1 Nephi 10:2–3 Textual Variants

In this same passage, three occurrences of the subordinate conjunction that have been eliminated, the first two by Joseph Smith in his editing for the 1837 edition, the third accidentally as Oliver Cowdery copied the text from 𝓞 into 𝓟. Usually Oliver correctly copied examples of “after that”, so the omission here is exceptional.

The first example of deleted that headed a clause that was conjoined with the preceding clause (the one immediately following the subordinate conjunction after). This construction conjoins two clauses: “they were destroyed” and “many were carried away captive into Babylon”. Thus the original use of the that with the second clause is equivalent to using the archaic “after that”. Joseph Smith typically deleted that after a subordinate conjunction, including cases involving clausal conjuncts. For instance, in 1 Nephi 2:11, both that ’s are deleted. Because the clauses are conjoined, the second deletion is equivalent to removing a that after because:

• 1 Nephi 2:11
  • for behold they did murmur in many things against their father because [that 01A| BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] he was a visionary man and [that he 01A| BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] had led them out of the land of Jerusalem

In the example from 1 Nephi 10:3, the first that did not occur immediately following after because after was immediately preceded by a that (“how that after they were destroyed”). The original text tended to avoid the sequence “that after that”, with only one occurrence in the earliest text:

• 1 Nephi 11:9
  • and it came to pass that after that I had seen the tree I said unto the Spirit …

So it is not surprising that this awkward construction is not found in 1 Nephi 10:3. Nonetheless, the that which originally followed the and was an equivalent case of “after that” and was therefore subject to Joseph Smith’s editing. Such an analysis depends on interpreting the after-clause as containing a conjunction of clauses. The original use of the tensed verb form were in both clauses argues for this interpretation. As already noted, the should originally occurred only in the following main clause in 1 Nephi 10:3 (“they should return again”). For additional discussion, see subordinate conjunctions in volume 3.

We now turn to the second that which Joseph Smith deleted from 1 Nephi 10:3. Here we have a case of the repeated that, which occurs frequently in spoken English (as in the sentence “he said that after he came home that he would clean his room”). The repeated that helps the reader remember that the quotation has not yet ended. Very often in the original Book of Mormon text (and in fact still in the current text), the that is repeated when there is an intervening subordinate clause, as in the following examples, the second of which has had the repeated that edited out:

• 1 Nephi 13:28
  • wherefore thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church that there are many plain and most precious things taken away from the book
• Alma 24:19
  • and thus we see that when these Lamanites were brought to believe and to know the truth [that 0A|that >js NULL 1| BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] they were firm and would suffer even unto death rather than to commit sin

David Calabro points out (personal communication) an additional advantage of having the repeated that in 1 Nephi 10:3: it forces the reader to correctly assign the phrase “according to the own due time of the Lord” to the following clause (“they should return again”) and not to the preceding clause (“many were carried away captive into Babylon”). From 1837 on, the printed text has used only commas to set off the phrase “according to the own due time of the Lord”. Thus the current punctuation does not solve the syntactic ambiguity that resulted from deleting the repeated that.

The critical text will restore all examples of the repeated that, providing they are supported by the earliest textual sources. For a complete discussion of the repeated that, see that in volume 3.