In this passage, both the printer’s manuscript and the 1830 read “in the things which he hath blessed you”. Both these two textual sources are firsthand copies of the original manuscript, so 𝓞 itself very likely read that way. Here the editors for the 1920 LDS edition inserted the preposition with at the beginning of the relative clause, thus “with which he hath blessed you”. Several questions can be asked: (1) was it necessary to insert a preposition? if so, (2) should it have been with? and (3) should it have been inserted at the beginning or at the end of the relative clause?
First of all, grammatical analysis argues for some preposition here since otherwise we end up with two direct objects for the verb bless, (1) the relative pronoun which (which refers to the previous things) and (2) the object pronoun you. Elsewhere in the text, there is evidence for the preposition in as well as with when the verb is bless:
The example in Mosiah 2:41 suggests that here in Helaman 13:22 the preposition could be in. Given the preceding in (“in the things”), such a conjecture would end up with two nearby in’s, “in the things in which he hath blessed you”. In fact, one could argue that the proximity of two in’s led to the loss of the second one. On the other hand, one could argue that the earliest text, “in the things which he hath blessed you”, isn’t really that awkward given that there already is a preceding in.
There is some scribal evidence that supports with, the 1920 emendation, as the original reading: namely, there is an instance where Oliver Cowdery, as he was taking down Joseph Smith’s dictation, initially wrote an original with which as simply which:
There is also an instance in the printer’s manuscript of this kind of momentary loss of with at the beginning of a relative clause; in that case, the initial error was made by scribe 2 of 𝓟, who virtually immediately corrected the text by supralinearly inserting the with:
With respect to the question of whether the preposition, either with or in, should come at the beginning or at the end of the relative clause, the evidence is mixed. With the preposition with, there are three examples elsewhere in the text with an initial with, but there are also two where with occurs at the end of the relative clause (each marked below with an asterisk):
There is also one example in the current text of with which that is not original to the text but derives from Joseph Smith’s editing for the 1837 edition:
Ether 10:26
and they did make all manner of tools [inthewhich >js with which 1|in the which A|
with which BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] they did work their beasts
When the preposition is in, there is also evidence for either position (each case listed below where in is at the end of the relative clause is marked with an asterisk):
* 1 Nephi 13:32 in that state of awful wickedness which thou beholdest that they are in
Alma 12:24 there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent Alma 56:9 here is one thing in which we may have great joy
Helaman 5:21 yea even in that same prison in which Ammon and his brethren were cast by the servants of Limhi
3 Nephi 1:25 they soon became converted and were convinced of the error which they were in
Another way to analyze this question of prepositional positioning is to consider other cases where the antecedent for the relative pronoun is thing(s). For most of these cases, the preposition comes at the beginning of the relative clause; only in two cases does it come at the end of the relative clause (each is marked below with an asterisk):
1 Nephi 10:16 all these things of which I have spoken 1 Nephi 22:3 the things of which I have read
Nephi 22:6 these things of which are spoken
Alma 31:22 things to come which they knew nothing about
Alma 31:28 all their precious things which they are ornamented with
Alma 36:26 these things of which I have spoken Alma 40:9 the thing of which I do know
Alma 40:22 those things of which have been spoken by the mouths of the prophets
Alma 56:9 one thing in which we may have great joy
So the odds are that the preposition was between things and which rather than at the end of the relative clause, if we presume that there was a preposition in the original text. And there is evidence that the preposition itself could be either with or in.
Of considerable relevance to this discussion is the following proposed emendation made earlier in this analysis (in part 1 of volume 4):
Nephi 2:22
and all things which were created must have remained
in the same state [ 1ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQS|in RT] which they were after that they were created
Under that passage, I argued that if the preposition in was originally in the relative clause, it would have come at the end of the relative clause rather than at the beginning (the editors for the 1920 LDS edition put it at the beginning):
2 Nephi 2:22 (proposed emendation)
and all things which were created must have remained in the same state which they were in
after that they were created
So for 2 Nephi 2:22 I ended up accepting this emendation. But it should be noted that the earliest text there reads much like here in Helaman 13:22, namely, with a preceding in that is not repeated in the relative clause:
2 Nephi 2:22 in the same state which they were Helaman 13:22 in the things which he hath blessed you
Further evidence for this construction can be found later in the text:
Ether 13:15
and it came to pass that in that same year [ 1ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQS|in RT] which he was cast out from among the people there began to be a great war among the people
And as with these two other cases, the 1920 LDS edition inserted a preposition before which (in this third case, it was in, as in 2 Nephi 2:22).
All three readings support one another and argue that in each case the earliest reading without the initial preposition should be restored in the critical text. Although the original reading is unexpected and somewhat awkward, it has been retained in the RLDS editions for each of these three cases. This decision means that the proposed emendation in 2 Nephi 2:22 will need to be reversed. I will consider that case more fully at the end of this volume of the critical text, in the addenda where I evaluate a few additional revisions to the text.
Summary: Remove in Helaman 13:22 the preposition with that the 1920 LDS edition added to the relative clause; the earliest reading, “in the things which he hath blessed you”, is not all that difficult, and it is supported by the earliest reading in 2 Nephi 2:22 (“in the same state which they were”) and in Ether 13:15 (“in that same year which he was cast out from among the people”).