Scribal Error in Alma 13

In modern times, documents can be easily copied without error. Often, it is as simple as hitting the “Copy” or “Print” button on a computer or printer. In ancient times, however, the copying of manuscripts was done by scribes, one letter and word at a time. Naturally, this led to varying types of errors creeping into texts as they were reproduced over decades or centuries.

One type of fairly common scribal error found in ancient texts is known as homoeoteleuton,¹ which was due to similar sounding words or phrases at the end of sentences (usually in fairly close proximity to one another). As a scribe would look back and forth from one document to another during the transcription process, the similar phrasing would catch the eye, causing the scribe to resume copying at the wrong location. This type of error often resulted in an omission of words.

In some cases, though, the scribe would apparently notice the error and later include the omitted words (despite their being out of order) to ensure that they weren’t completely lost. For instance, in Judges 20, as rendered in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible, verses 22 and 23 are given out of order:

21 The Benjaminites came out of Gibeah and struck down on that day twenty-two thousand of the Israelites. 

23 The Israelites went up and wept before the Lord until the evening, and they inquired of the Lord, “Shall we again draw near to battle against our kinsfolk the Benjaminites?” And the Lord said, “Go up against them.” 

22 The Israelites strengthened themselves and again formed the battle line in the same place where they had formed it on the first day.

A footnote is then given in the NRSV, noting that these verses have intentionally been “transposed.” In other words, the translators apparently believed that there must have been a scribal error somewhere along the way, and that verse 23 was originally intended to precede verse 22. Similar types of errors can be found throughout the Bible,² as well as in other ancient texts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.³

A Proposed Scribal Error in Alma 13

If the Book of Mormon was truly an abridgment of various ancient texts, then we might expect it to occasionally manifest similar types of scribal errors.⁴ Historian and literary scholar Grant Hardy believes he has found just such an error in Alma 13, in which he argues that verse 16 should have originally followed immediately after verse 12. For reference, the relevant passages are given below in their entirety:⁵

11 therefore they were called after this holy order and were sanctified; and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.

12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence. And there were many—an exceeding great many—which were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.              

13 And now my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest.

14 Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order of which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever.

15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one tenth part of all he possessed.

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.               

17 Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem. And his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abominations; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness.

As can be seen, the concluding phrases (highlighted in red) in verses 12 and 16 are very similar. Thus, one can imagine how, if verse 16 were placed immediately after verse 12 in the original text, it would be easy for a scribe to accidentally skip over verse 16 (mistaking its concluding statements for those found in verse 12 because of their similar endings).

As for the content of these passages, Hardy writes,

The first thing to notice is that if verse 16 were omitted, we would never miss it. In fact, it interrupts the smooth flow of ideas in the discussion of Melchizedek (verses 14–20). The second clue is that the expected connections do not make sense. The phrase these ordinances in verse 16 must refer to something earlier, and though we might in some way conceive of tithing as an ordinance, it is not clear at all how tithing might encourage people to look forward to the remission of sins associated with the Son of God. Even more problematic would be efforts to connect the “manner” of tithing with the order of the Son of God.⁶

In contrast, it is remarkable how easily verse 16 can be inserted right after verse 12 without disrupting the flow of ideas. For instance, the discussion of “ordinances” in verse 16 picks up on the explicit mention of a “holy ordinance” from verse 8 as well as the implied ordinances mentioned in verses 11–12. These include the need to be “washed white through the blood of the Lamb” (v. 11) and to be “sanctified by the Holy Ghost” (v. 12). These are fairly obvious allusions to the ordinances of baptism and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but they also evoke temple ordinances, which are more intimately connected with the “holy order” of the priesthood.⁷

Furthermore, verse 16 associates these ordinances with a “remission of sins.” Not only does this further imply baptism (2 Nephi 31:17; Moroni 8:11), but it, once again, connects much better with the idea of becoming “pure and spotless” in verse 12 than anything in verses 14–15. For further analysis of how verse 16 comparatively relates better to verses 11–12 than to verses 14–15, see the Appendix.

As shown below, it appears that verse 16 may also complete a chiasm that was begun at the end of verse 12 (which would explain why, in the first place, these passages have similar endings).

In contrast, this full chiastic structure would remain incomplete if verse 16 were to remain situated between verses 15 and 17.

All in all, verse 16 fits better after verse 12 in virtually every way. The fact that verse 16 can be removed from its location and inserted after verse 12—without disrupting the surrounding verses at either location and while also making for a much better reading in both locations—is compelling. The clinching piece of evidence is that the textual feature needed to explain such a scribal error (similar phrases found at the end of verses 12 and 16) happens to exist right where it should be.  

Evidence from the Earliest Manuscripts

One might wonder if, instead of occurring anciently, this error might have transpired when the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon was copied onto the Printer’s Manuscript. After all, according to Royal Skousen, the types of errors in the Printer’s Manuscript indicate that it was visually copied, rather than transcribed from oral dictation.⁸

Fortunately, the relevant passages from Alma 13 are preserved in the Book of Mormon’s Original Manuscript. Although the extant manuscript pieces are in fragmentary form, enough text has been preserved to conclude that Joseph Smith indeed dictated verse 13 directly after verse 12, and also that verse 16 follows verse 15, just as the text reads today.⁹ Thus, the textual evidence discounts the possibility of this error arising from the initial copying of the Original Manuscript, in preparation for it being printed.¹⁰

Conclusion

While the apparent misplacement of Alma 13:16 makes excellent sense as a visual copying mistake made by an ancient scribe, it is much more difficult to explain as an error made by Joseph Smith in his original dictation of the Book of Mormon. A mere random or disjointed thought would be one thing. But when a seemingly disjointed thought can be seamlessly spliced into a section of text given 90 words earlier, resulting in a much more fluid and cogent reading in both sections, that is a very different matter.

It would take an enormous stroke of luck for the relocation of an otherwise garbled passage to solve multiple textual incongruities without introducing any new ones, while also nicely rounding out a proposed chiastic structure. And, of course, one would also have to factor in the serendipity of the error taking place precisely where similar sentence endings could easily confuse a visual copyist (a factor which wouldn’t apply to someone dictating without notes or manuscript, as Joseph Smith did).¹¹

As concluded by Hardy,

This particular irregularity in the text is best explained as the result of ancient copying of written materials, long before Joseph Smith ever came in contact with the plates. The writers of the Book of Mormon acknowledged the possibility of human errors in their record; hence the title page warns that “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God.” I’m not sure they realized, however, that some mistakes could actually strengthen the book’s claims to be an ancient written text.¹²

Anita Wells, “Bare Record: The Nephite Archivist, The Record of Records, and the Book of Mormon Provenance,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 24 (2017): 102–106.

John L. Sorenson, “Mormon’s Sources,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 20, no. 2 (2011): 2–15.

Grant Hardy, “New Light: The Book of Mormon as a Written (Literary) Artifact,” in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 2 (2003): 107–109, 118.

Grant R. Hardy, “Mormon as Editor,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1991), 15–28.

Alma 13:10–213 Nephi 27:19–20

Alma 13:10–21

3 Nephi 27:19–20

The following chart shows how the “ordinances” mentioned at the beginning of Alma 13:16 relate much better with the implied references to ordinances in verses 11–12 than to anything discussed in verses 14–15.

One may question whether being “washed” in the blood of the Lamb in verse 11 is an allusion to baptism. Fortunately, Jesus brings up a very similar combination of ideas in his ministry among the Nephites, and in that case he directly associates baptism (underlined in red) with this type of washing: