In this passage we have a couple of textual variants involving needs be. First, in the printer’s manuscript scribe 2 skipped there must, but Oliver Cowdery (when he proofed 𝓟 against 𝓞) inserted the there must. The 1830 compositor set the correct reading (“there must needs be a change”). For related discussion of this particular omission, see under Alma 28:2–3.
The second textual variant occurs in the next clause, where 𝓟 is missing the subject pronoun it but the 1830 edition has it. Yet one wonders here in this second case if the text shouldn’t read must in front of needs be. When we consider all other examples of needs in the Book of Mormon text, we find that there is always a preceding must except once when needs is a nonidiomatic plural noun: “according to their needs and their wants” (Mosiah 18:29). This example is not relevant here since in 3 Nephi 28:37 the word needs forms part of a modal phrase, where needs is an adverb form meaning ‘of necessity’ (see under the adverb needs in the Oxford English Dictionary). There are 43 occurrences in the earliest Book of Mormon text of must needs, most of which are followed by the verb be (29 times). Over half the time the subject is the expletive it (23 times), while there are five occurrences with the expletive there. In other words, there are no other examples like this case where needs is used alone, as if it were a modal verb. Similarly, the King James Bible has no examples of such a modal verb like needs, but there are 14 occurrences of must needs and two with a different preceding modal verb (will needs and wouldest needs). The biblical style, then, is to always precede the adverb needs with an actual modal verb.
It is obvious in 3 Nephi 28:37 that scribe 2 of 𝓟 had a problem with must needs since there he omitted the phrase there must from “there must needs be a change wrought upon their bodies”. He also appears to have missed at least the it in the next example. Assuming that 𝓞 read “or else it must needs be that …”, then scribe 2 of 𝓟 must have also dropped the must; but such a reading of 𝓞 would imply that the 1830 compositor also dropped the must. A more reasonable possibility is that 𝓞 itself was missing the must, and this is why both the 1830 edition and 𝓟 do not have it. Of course, one could argue that 𝓞 correctly read “it needs be”, a unique expression for the Book of Mormon text. This reading could just be considered an exception to the otherwise consistent use of must in front of needs.
On the other hand, one might argue that 𝓞 actually read like 𝓟 (as “or else needs be that they must taste of death”) and that the 1830 compositor added the it when he set the text. In all other cases where or else is followed by a finite verb, the subject is always there:
Of course, in these examples it seems rather inconceivable to delete the subject after or else, but actually that same difficulty occurs with the reading of the printer’s manuscript in 3 Nephi 28:37, “or else needs be that they must taste of death”.
Given the otherwise systematic use of must needs in the Book of Mormon, it seems reasonable to assume that 3 Nephi 28:37 originally read “or else it must needs be that they must taste of death”, especially since there was some scribal difficulty with both occurrences of needs be in this verse; if so, the original manuscript must have been missing the must before the second needs be. (This emendation supplying must was first proposed by Sara Pfister in her term paper for my winter 1995 Book of Mormon textual criticism class.)
One additional argument for why the must might be lacking in “or else it needs be” is that the modal in the following that- clause is must and that the text is consequently trying to avoid the repetition of the must. The problem with this argument is that there are three examples of must needs followed by a that-clause with the modal must:
Don Brugger, however, points out (personal communication) that there are a couple instances where it could be argued that the repetition of must has been avoided in the Book of Mormon text:
Despite these arguments against “it needs be”, we can find evidence for this modal phrase in the history of English. For instance, Literature Online gives the following citation from the early 1700s:
Most other citations date from the 1800s, as in these examples:
Don Brugger has provided the following example of “it needs be” in the foreign state papers from the reign of Elizabeth I of Britain; this example dates from 13 April 1563:
All that is to be done now, must be with the Queen Mother and the Prince; the rest say they can do nothing, they have enough to do to save themselves. If it needs be that there must be war with them, he should send some one to entertain reiters.
(This citation is found at . The word reiters apparently refers to German cavalry soldiers that were employed in the wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, as explained in the Oxford English Dictionary.) Brugger also points out that in this example the following that-clause has the modal must. In other words, one could argue for omitting the must from “it must needs be” when the following that-clause has a must. But as noted above, there are examples in the Book of Mormon which do not avoid the repetition of the must. The important point is that there is historical evidence for “it needs be”, the 1830 reading, here in 3 Nephi 28:37.
David Calabro also points out (personal communication) another possible emendation, the subjunctive “it need be”. And one could also include “it needs to be” as a possible emendation (thus “or else it needs to be that they must taste of death”). It turns out that neither of these two modal alternatives exist elsewhere in the Book of Mormon text. So probably the best solution is to choose between the two earliest readings rather than choose between various emendations. Thus the critical text will maintain the 1830 reading, since it is possible. Even so, there is a good chance that “it needs be” is an error for “it must needs be”, the otherwise systematic reading in the Book of Mormon text.
Summary: Maintain in 3 Nephi 28:37 the 1830 reading, “or else it needs be that they must taste of death”; nonetheless, it is quite possible that this is an error for “or else it must needs be that they must taste of death” (given that the text otherwise has instances of only must needs); also maintain “there must needs be a change” earlier in the verse.