3 Nephi 11:18 Textual Variants

The printer’s manuscript doesn’t have the pronoun he in the conjoined clause, but the 1830 edition does. The reading with the he is, of course, much easier to parse. The pronoun seems necessary because of the intervening clause “for Nephi was among the multitude”. When the he is missing, one tends to initially interpret Nephi as the subject of the verb command (“for Nephi was among the multitude and commanded him that he should come forth”), as if Nephi were commanding Christ to come forward. In fact, one could argue that the 1830 typesetter emended the text by adding the he precisely because of this difficulty.

Errors in manuscript copying definitely show that Oliver Cowdery tended to drop the pronoun he at the beginning of a conjoined clause, including two cases (each marked below with an asterisk) where the change was permanently made as Oliver copied from 𝓞 into 𝓟:

• * 1 Nephi 12:6 (error in copying from 𝓞 into 𝓟)
  • and he came down and [he 0| 1ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] shewed himself unto them
• Mosiah 11:27 (initial error in 𝓟)
  • he was also wroth and [NULL >+ he 1|he ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] saith …
• Alma 18:1–2 (error in 𝓞 or initial error in 𝓟)
  • and it came to pass that king Lamoni caused that his servants should stand forth and testify to all the things which they had seen concerning the matter and when they had all testified to the things which they had seen and [NULL >p– he 1|he ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] had learned of the faithfulness of Ammon in preserving his flocks … [In 𝓟, Oliver Cowdery added the he lightly in pencil.]
• Alma 21:4 (initial error in 𝓟)
  • and it came to pass that Aaron came to the city of Jerusalem and firstly began to preach to the Amlicites and [NULL >+ he 1|he ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] began to preach to them in their synagogues
• Alma 46:13 (initial error in 𝓞)
  • and he called it the title of liberty and [NULL >+ he 0|he 1ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] bowed himself to the earth
• * Alma 51:25 (error in copying from 𝓞 into 𝓟)
  • but it came to pass that Amalickiah would not suffer the Lamanites to go against the city of Nephihah to battle but [he 0| 1ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] kept them down by the seashore
• Alma 55:16 (initial error in 𝓟)
  • and Moroni had prepared his men with weapons of war and [he 0ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST|NULL > he 1] went to the city of Gid
• Ether 14:3 (initial error in 𝓟)
  • behold there arose the brother of Shared and [NULL > he 1|he ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] gave battle unto Coriantumr
• Ether 14:17 (initial error in 𝓟)
  • and he did slay both men women and children and [NULL >+ he 1|he ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] did burn the cities thereof

On the other hand, there is one instance where the 1830 typesetter consciously inserted a he in this context:

• Mosiah 24:11
  • and it came to pass that Amulon commanded them that they should stop their cries and [NULL >jg he 1|he ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] put guards over them to watch them

Interestingly, the sentence in 3 Nephi 11:18, like the one in Mosiah 24:11, has an intervening clause that, if treated parenthetically, allows for a following subject pronoun he to be ellipted:

Moreover, the resulting difficulty in parsing would have provided strong motivation for the 1830 typesetter to emend the text by inserting the he in both these passages. To be sure, Oliver Cowdery could have accidentally omitted the he in these two cases, just as he did elsewhere. Here is another example, but in a different context, where the 1830 typesetter felt obligated to supply a subject he:

• Alma 12:17
  • and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction according to the power and captivity of Satan [NULL >jg he 1|he ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] having subjected them according to his will

These examples show that the 1830 typesetter was willing to add a subject he when he felt it was necessary. Ultimately, it is difficult here in 3 Nephi 11:18 to decide between the two alternatives (Oliver omitting the he in 𝓟 or the 1830 typesetter adding it). In fact, there is a third possibility: the he could have been accidentally omitted in 𝓞 itself (when Oliver, the presumed scribe in 𝓞, took down Joseph Smith’s dictation).

The reading in 𝓟, without the he after and, will work providing we explicitly indicate the parenthetical nature of the intervening clause. In fact, the 1830 typesetter placed parentheses around this clause (and all printed editions have retained the parentheses). Note, however, that the parentheses are crucial only if we adopt the reading in 𝓟. The critical text will continue the parenthetical treatment of the intervening clause but with dashes:

• 3 Nephi 11:18 (the reading in 𝓟, with parenthetical punctuation)
  • and it came to pass that he spake unto Nephi
    —for Nephi was among the multitude—
    and commanded him that he should come forth

There are other instances where such readings without a conjoined he are found in the text (two more are listed under Mosiah 24:11). And as already noted, in Mosiah 24:11 the 1830 typesetter explicitly added the subject pronoun he in 𝓟, showing that he was willing to emend readings like these with intervening clauses. The critical text will therefore accept the difficult reading here in 3 Nephi 11:18 (namely, the reading in 𝓟 without the he).

For a similar example with this variation (namely, he in the 1830 edition but lacking in 𝓟), see under 4 Nephi 1:49. In that case, the scribe in 𝓟 was the unknown scribe 2 rather than Oliver Cowdery. There is also an example where the variation is the opposite (he in 𝓟 but lacking in the 1830 edition); for that example, see under 3 Nephi 14:1.

and commanded him that he should come forth”); this textual decision means that the 1830 typesetter added the he in 3 Nephi 11:18, just as he did in Mosiah 24:11; yet the possibility remains that the he was in the original text and that it was accidentally omitted in 𝓞 itself or when 𝓞 was copied into 𝓟.