2 Nephi 11 ᔢ 2 Nephi 11:3 and my brother Jacob [also hath 1A|also has BCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRST|has also J] seen him as I have seen him Here the 1888 LDS large-print edition shifted the placement of the word also, from immediately after the subject “my brother Jacob” to after the perfect auxiliary verb that immediately follows. The variation here also involves an 1837 change of hath to has, but that is irrelevant to the word order issue. (For further discussion of hath versus has, see inflectional endings in volume 3.) Elsewhere the text has 11 examples of also between the subject and the perfect auxiliary verb have: 1 Nephi 1:16 and he also hath written many things 1 Nephi 4:11 and he also had taken away our property 1 Nephi 5:2 and she also had complained against my father 1 Nephi 14:5 and thou also hast heard that . 1 Nephi 17:44 yea and ye also have sought to take away his life 1 Nephi 20:19 thy seed also had been as the sand 2 Nephi 6:9 and he also hath shewn unto me that . Jacob 5:55 the natural trees which also had become wild Jacob 7:12 and it also hath been made manifest unto me Alma 20:29 and they also had su›ered hunger Ether 4:5 and he also hath commanded that . None of these other examples of also were shifted in the 1888 LDS edition, which implies that the shift here in 2 Nephi 11:3 was accidental. The 1888 edition was never used as a copy-text for sub- sequent LDS editions; therefore this error was never perpetuated. For another example of such an accidental shift, see Jacob 7:12; there the 1906 LDS large-print edition accidentally placed the also after the perfect auxiliary. Of course, also can come after the auxiliary verb have. There are, for instance, 20 examples where the subject is immediately followed by the perfect auxiliary have and then also (as in 2 Nephi 5:12: “and I Nephi had also brought the records”). For an example where also was accidentally (but only momentarily) moved in front of the perfect auxiliary, see Alma 33:10. In all these cases, the critical text will follow the earliest textual sources in determining the placement of also. Summary: In 2 Nephi 11:3, the word also immediately follows the subject “my brother Jacob” rather than following the perfect auxiliary verb form hath. analysis of textual variants of the book of mormon [ 651 ] 2 Nephi 11 ᔢ 2 Nephi 11:4 behold my soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ for [ 1|, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] for this end hath the law of Moses been given Although this double occurrence of for (as “for for”) seems awkward to modern English readers, it is nonetheless fairly common in the Book of Mormon text, occurring six times elsewhere: 2 Nephi 25:25 for [NULL >jg , 1|, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] for this end was the law given 2 Nephi 26:10 for [ 1|, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] for the reward of their pride and their foolishness they shall reap destruction 2 Nephi 31:17 for [ 1|, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] for this cause have they been shewn unto me Jacob 4:4 for [ 1|, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] for this intent have we written these things Helaman 14:11 for [ 1|, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] for this intent I have come up upon the walls of this city Moroni 8:6 for [ 1|, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] for this intent I have written this epistle In each instance, the first for is a subordinate conjunction and the second for is a preposition (typically in phrases such as “for this intent”, “for this cause”, and “for this end”). One could shift the word order around to show that the use of the double for is indeed intended, as here in 2 Nephi 11:4: “for the law of Moses hath been given for this end”. In each of these examples, the 1830 type- setter placed a comma between the two for’s, in order to help the reader parse the sentence. None of these double for’s have ever been elided to a single for, either by accident or by editing. This same use of “for for” is found in the King James Bible, but unlike the Book of Mormon editions, the printed King James text does not have a comma between the two for’s: Romans 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: 1 Peter 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, (For these examples, the King James accidentals are provided.) Summary: All instances of double for (that is, “for for”) in the Book of Mormon are intentional and have never been edited, despite their unusualness for modern English readers. [ 652 ] analysis of textual variants of the book of mormon 2 Nephi 11 ᔢ 2 Nephi 11:5 yea my soul delighteth in his grace and [ 1ABCGHKPS|in DEFIJLMNOQRT] his justice and power and mercy in the great and eternal plan of deliverance from death There is no substantial evidence that the 1841 printer ever tried to edit the Book of Mormon text, so the introduction of in here in 2 Nephi 11:5 seems to be a typo, undoubtedly influenced by the occurrence of his before both grace and justice, which thus triggered the repetition of the preceding in. The RLDS text derives from the 1840 Cincinnati (Nauvoo) edition, not from the 1841 British edition; thus the original reading without the extra in has been maintained in the RLDS editions. The introduction of the second in suggests the possibility that “the great and eternal plan of deliverance from death” might depend on only God’s justice, power, and mercy, not his grace. By removing the intrusive second in, the possibility of such a misreading is reduced. Summary: Maintain the reading of the original text by removing the 1841 typo that inserted the preposition in before his justice. ᔢ 2 Nephi 11:8 and now I write some of the words of Isaiah that whoso of my people [which >js NULL 1|which A| BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] shall see these words may lift up their hearts and rejoice for all men The original construction here in 2 Nephi 11:8 reads perfectly well even if it is technically ungram- matical. In his editing for the 1837 edition, Joseph Smith removed the relative pronoun which, but the resulting text is actually more di¤cult to comprehend. Normally in the text, when the relative pronoun whoso(ever) is the subject of a wh-noun clause, the predicate in that noun clause immediately follows, as in 2 Nephi 26:32: “for whoso doeth them shall perish”. There is no di¤culty, of course, in understanding such wh-noun clauses. But here in 2 Nephi 11:8, there is an intervening prepositional phrase (“of my people”) between whoso and the noun-clause predicate (“shall see these words”). If the prepositional phrase had been missing, then “whoso shall see these words” would be the expected phraseology, definitely not “whoso which shall see these words” (or “whoso that shall see these words”). But given the intervening “of my people”, the reader is helped by having the relative pronoun which there. Elsewhere there are only three cases where whoso(ever) is not immediately followed by its predicate: Mosiah 4:28 and I would that ye should remember that whosoever among you [that 1ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQS| RT] borroweth of his neighbor should return the thing that he borroweth analysis of textual variants of the book of mormon [ 653 ] 2 Nephi 11 Helaman 6:24 and whosoever of those [which >js who 1|which A|who BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] belonged to their band should reveal unto the world of their wickedness and their abominations should be tried not according to the laws of their country but according to the laws of their wickedness 3 Nephi 18:13 but whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock but are built upon a sandy foundation In each of these cases, whoso(ever) is postmodified by a prepositional phrase. The first of these (Mosiah 4:28) was originally like 2 Nephi 11:8 in that its prepositional phrase was followed by a relative clause (“whosoever among you that borroweth of his neighbor”). The relative pronoun that was deleted in the 1920 LDS edition, but the RLDS text has retained it. Unlike 2 Nephi 11:8, this example in Mosiah 4:28 was not edited by Joseph Smith. In contrast to the cases in 2 Nephi 11:8 and Mosiah 4:28, the last example (3 Nephi 18:13) is one that has always conformed to the gram- matically preferred style: there is no relative pronoun such as that after “among you”, although it would read more easily if there were: “whoso among you that shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock”. Finally, the example from Helaman 6:24 is more complicated than any of the others and appears to have one clause with the relative pronoun which and one without any relative pronoun. Even this example would read more easily if there were two relative pronouns: “whosoever of those which belonged to their band which should reveal unto the world of their wickedness and their abominations should be tried ...according to the laws of their wickedness”. Obviously, the original text allows both possibilities for this kind of complex whoso(ever) clause (either with or without the relative pronoun after the postmodifying prepositional phrase).