Lyle Fletcher (personal communication, 19 May 2008) wonders here if the indefinite article a isn’t missing before the noun man. Usage elsewhere in the text supports the reading with the a (or an) for the noun following “the form of ”:
(Note, in particular, the similarity between 1 Nephi 11:11 and Mosiah 13:34: both have man after “the form of ”.) There is one difference, however, between these four examples and the one in Mosiah 13:34. For the four with the indefinite article, the form is preceded by the preposition in, while here in Mosiah 13:34 “the form of man” acts as the direct object for the verb phrase “to take upon oneself ”. In this case, if a were added to man, there would be a tendency to interpret the sentence as saying that God would take upon himself the form of a particular man. Here in Mosiah 13:34 the meaning is that God will take upon himself the form of mankind. Here is another passage that supports the generic usage, where man occurs without a:
Note that Mosiah 7:27 does not say “that he should take upon him the image of a man”. In other words, we have a generic use of man in both Mosiah 7:27 and Mosiah 13:34, not a specific use; thus man without a is actually appropriate in Mosiah 13:34. The critical text will therefore continue with the earliest reading here in Mosiah 13:34 (“and take upon him the form of man”).
Summary: Maintain in Mosiah 13:34 the generic use of man without the indefinite article a before the noun.
Mosiah 16:1, pages 1342–43
Near the middle of page 1343, I mentioned that each of the cases of variation listed on pages 1342–43 is individually discussed. And except for 3 Nephi 4:8, they are. The analysis for this one missing analysis is covered in the addendum for 3 Nephi 4:8 here at the end of part 6 of volume 4.
Mosiah 16:1, page 1344, line –19
As explained under the addendum for Jacob 5:47, the word about should be removed from this line, so that it reads “I have nourished it and I have digged it”.
Mosiah 16:3, page 1348, line 5
The citation here for Moroni 4:1 begins an original section of the text, so by convention the initial letter of the first word is capitalized (thus “The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church”).
Mosiah 18:8, page 1368
In the summary for this write-up, I should add that “also the original singular is will be restored”.
Mosiah 18:34–35, page 1378, line –5
In the last sentence before the summary, had should be changed to have, thus “Oliver would never have added such specific information to the text”.
Mosiah 20:18, page 1403, lines 7–8
The emendation in 𝓟 for the first variant listed in this citation was by Joseph Smith, so the symbol js should be added, giving the following:
and [is it not they >js are not they the ones 1|is it not they A|
are not they the ones BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST]
Mosiah 20:26, page 1408, lines 8–10
The reference to Mosiah 22:2 at the end of this discussion regarding Mosiah 20:26 is a mistake and should be deleted. The particular problem in Mosiah 22:2 is not even discussed in this writeup; the that in Mosiah 22:2 is a resultive that (see the discussion under that passage). Thus the last sentence before the summary should read as follows:
The critical text will therefore maintain the earliest reading with the nonsubordinate that here in Mosiah 20:26.
Mosiah 23:13–14, pages 1442–43
To the list here on these two pages, we can add one more example where a present participial verb form was momentarily added to the text (in this case, in 𝓞) but was immediately corrected:
The form regulating was very likely prompted by the immediately preceding making.