Alma 1:26 Textual Variants

The 1830 typesetter changed their priests to the priests. One possible explanation for the change is that the typesetter was influenced by the two occurrences of the people in the following text, especially the second occurrence of the people, which would have occurred just below in the next manuscript line of 𝓞. Both clauses have the same basic syntax and are visually similar:

their priests left their labor to impart the word of God
the people also left their labors to hear the word of God

Thus the change in the first clause of their priests to the priests could have been caused by the syntactic and visual similarity of the two clauses.

Another possibility is that the original text actually read the priests and that early on in the transmission of the text the definite article the was changed to their because of the following their labor. We have evidence for such an error tendency elsewhere in the manuscript transmission of the text:

• 2 Nephi 20:5
  • [their >+– the 1|the ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] staff in their hand
• Alma 23:7
  • [their > the 1|the ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] weapons of their rebellion
• Alma 48:5
  • [the 0ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST|their > the 1] weakest parts of their cities
• Alma 51:6
  • their rights and [the 0ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST|their > the 1] privileges of their religion

Also see the discussion under 1 Nephi 10:3 and 3 Nephi 2:12.

Despite this error tendency, there is substantial evidence elsewhere in the text for the priests of a people to be referred to as “their priests”:

• 2 Nephi 28:4 and their priests shall contend one with another
• Mosiah 23:17 therefore he consecrated all their priests and all their teachers
• Mosiah 25:21 every church having their priests and their teachers
• Mosiah 27:5 and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support
• Alma 23:16 the king consulted with Aaron and many of their priests
• Alma 30:28 lest they should offend their priests
• Alma 35:5 now their rulers and their priests and their teachers did not let the people know concerning their desires

Notice, in particular, the example in Mosiah 27:5 in which their priests is followed by two instances of their (“with their own hands for their support”). Thus there is inherently nothing wrong with “their priests left their labor” in Alma 1:26, although it is always possible that the their is an error influenced by the following their labor. The critical text will here accept the earliest reading of the text since it works quite well.

We note that the text refers to the priests as having “left their labor” but the people as having “left their labors”. One wonders if the disagreement in number for labor might be an error. The plural labors for the people is probably correct since later in the verse the people are referred to as returning “unto their labors”:

• Alma 1:26
  • and when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors

On the other hand, the text can refer to the labor of the priests (that is, in the singular):

• Mosiah 18:26
  • and the priests was not to depend upon the people for their support but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God

The text permits variation in referring to the labor or the labors of people, as in Alma’s statement to Korihor:

• Alma 30:33
  • and notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor

Thus the critical text will allow the variation involving labor(s) in Alma 1:26.