For the 1837 edition, Joseph Smith changed the determiner from that to the in the phrase “at that time”. This change makes the determiner consistent with usage elsewhere in the text: when the determiner is specific (either that, any, this, or some ), the prepositional phrase “at time” takes no postmodifier; but when the determiner is the, we always get some kind of postmodifi- cation. We have the following statistics (where NP stands for “noun phrase” and S for “sentence”):
| without a postmodifier | |
| at that time | 9 |
| at any time | 8 |
| at this time | 34 |
| at this present time | 1 |
| at this period of time | 4 |
| at some period of time | 1 |
| with a postmodifier | |
| at the time + of + NP | 11 |
| at the time + S | 12 |
| at the time + that + S | 6 |
| at the same time + S | 1 |
| at the same time + that + S | 1 |
In the cases where the postmodifier is a sentence, sometimes the that is present, sometimes not.
Where the that is not stated, we can consider its omission as a case of ellipsis. The that, whether stated or not, is a relative pronoun and is adverbial in nature; in each instance, its antecedent is the preceding word time.
The above list excludes cases where the postmodifier is a clause that begins with a wh-initial relative pronoun acting adverbially, such as when:
There are also cases where the relative pronoun is which. This alternative is suggested by the frequent occurrence in the list of the adverbial that serving as the relative pronoun. For instance, in 1 Nephi 19:2 the original manuscript first read “at that time which I made them”. This construction, although odd, is equivalent to “at that time that I made them”. Another example, left unedited, maintains the original which instead of the more normal that:
Of course, in 1 Nephi 19:2, the repetition of the two that ’s (in the hypothetical “at that time that I made them”) is awkward, which may be the reason why the original text read “at that time which I made them”.
At some later time, Oliver Cowdery edited the which in 𝓞 to when. His correction to when has a heavier and uneven ink flow, so this change is definitely not an immediate correction. At the same time he made this correction, Oliver also made another correction two lines earlier in 𝓞 (compare the supralinear corrections in lines 27 and 29 on page 38 of 𝓞). Here Oliver inserted the determiner my in order to correct “the Record of father” to “the Record of my father”. This correction is obvious and is sufficiently far enough away from the change of which to when to suggest that neither of these two changes were made when Oliver Cowdery repeated the text back to Joseph Smith right after having first copied it down. In other words, the nature of these two changes in 𝓞 strongly suggest that both involve later editing.
There are other examples in the original text of which occurring where modern English readers would expect when:
In three of these cases, Joseph Smith edited the which to when (the ones in 3 Nephi 2 for the 1837 edition, the one in Alma 13:1 for the 1840 edition), but in the first example (in Alma 8:15) the which has never been edited to when. In the last example, the 1920 LDS edition inserted the preposition in at the head of the relative clause (before the relative pronoun which).
David Calabro points out (personal communication) that the use of the relative pronoun which instead of the adverbial when may be viewed as a Hebraism. Hebrew uniformly uses the single relative pronoun ƒa¸ser ‘which’, even when dealing with time, as in the following example:
1 Kings 22:25
(For other examples, see page 334 in Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990].) From this Hebraistic point of view, all of the Book of Mormon examples that use which to mean ‘when’ are acceptable. And even in English the use of the alternative relative pronoun that readily occurs as an adverbial relative pronoun (as in 1 Nephi 10:4, “from the time that my father left Jerusalem”).
Therefore, in accord with the earliest textual sources, the original which will be restored in four passages (1 Nephi 19:2, Alma 13:1, 3 Nephi 2:7, and 3 Nephi 2:8). Despite the uniqueness of the that in “at that time” in 1 Nephi 19:2, given that time is postmodified, its use appears to be intended and should therefore be maintained. In fact, there is one example involving a different preposition for which that rather than the expected the occurs:
The syntax here is considerably convoluted, but we do have the prepositional phrase “until that time” and it is eventually modified by a that-clause (“that he should rise”), after an intervening prepositional phrase (“on the morrow”) and a relative clause (“which Ammon had appointed”). And it is also possible that the preceding “from that time” may have influenced the choice of that in the following “until that time”. Although this is only one example (and a complex one), it does show that it is possible to have “ that time” postmodified by a clause.
Summary: Restore the original reading in 1 Nephi 19:2 (“at that time which I made them”), even though the text definitely prefers the rather than that when time is postmodified; also maintain which as an adverbial relative pronoun whenever it is supported by the earliest textual sources, as here in 1 Nephi 19:2.