Ether 3:18 Textual Variants

The 1840 edition replaced the past-tense knew with might know. This change is very likely the result of Joseph Smith’s editing for that edition; such a change does not appear to be accidental. The 1852 LDS edition adopted this reading, and all subsequent LDS editions have followed it. The 1908 RLDS edition, on the other hand, restored the earlier knew since that was the reading in 𝓟.

Elsewhere in the text we have several examples of the expression “and (all) this that …”; each one takes a conditional modal such as might or should and assigns a reason or purpose for events that have just been described:

• Alma 7:11
  • and he shall go forth suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith : he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people
• Alma 13:16
  • now these ordinances were given after this manner that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God it being a type of his order or it being his order and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins that they might enter into the rest of the Lord
• Alma 26:30
  • and we have suffered all manner of afflictions and all this that perhaps we might be the means of saving some soul
• Alma 56:37
  • and as we supposed that it was their intent to slay us before Antipus should overtake them and this that they might not be surrounded by our people
• Helaman 6:22
  • and it came to pass that they did have their signs yea their secret signs and their secret words and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant
• Helaman 8:18
  • yea and behold I say unto you that Abraham not only knew of these things but there were many before the days of Abraham which were called by the order of God yea even after the order of his Son and this that it should be shewn unto the people a great many thousand years before his coming that even redemption should come unto them

The 1840 change in Ether 3:18 to the conditional might know thus affects the relationship within the larger sentence, which ends up stating that the Lord showed himself to the brother of Jared (“he ministered unto him”) so that the brother of Jared would know that he was God. Yet the following two verses explain that it was because the brother of Jared already had a “perfect knowledge of God” (he saw his finger) that he was allowed to see his entire person (thus comparable to his appearance to the Nephites after his resurrection):

• Ether 3:19–20
  • and because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil and he saw the finger of Jesus which when he saw he fell with fear for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord and he had faith no longer for he knew / nothing doubting wherefore having this perfect knowledge of God he could not be kept from within the veil therefore he saw Jesus and he did minister unto him

So in verse 18 the meaning of the clause “and all this that this man knew that he was God” is ‘and all this because this man knew that he was God’.

David Calabro (personal communication) suggests that the original text here actually read “and all this because that this man knew that he was God”; that is, the word because was accidentally lost during the early transmission of the text. (As explained under 1 Nephi 1:14, the subordinate conjunction because was often followed by that in the original text.) There are, in fact, two instances of this usage in the text, one with the that and one without:

• Mosiah 10:12–13
  • they were a wild and ferocious and a bloodthirsty people believing in the tradition of their fathers which is this : believing that they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem because of the iniquities of their fathers and that they were wronged in the wilderness by their brethren and they were also wronged while crossing the sea and again that they were wronged while in the land of their first inheritance after they had crossed the sea and all this because that Nephi was more faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord
• Mosiah 20:21
  • for are not the words of Abinadi fulfilled which he prophesied against us and all this because we would not hearken unto the word of the Lord and turn from our iniquities

In the first case, the text states that all these so-called wrongs against the Lamanites were the consequence of Nephi’s faithfulness in keeping the Lord’s commandments. The text does not say that these things happened so that “Nephi would be more faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord”. Similarly, in the second case the text explains why the words of Abinadi were fulfilled.

Also note that the phraseology in both cases is in the past tense (“Nephi was more faithful” and “we would not hearken unto the word of the Lord”, where would is the past-tense form for the auxiliary verb will ), just like it is in Ether 3:18 (“and all this that this man knew that he was God”). In all three cases (Mosiah 10:13, Mosiah 20:21, and Ether 3:18) the point is to explain why some- thing happened.

Calabro also points out that, given this emendation in Ether 3:18 (“and all this because that this man knew that he was God”), the immediately following statement, “because of the many great works which the Lord had shewed unto him”, must necessarily refer to works that the Lord had already shown the brother of Jared (that is, prior to showing him his whole person). Some of these works include the Lord not confounding their language (Ether 1:33–37), the Lord speaking to them from a cloud while leading them through the wilderness (Ether 2:5–6), the Lord telling them how to build the barges (Ether 2:16–18), and the Lord causing the 16 stones to “shine forth in darkness” (Ether 3:4–6). Such great works would have been enough to convince the brother of Jared of God’s existence, let alone seeing the finger of God.

So the question remains whether the original text in Ether 3:18 had the subordinate conjunction because. There isn’t any evidence that Oliver Cowdery ever omitted because, even momentarily, as he took down Joseph Smith’s dictation or as he copied the text from 𝓞 into 𝓟. There is one case where scribe 2 of 𝓟 omitted because (and Oliver supplied it when he proofed 𝓟 against 𝓞):

• Mosiah 29:20
  • but behold he did deliver them because they did humble themselves before and [𝓢① NULL > 𝓢② because 1|because ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] they cried mightily unto him he did deliver them out of bondage

The preceding use of because in this passage could have led to the omission of the second one. Similarly, Calabro suggests for Ether 3:18 that the first because could have been omitted because of the second one later in the sentence (namely, “because of the many great works which the Lord had shewed unto him”). In any event, the conjectured because seems necessary in order to get the correct meaning. Thus the critical text will accept the suggested emendation of because in Ether 3:18, along with restoring the original past-tense knew (thus “and all this because that this man knew that he was God”).