Ether 8:22 Textual Variants

Here the 1837 edition changed avengeth to avenge, which may very well be due to conscious editing (although the change was not marked by Joseph Smith in 𝓟). What we have here is the replacement of the indicative avengeth with the subjunctive avenge. Elsewhere in the text, there is another example of the subjunctive in a similar context:

• Mormon 9:19
  • and if there was miracles wrought then why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being

Nonetheless, there are other cases, also in hypothetical contexts, where the original Book of Mormon text has the indicative but later editing by Joseph Smith has replaced the indicative with the subjunctive:

• Alma 27:7
  • and if he [sayeth >js say 1|saith A|say BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRT|said S] unto us …
• Helaman 12:18
  • and behold if a man [hideth >js hide 1|hideth A| hide BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] up a treasure in the earth …
• 3 Nephi 18:31
  • but if he [repenteth >js repent 1|repenteth A| repent BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] not …

(Also see under Helaman 12:13–14, 16–18 for four cases where Joseph Smith, in his editing for the 1837 edition, replaced the indicative “if he saith” with the subjunctive “if he say”.) These examples involving if- clauses suggest that Joseph was also responsible for the 1837 change here in Ether 8:22.

One semantic consideration with respect to Ether 8:22 is that the indicative avengeth sounds like God will never avenge his saints, whereas the subjunctive avenge makes sure that the reader realizes that the statement in the yet- clause is hypothetical. A similar hypothetical sense is main-tained in the other subjunctive example listed above, in Mormon 9:19.

David Calabro (personal communication) notes that the -eth could have been accidentally added by Oliver Cowdery during the dictation of the text since it would have been difficult to hear the difference between avenge and avengeth in the environment of the following them. Note that them begins with a voiced interdental fricative while the -eth inflectional suffix ends in a voiceless interdental fricative. Thus the main perceptual clue to the difference would have been an extra schwa sound in avengeth them when compared with avenge them.

Ultimately, we have to recognize that the indicative avengeth is possible here in Ether 8:22 since we have cases in the Book of Mormon text of both indicative and subjunctive forms in hypothetical clauses. The critical text will therefore restore the earliest reading, the indicative avengeth, here in Ether 8:22.