Alma 57:29 Textual Variants

The 1837 edition changed the relative pronoun which to who. However, the following singular verb was was kept, which makes it seem like there was only one person in the band (“who was appointed”). One could suppose that the who was refers to Gid rather than to the band, although that too seems odd. If the who is to be retained in the standard text, the was should probably be changed to were.

One question here is whether band should be considered a unity or a group of individuals. Earlier, under Mosiah 23:25, I considered whether army should be semantically viewed as a singular or a plural. Under Alma 43:35, I considered whether the relative pronoun who can be used to refer to army. Those analyses suggest that for Alma 57:29 the standard text could read either as “the band which was appointed” (where band is treated as a unity) or as “the band who were appointed” (where band is treated as a group of individuals). The critical text will, of course, restore the original reading, “the band which was appointed”, but with the understanding that either of the two interpretations is possible.

For some other cases of band, a change of the relative pronoun which to who after band was marked by Joseph Smith in the printer’s manuscript. The use of who is semantically appropriate when the text refers to making a covenant:

• Helaman 1:12
  • and Kishcumen and his band [which 0A|which >js who 1| who BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] had covenanted with him did mingle themselves among the people in a manner that they all could not be found
• Helaman 2:3
  • and he was upheld by his band [which 0A|which >js who 1| who BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] had entered into a covenant that no one should know his wickedness

There is one example in the earliest text where who rather than which refers to the members of a band making a covenant:

• Helaman 6:22
  • that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother nor by those who did belong to his band who had taken this covenant

But there are two cases where the 1837 change from which to who seems inappropriate:

• Helaman 6:18
  • and now behold those murderers and plunderers were a band [which >js who 1|which A|who BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] had been formed by Kishcumen and Gaddianton
• Helaman 11:2
  • and it was this secret band of robbers [which >js whom >js who 1|which A|who BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] did carry on this work of destruction and wickedness

In Helaman 6:18 the band, not its individuals, was formed by Kishcumen and Gaddianton. In Helaman 11:2, because of the preceding robbers, Joseph Smith interpreted the which as referring to the individual robbers rather than to the band itself, but the emphasis in this case seems to be on the band itself as the source of “this work of destruction and wickedness”. There is one case in the text that refers to a band acting as a unity where an original which has been left unchanged:

• Helaman 7:25
  • woe be unto you because of that great abomination which hath come among you and ye have united yourselves unto it yea to that secret band which was established by Gaddianton

In the critical text, which will be restored in all those cases involving grammatical emendation, no matter whether the relative pronoun refers to the band as a unity or as a group of individuals. For further discussion, see under which in volume 3.