The occurrence of the past participle taken here in Mosiah 15:9 (indicated above with an arrow) appears to involve some error in the early transmission. Several possibilities have been suggested. First of all, an and might be missing before the taken. Note that such an and is found in the immediately following participial clause: “having redeemed them and satisfied the demands of justice”. In other words, Mosiah 15:9 could be emended by inserting an and before taken:
having broken the bands of death
→ and taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions
having redeemed them
and satisfied the demands of justice
Elsewhere in the text, we always get a conjunction (usually and ) connecting such conjuncts of past participial verb forms:
For two additional occurrences of this construction in the earliest text, both with a connecting and, see Mosiah 23:1 and Mosiah 29:42.
A second possible emendation for Mosiah 15:9 would be to add having before taken; that is, the original text may have read “having taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions”. This reading is supported by the long unbroken sequence of present-participial clauses in this passage:
having gained the victory over death
giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men
having ascended into heaven
having the bowels of mercy
being filled with compassion toward the children of men
standing betwixt them and justice
having broken the bands of death
→ having taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions
having redeemed them and satisfied the demands of justice
This emendation would assume that having was accidentally omitted during the early transmission of the text.
A third possible emendation for Mosiah 15:9 (suggested by Lyle Fletcher, personal communication, 14 January 2004) is to replace taken with taking. This emendation would also provide an unbroken sequence of present-participial clauses:
having gained the victory over death
giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men
having ascended into heaven
having the bowels of mercy
being filled with compassion toward the children of men
standing betwixt them and justice
having broken the bands of death
→ taking upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions
having redeemed them and satisfied the demands of justice
In this case, the error could have occurred in 𝓞 since taking might have been misheard as taken, especially because taking may have been pronounced as /teikßn/, identically to taken. Such a pronunciation is common in colloquially spoken English. Another possibility is that an original taking could have been miscopied when Oliver Cowdery copied this passage from 𝓞 into 𝓟; both taking and taken are visually similar. Further, the preceding use of broken (“having broken the bands of death”) could have prompted the scribe of either manuscript to have written taken.
There is one potential example in the history of the text where the -en and the -ing inflectional endings might have been mixed up in the early transmission of the text; the change in the 1852 LDS edition for the following passage suggests the possibility that taking, the earliest reading, may have been an error for taken:
For discussion of this possibility, see under Alma 16:3.
One potential problem with the third emendation is that the passage itself seems to require the perfect taken rather than the present participle taking. Abinadi is referring to Christ at the day of judgment, after his resurrection, when he will have already “gained the victory over death ... broken the bands of death … taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions … redeemed them and satisfied the demands of justice”. Of course, at the day of judgment, the Son will have power to show mercy. For those statements referring to his mercy, the perfect is not used: “giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men … having the bowels of mercy / being filled with compassion toward the children of men / standing betwixt them and justice”. This consistent difference in aspect argues that the perfect should be maintained in “taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions”. In terms of meaning, inserting either and or having seems more plausible as an emendation in Mosiah 15:9 than changing taken to taking.
The evidence from scribal errors seems to support the loss of having in Mosiah 15:9 more than the loss of and, at least in this context. There are no specific examples in the transmission of the manuscripts where and has ever been lost before a conjoined past-participial form, while there is evidence that Oliver Cowdery, in copying from 𝓞 to 𝓟, sometimes omitted the auxiliary verb form having:
For one other possible case where having might have been omitted in the early transmission of the text, see the discussion under Jacob 4:11 regarding the reading “having faith and (having) obtained a good hope of glory in him”.
Based on this evidence, the critical text will emend Mosiah 15:9 by placing having before taken; this will result in a sequence of three present-participial clauses headed by having:
having broken the bands of death
→ having taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions
having redeemed them and satisfied the demands of justice
There is support elsewhere in the text for such a sequence of three having-clauses without any connectors of any kind:
As in the proposed emendation for Mosiah 15:9, all the examples of having in Mosiah 8:8 are instances of the perfect auxiliary form having.
Summary: Emend Mosiah 15:9 by inserting having before taken: “having taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions”; another possible emendation would be to insert and before taken, but evidence from scribal errors supports the omission of having over and in this context.