The priests, by asking a question of scriptural interpretation, have allowed Abinadi to shift the grounds of the attack from his sedition to their competency. When Abinadi asks what they teach, they answer that they teach the law of Moses. Why do they say this? I propose that Noah’s religion has apostatized from Zeniff’s because he has adopted foreign aspects, resulting in “whoredoms” and “idolatry.” Yet it seems unlikely that the altered religion is a completely new one. Even under the duress of outright conquest, conquered peoples still attempt to retain some of their previous culture and religion. Doubtless the apostate elements included a foundation of the Mosaic law, with interpretations of that law to justify it. It seems logical that Noah’s courts justified their polygamy by appealing to Solomon’s and David’s practices, since this is also what occurred during Jacob’s time. Thus, the priests’ quick answer that they teach the law of Moses positions themselves as defenders of that law of Moses, while, in contrast, Abinadi would be guilty of opposing it. (See “Excursus: Religion of the Nehors,” following Alma 1.)
Variant: The 1830 text for verse 27 reads “… therefore what teachest thou this people.” This has been changed to “therefore what teach ye this people?” The shift from “thou” (singular) to “ye” (plural) recognizes that Abinadi is addressing a group, but the meaning does not change. In fact, modern usage reflects the underlying text better than the 1830 edition. Joseph Smith could easily make the error since Jacobean English was not native to him, despite his undoubted familiarity with the King James Bible. Like similar errors in the Book of Mormon text, the best explanation is that, while the translation remains faithful to the text’s meaning, the method of translation allowed the expression of those ideas in Joseph’s language.