Alma 50:27–28 Textual Variants

Royal Skousen
but behold the people which possessed the land of Lehi fled to the camp of Moroni and appealed unto him for assistance →for behold they were not in the wrong and it came to pass that [ 0|NULL >jg when 1|when ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] the people of Morionton which were led by a man whose name was Morionton found that the people of Lehi had fled to the camp of Moroni they were exceeding fearful lest the army of Moroni should come upon them and destroy them

Here in the printer’s manuscript, the subordinate conjunction when was added in pencil, apparently by the 1830 compositor, John Gilbert. There is a possibility that the when was added by Oliver Cowdery. Textually, it makes little difference who made the emendation; since the when was written in pencil, it was probably added in the print shop and without consulting 𝓞 itself, which is extant here and lacks the when or any other subordinate conjunction. For discussion of the use of pencil in the print shop, see under Alma 22:22–23.

The when definitely seems necessary here in Alma 50:28 since the following clause (listed above as 2) repeats the language of an earlier clause in verse 27 (listed above as 1). The text seems excessively repetitious if there is no subordinate conjunction for the clause in verse 28, which was the apparent motive for supplying the when. Note, however, that this earlier information is not found in the immediately preceding clause (which I have marked with an arrow) but before it.

Elsewhere in the text, we have a number of instances of “it came to pass” followed by a subordinate clause that repeats narrative information from an earlier clause. If the information does not occur in the immediately preceding clause, then when is the preferred subordinate conjunction; in each of the following examples, I use an arrow to mark the clause that intervenes between the original information and its repetition in the later when-clause:

When the information is found in the immediately preceding clause, the subordinate conjunction can be either when or after:

Since in Alma 50:27–28 there is an intervening clause (“for behold they were not in the wrong”), the decision to supply when rather than after was probably correct.

There is considerable evidence in the manuscripts that Oliver Cowdery sometimes omitted the subordinate conjunction when, especially after “it came to pass (that)”:

On the other hand, there appears to be no example where Oliver omitted after in the manuscripts. There is one case where he later thought he had omitted an after in 𝓞, but he was wrong; instead, he had omitted an and. See under Jacob 7:1 for discussion of that case. Thus manuscript evidence supports the decision to supply when rather than after as the subordinate conjunction in Alma 50:28. The critical text will therefore accept the emendation made in 𝓟 (most likely by the compositor) in the print shop while the 1830 edition was being typeset.

Summary: Accept in Alma 50:28 the conjectural emendation that the 1830 compositor, it would appear, made in 𝓟, namely, his addition of the subordinate conjunction when after “it came to pass that”; usage elsewhere in the text and evidence from scribal errors support this emendation.

Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part. 4

References