In his editing of the printer’s manuscript for the 1837 edition, Joseph Smith marked several changes, mostly minor, here in verses 45–46. The initial 1837 sheets that were printed for this gathering of four leaves (signature F2) did not include these changes, but later while proofing his copy-text (a marked-up copy of the 1830 edition, not the printer’s manuscript itself ), the 1837 printer apparently discovered that these changes had been missed. So he stopped the presswork and made the following in-press changes for that gathering:
| 1837, initial state | 1837, final state |
| because that I plucked not the branches | because I plucked not the branches |
| it hath withered away | it has withered away |
| the trees thereof hath become corrupted | the trees thereof have become corrupted |
| I had hope to preserve | I had hoped to preserve |
All these changes are found on the last seven lines on page 144, the last page of the gathering.
The 1837 edition was used as the copy-text for both the 1840 Cincinnati/Nauvoo edition and the 1841 British edition. It also seems to have been occasionally consulted for the 1849 British edition. Because of these in-press changes, the 1837 copies varied for this page, and thus we get considerable variation in the subsequent printing history for these four changes. For further discussion of the complex relationships between these early editions, see the textual history of the editions in volume 3.
Joseph Smith’s editing of hath to has was extremely idiosyncratic. For instance, in the olive tree allegory, he changed three cases of hath to has, all in this same part of the text (namely, in Jacob 5:45–48):
In the last case, Joseph should have edited the hath to have. Later, in his editing for the 1840 edition, he changed this has to the grammatically correct have.
In all other places in the olive tree allegory, Joseph Smith either left hath unchanged (14 times) or changed hath to have to achieve number agreement with a plural subject (4 times). See Jacob 5:18 for a list of the instances of hath that were edited to have. The critical text will, of course, restore all instances of hath whenever they are supported by the earliest textual sources. For further discussion, see infl al endings in volume 3. Also see subordinate conjunctions in volume 3 for discussion of the editing of because that to because. For the in-press change involving had hope(d), see the immediately following discussion.
Summary: Restore the original use of the archaic because that and hath wherever they are supported by the earliest textual sources (including here in Jacob 5:45–46).