Alma 56:23–24 Textual Variants

Brent Kerby (personal communication, 11 May 2009) proposes that the base verb form bring here is an error for the present-participial form bringing. 𝓞 is not extant here, nor is there enough room in the lacuna between extant fragments for the longer bringing (except by supralinear correction). Yet an original bringing could have been misheard by the scribe (Oliver Cowdery) when taking down Joseph Smith’s dictation since bring ends with the same sound sequence ing as the inflectional ending -ing.

Kerby’s argument for the emendation here is that the text is trying to explain why Helaman and his men supposed they could overpower the Lamanite army, namely, by means of a simultaneous attack from the rear and the front. And their disappointment is not that they were unable to overpower the Lamanites. As explained here in verses 24–26, the Nephites weren’t even given that opportunity: the Lamanites would not come out of the cities that they had already taken. The Nephites’ disappointment, then, was that the Lamanites were not tricked into leaving their places of security so they could be attacked. In the current text, the statement explaining why the Nephites thought they could overpower the Lamanites seems completely unrelated to what has just been said. But by emending bring to bringing, everything suddenly makes sense and is logically connected:

• Alma 56:23–24 (as emended, along with altered accidentals)
  • Therefore we were desirous, if they should pass by us, to fall upon them in their rear; and thus bringing them up in the rear at the same time they were met in the front, we supposed that we could overpower them. But behold, we were disappointed in this our desire. They durst not pass by us with their whole army, neither durst they with a part, lest they should not be sufficiently strong and they should fall.

Although there are no examples of base verbs ending in ing losing the inflectional ending -ing, there is some minor evidence that the present-participial -ing can be lost from a verb under the influence of a preceding finite verb form:

• 1 Nephi 1:1
  • therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father and [haveing 1|having ACDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST|have > having B] seen many afflictions in the course of my days …

Here the preceding finite verb form was seems to have led the 1837 compositor to initially set having as have.

As we would expect, there is syntactic evidence for the use of “and … thus” at the beginning of a subjectless present-participial clause followed by its main clause:

• 1 Nephi 1:8
  • and being thus overcome with the Spirit he was carried away in a vision
• Alma 43:33
  • and thus having placed his army according to his desire he was prepared to meet them
• Alma 49:7
  • and being thus prepared they supposed that they should easily overpower and subject their brethren to the yoke of bondage
• Alma 59:7
  • and thus being exceeding numerous yea and receiving strength from day to day by the command of Ammoron they came forth against the people of Nephihah

Note that in the example in Alma 49:7, the verb in the main clause is suppose and the verb in the following subordinate that- clause is overpower ( just as it is here in Alma 56:23).

It seems rather difficult here in Alma 56:23 to correct the earliest reading by punctuation alone in order to get the correct logical connection between the various clauses. The critical text will therefore accept the emendation here, replacing bring with bringing.

Alma 56:31, pages 2734–35

There are two separate write-ups under Alma 56:31, but they were placed in the wrong order in part 5. The one dealing with “the city (of ) Antiparah” should come first.

Alma 56:37, page 2737, line –15

The word original should be removed here. Here in Alma 56:37, there is no variation in the accidentals for the 1830 edition. The header for this citation should therefore read: “Alma 56:37 (the 1830 text with its accidentals)”.