaps because of the unusualness of the paraphrastic did in the verb phrase “did know.” This emendation resulted in a diffic ult reading, which was somewhat alleviated in the 1920 edition by substituting but for the con- junction for. The earliest reading (in scribe 2’s hand in the printer’s manuscript) is precisely correct. 4 The queen clapped, not clasped, her hands. Alma 19:30 and when she had said this she clapped her hands being filled with joy claped: Oliver Cowdery’s spelling in ® for clapped; © not extant; recent RLDS editions have clapped clasped: 1830 misreading; followed by most subsequent editions The 1830 typesetter apparently interpreted Oliver Cowdery’s spelling claped as missing an s, yet this spelling is simply the result of the scribes’ tendency to not double consonants after a short vowel. Elsewhere, the text does refer to the more emotional clapping of hands (“they clapped their hands for joy,” in Mosiah 18:11), but never to clasping hands. In this second example, Oliver Cowdery also spelled clapped with a single p. 4 Repentance involves both acknowledging faults and repairing wrongs. Alma 39:12–13 therefore I command you my son in the fear of God . . . that ye lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly but rather return unto them and acknowledge your faults and repair that wrong which ye have done acknowledge your faults and repair that wrong: reading in ©, in Oliver Cowdery’s hand; accidental ink drop on the p of repair acknowledge your faults and retain that wrong: Oliver Cowdery’s misreading, in ®; followed by 1830 and most subsequent editions acknowledge your faults and that wrong: 1920 emendation; followed by 1981 The original manuscript reads repair, but sometime before the text was copied into the printer’s manuscript, a number of ink drops fell on this page. One fell right on the p of repair and looks like a crossing on the ascender of the p. Since Oliver Cowdery’s r’s and n’s frequently look alike, the resulting word looks like retain, which is how Oliver Cowdery copied the word. The use of retain in this passage doesn’t make sense, thus in the 1920 edition the word was simply deleted. The original reading here (“repair that wrong”) is consistent with other Book of Mormon pas- sages that refer to repentanceas in Mosiah 27:35, where the sons of Mosiah were “zealously striving to repair all the injuries which they had done to the church / confessing all their sins / and publishing all the things which they had seen.” (Similar language is found in Alma 27:8 and Helaman 5:17.) [ 48 ] royal skousen 4 The Nephite dissenters almost outnumbered the Nephites. Alma 43:13–14 and thus the Nephites were compelled alone to withstand against the Lamanites which were a compound of Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael and all those which had dissented from the Nephites which were Amlicites and Zoramites and the descendants of the priests of Noah now those dissenters were as numerous nearly as were the Nephites desenters: Oliver Cowdery’s spelling in © for dissenters desendants: Oliver Cowdery’s spelling in ® for descendants (a misreading of ©) descendants: spelling in 1830 and all subsequent editions, following ® Oliver Cowdery miscopied dissenters (spelled desenters) as descendants (spelled desendants). The previous verse lists all the Nephite dissenters, ending up with “the descendants of the priests of Noah,” yet quite clearly in a few generations the descendants of a couple dozen priests could never have increased to almost equal the population of the entire (non-dissenting) Nephite nation. 4 The Lamanites had only one second leader, not several. Alma 47:13 . . . and that he would deliver them up into Lehonti’s hands if he would make him Amalickiah the second leader over the whole army the second leader: reading in ©, in Oliver Cowdery’s hand a second leader: miscopied by Oliver Cowdery in ®; followed by 1830 and all subsequent editions Oliver Cowdery miscopied the as the indefinite article a. This error occurred because the definite article the was at the end of the line and was therefore easily misread. As explained later on in the story, there was only one second leader (thus Alma 47:17: “if their chief leader was killed / to appoint the second leader to be their chief leader”). 4 Moroni asked Parhoron to heed, not read, his petition. Alma 51:15 he sent a petition with the voice of the people unto the governor of the land desiring that he should heed it and give him Moroni power to compel those dissenters head: Oliver Cowdery’s spelling for heed in ©, also his corrected spelling in ® read: 1830 printer’s misinterpretation of head, marked in pencil in ®; followed by 1830 and all subsequent editions Oliver Cowdery frequently spells heed as head (for instance, in the original manuscript for Alma 49:30: “because of their head & diligence”). The 1830 typesetter was usually able to correctly interpret this particular misspelling. But in Alma 51:15 he could not understand “he should head it.” He thought the word head was an error for read, and thus he overwrote (in pencil) the initial h with an r. The use of heed, of course, makes perfectly good sense, but requesting Parhoron to read the petition does sound quite unnecessary. The Systematic Text of the Book of Mormon [ 49 ] Systematic Phraseology I now turn to examples where the phraseology of the original text is strongly supported by all other usage in the Book of Mormon. Each error described in this section has led to a “wrinkle” in the text. Nonethe- less, these textual errors have not been found except by discovering the correct reading in the manuscripts. 4 Multitudes are always pressing, not feeling, their way forward. 1 Nephi 8:31 a nd he also saw other multitudes pressing their way towards that great and spacious building prßßsing: scribe 3’s spelling in © of pressing (that is, without the e) feeling: Oliver Cowdery’s misreading, in ®; followed by 1830 and all subsequent editions There are no scriptural uses of “feeling one’s way.” Here in the original manuscript scribe 3 wrote prßßsing (where ßß stands for an elongated s). Scribe 3’s initial p looks like an f, so when Oliver Cowdery copied the text into the printer’s manuscript, he misread pressing as feeling. Similar descriptions in Lehi’s dream also use press rather than feel: 1 Nephi 8:21 and I saw numberless concourses of people many of whom were pressing forward 1 Nephi 8:24 I beheld others pressing forward . . . and they did press forward 1 Nephi 8:30 he saw other multitudes pressing forward . . . and they did press their way forward There are other uses of “press forward” in 2 Nephi 31:20 and Ether 14:12. (Lyle Fletcher first discov- ered this change of pressing to feeling.) 4 The justice of God is a sword. 1 Nephi 12:18 and a great and a terrible gulf divideth them yea even the sword of the justice of the eternal God sword: reading in ©, in scribe 2’s hand word: Oliver Cowdery’s miscopying of sword as word in ®; followed by 1830 and all subsequent editions In the original manuscript, scribe 2’s initial s looks like an undotted i, which led Oliver Cowdery to accidentally misread sword as word when he copied this passage into the printer’s manuscript. There are no other examples of “the word of justice” in the Book of Mormon text, but there are seven other examples of “the sword of justice”: Alma 26:19 the sword of his justice Alma 60:29 the sword of justice Helaman 13:5 the sword of justice (2 times) 3 Nephi 20:20 the sword of my justice 3 Nephi 29:4 the sword of his justice Ether 8:23 the sword of the justice of the eternal God The last example is precisely the same as the original reading in 1 Nephi 12:18. [ 50 ] royal skousen Minor Wrinkles in the Current Text In this section, I list 12 different cases where the phraseology in the original text was perfectly consis- tent, but over the years occasional printing errors have led to exceptions in the phraseology. These errors do not lead to any substantive change in meaning. But these wrinkles do show just how consistent the original text was, even in cases of minor phraseology. 4 this time, never these times when referring to present time original text: 61 to 0 current text: 60 to 1 1 Nephi 10:19 as well in this time as in times of old and as well in times of old as in times to come > these times (1830) [Note the influence of the plural times for past and future.] 4 whatsoever, never whatever original text: 74 to 0 current text: 72 to 2 Jacob 1:11 let them be of whatsoever name they would > whatever (1830) Helaman 3:5 in whatsoever parts it had not been rendered desolate > whatever (1830) 4 to do iniquity, never to do iniquities original text: 22 to 0 current text: 21 to 1 Jacob 2:35 ye have done greater iniquity than the Lamanites > iniquities (1830) 4 to have hope, never to have hoped original text: 18 to 0 current text: 17 to 1 Jacob 5:46 and these I had hope to preserve > had hoped (1837) [ Joseph Smith’s editing in the printer’s manuscript; in-press change in the 1837 edition] 4 if it so be that, never if it be so that original text: 38 to 0 current text: 36 to 2 Jacob 5:64 and if it so be that these last grafts shall grow > be so (1852) Ether 2:20 and if it so be that the water come in upon thee > be so (1849) The Systematic Text of the Book of Mormon [ 51 ] 4 the Nephites and the Lamanites, never the Nephites and Lamanites original text: 15 to 0 current text: 14 to 1 Enos 1:24 and I saw wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites > NULL (1830) [NULL means that one or more words have been deleted.] 4 to observe to keep the commandments, never to observe the commandments original text: 11 to 0 current text: 10 to 1 Mosiah 4:30 and observe to keep the commandments of God > NULL (1837) 4 to set a mark upon someone, never to set a mark on someone original text: 9 to 0 current text: 8 to 1 Alma 3:14 and I will set a mark upon them > on (1837) 4 thus ended a period of time, never thus endeth a period of time (usually a year) original text: 47 to 0 current text: 43 to 4 Alma 3:27 and thus ended the fifth year > endeth (1830) Alma 28:7 and thus ended the fifteenth year > endeth (1837) Alma 51:37 and thus ended the twenty and fifth year > endeth (1849) Alma 51:37 and thus ended the days of Amalickiah > endeth (1849) 4 to meet a person, never to meet with a person original text: 51 to 0 current text: 50 to 1 Alma 17:1 he met ^ the sons of Mosiah > with (1830) 4 conditions, never condition original text: 14 to 0 current text: 12 to 2 Alma 27:24 and we will guard them from their enemies by our armies on conditions that they will give us a portion of their substance > condition (1920) [change marked in the 1920 committee copy (1911 Chicago edition)] Helaman 14:18 yea and it bringeth to pass the conditions of repentance > condition (1830) [ 52 ] royal skousen 4 into one’s hands, never unto one’s hands original text: 56 to 0 current text: 55 to 1 Alma 57:12 therefore they yielded up the city into our hands > unto (1920) [change not marked in the 1920 committee copy (1911 Chicago edition)] Increased Parallelism Frequently the original text shows a higher degree of parallelism between its linguistic elements. In the following example, the parallelism of the original text is assured by repeating a linguistic element (in this case, the preposition). 4 There was rejoicing among the relatives of Parhoron and also among the people of liberty. Alma 51:7 and Parhoron retained the judgment seat which caused much rejoicing among the brethren of Parhoron and also among the people of liberty among the people: reading in ©, in Oliver Cowdery’s hand many the people: Oliver Cowdery’s miscopying of among as many in ® many of the people: John Gilbert’s correction in ® (of added in pencil); followed by 1830 and all subsequent editions The original text here shows parallelism by repeating the preposition among (“among X and also among Y”). Oliver Cowdery misread the second among as many. John Gilbert, the 1830 typesetter, realized that “many the people” was not acceptable, so he inserted the preposition of. Punctuation and Parallelism As far as we can determine, the original text of the Book of Mormon had no punctuation. The original manuscript had some dashes in the summaries that are typically found at the beginning of books or sec- tions of books, but elsewhere in the original manuscript the scribes provided no punctuation. For the printer’s manuscript, Oliver Cowdery and scribe 2 added some punctuation as they copied the original manuscript. The 1830 typesetter, John Gilbert, ignored the scribes’ suggested punctuation and provided his own as he set the type. In most instances, Gilbert’s punctuation (or its equivalent) has been retained in the text. In some cases, later editors of the text have emended his punctuation. Even so, there are still a few cases where there is good reason to further emend the punctuation. In the following example, we see that the punctuation should probably be changed in order to maintain the parallel nature of the original text. 4 The life of the soul is eternal. Alma 42:16–17 now repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment which also was as eternal as the life of the soul should be affixed opposite to the plan of happiness which was as eternal also as the life of the soul / now how could a man repent except he should sin . . . The Systematic Text of the Book of Mormon [ 53 ] The 1830 typesetter incorrectly placed the punctuation after “should be” (although in the printer’s manuscript he correctly marked the punctuation as coming before “should be”). All subsequent editions have followed his final decision to make the break right before the word affixed. But the resulting parenthetical clause claims that there must be a punishment that is as eternal “as the life of the soul should be”which really doesn’t make much sense. The life of the soul “is eternal,” not “should be eternal.” Alma is saying that “a punishment . . . should be affixed opposite to the plan of happiness”a plan which should correspondingly be “as eternal also as the life of the soul.” Notice that at the end of the verse the punctuation must occur at the end of the phrase “the life of the soul.” Agreement with the King James Version The Book of Mormon sometimes quotes from the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. In many cases a change has taken the text away from its original reading, which happens to be the same as the reading in the KJV. 4 The Lord will break the Assyrians in the land of Israel. 2 Nephi 24:25 . . . that I will break the Assyrian in my land and upon my mountains tread him under foot break: reading in ©, in Oliver Cowdery’s hand; same reading in KJV bring: Oliver Cowdery’s miscopying of break as bring in ®; followed by 1830 and all subsequent editions The KJV for Isaiah 14:25 reads break (“I will break the Assyrian in my land”), as does the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon. The word break was hyphenated at the end of a line, so that the final k was placed at the beginning of the next line. In his copy work, Oliver Cowdery misread the brea at the end of the line as the beginning of the word bring. The change to bring obscures the original semantic parallelism in this verse (where both clauses refer to the destruction of the Assyrian army within the borders of Israel). Name Changes In this section, I discuss two interesting cases where the manuscript evidence supports a change in the spelling of a Book of Mormon name. In both of these cases, the original spelling reveals an interest- ing aspect regarding the history of the peoples in the Book of Mormon. 4 Muloch, not Mulek The earliest manuscript spelling for the surviving son of king Zedekiah reads Muloch (in Mosiah 25:2 of the printer’s manuscript). On the other hand, this name is spelled Mulek in Helaman 6–8 of the printer’s manuscript. This alternative spelling is probably due to the nearby influe nce of 13 occurrences of the name of the city Mulek (consistently spelled as such in both manuscripts, from Alma 51 through Helaman 5). Note that the spelling Muloch suggests an ominous connection with the god Molech /Moloch (to which children in Israel were sacrificed prior to the Babylonian captivitysee 1 Kings 11:7–8, 2 Kings 23:10, and Acts 7:43).