3 Nephi 12:34 Textual Variants

Here we have an instance of variation between the single verily and the double verily. There is a similar instance of this variation in 3 Nephi 12:26. In both passages, 𝓟 has verily while the 1830 edition has verily verily. As discussed under 3 Nephi 12:26, internal evidence argues in that case that the original text read verily and that the 1830 typesetter added an additional verily. In this passage, on the other hand, internal evidence is not as clear, although overall the odds seem to favor the double verily as the reading of the original text.

Counting the example here in 3 Nephi 12:34, there are eight cases in the Book of Mormon version of the Sermon on the Mount where the text has a form of verily but the King James text has no verily, neither single nor double. (Actually, only the singular verily is possible in Matthew 5–7 since in the King James Bible the double verily is found only in the Gospel of John.) In almost all of these eight cases, the Book of Mormon text has the double verily:

In 3 Nephi 12:20, we get the single verily in both 𝓟 and the 1830 edition. And here in 3 Nephi 12:34, we get the single verily, but only in 𝓟; the 1830 edition has the more expected verily verily. Since the clear majority of these cases favor the double verily, one could argue that the original reading in 3 Nephi 12:34 was verily verily. If that is the case, then Oliver Cowdery, the scribe for 𝓟, must have accidentally reduced verily verily to verily in this verse.

One of the problems in deciding between verily and verily verily here in 3 Nephi 12:34 as well as in 3 Nephi 12:26 is that these are the only two instances of variation for “verily (verily)” in the entire Book of Mormon. When we consider all the other cases of “verily (verily) I say (unto you)” in the text (there are 46 of them), we find that the text shows an equal split between the single and double verily (23 of each type), yet none of these other cases show any variation between the single and the double verily. For the case of variation in 3 Nephi 12:26, it seems fairly clear that the original text had the single verily, which means that the 1830 typesetter was responsible for the variation in that verse. If so, then one could argue that this increases the odds that the typesetter was responsible for the variation later on here in 3 Nephi 12:34. Unfortunately, for both these cases of variation we must rely on conjecture. We really have no firm evidence regarding error tendencies for “verily (verily)” in the text.

It is also worth looking at whether there is any connection between any preceding conjunctive element(s) and the occurrence of single versus double verily. In the examples listed above, verily verily systematically occurs when there is no sentence-initial conjunctive element (six times). In 3 Nephi 12:20, the text has a single verily; yet it is preceded by the conjunction for (“for verily I say unto you”). 3 Nephi 12:34 also has a conjunction, but; thus one could argue that the original text here had one verily (“but verily I say unto you”), just like in 3 Nephi 12:20. However, when we look at the larger use of “verily (verily)” in the text, there is not much support for such a relationship. Excluding the two cases of variation (in 3 Nephi 12:26 and 3 Nephi 12:34), we get the following general statistics for “verily (verily) I say (unto you)” in the Book of Mormon text:

Overall, these statistics show that the choice of either the single verily or the double verily is not determined by what connector precedes the verily. Nor does there seem to be any connection between whether or not there is a sentence-initial connector.

It appears that the most salient factor here in 3 Nephi 12:34 is that verily verily is strongly favored in the Book of Mormon version of the Sermon on the Mount when there is no corresponding verily in the King James version (in Matthew 5–7). The critical text will therefore accept the 1830 reading, verily verily, in this passage, thus assuming here that Oliver Cowdery was responsible for reducing the double verily to a single verily in 𝓟. Even so, the possibility remains that the 1830 typesetter added a second verily to this passage, just like he presumably did earlier in 3 Nephi 12:26. On the other hand, the critical text will retain the exceptional instance of the single verily in 3 Nephi 12:20 (“for verily I say unto you”) since both 𝓟 and the 1830, the earliest textual sources, read that way.