Thursday, February 8, 2024

Brant Gardner on the Benjamin/Mosiah Variant in Mosiah 21:28 (cf. Ether 4:1)

  

Variant: The printer’s manuscript and the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon read “that king Benjamin had a gift from God. . . .” “Benjamin” became “Mosiah” beginning in the 1837 edition. Ammon left Zarahemla after the coronation of Mosiah (Mosiah 7:2-3) but perhaps before Benjamin’s death three years after the coronation (Mosiah 6:5). Skousen notes that Benjamin lives three years after Mosiah’s coronation and Ammon’s party departs after three years of peace at the beginning of Mosiah’s reign. The timeline is close enough that “some overlap is possible. Perhaps Ammon and his men left not knowing that Benjamin had died, or perhaps he was still alive when they left.”

 

Part of the coronation was Benjamin’s transmittal to Mosiah of religious and royal objects: “And moreover, he also gave him charge concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass; and also the plates of Nephi; and also, the sword of Laban, and the ball or director, which led our fathers through the wilderness, which was prepared by the hand of the Lord that thereby they might be led, every one according to the heed and diligence which they gave unto him” (Mosiah 1:16). The interpreters do not appear on this list. Perhaps they were not part of the transfer of kingship. Benjamin may have retained the interpreters and his prophetic functions, passing only the governing function to his son. Therefore, the printer’s manuscript’s mention of “Benjamin” would have been correct in identifying the interpreters as being in his possession, not Mosiah’s (at least when Ammon left Zarahemla). All of this is plausible, but perhaps not the best explanation for this particular variant.

 

Looking past the modern manuscript text and its variants, we must also deal with the sources Mormon used to compile his plate text. In this case, there are two possible records, that of Limhi and that of Ammon. Most of chapter 21 must come from the records of Limhi’s people, even though it is quite probable that Mormon supplemented his sources with some record from Ammon, which is imputed from what must have been available but is never explicitly mentioned. I suggest that the original conversation from Ammon was that “the king” had the “gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings” (Mosiah 21:28) and did not mention the name of the king. The people of Limhi would remember only Benjamin, their first leader, Zeniff, having departed during Benjamin’s reign (Omni 1:24-29). The recorders for Limhi’s records entered their own idea of who the unnamed king was and wrote Benjamin into the record. Mormon used that record and therefore that name.

 

This same issue also occurs in Ether 4:1, where Moroni writes Benjamin and the text has been emended to read Mosiah. Of that textual issue, Skousen notes:

 

The passage in Ether 4:1 causes more difficulties than this one on Mosiah 21:28. The Ether passage implies that king Benjamin had some control over the Jaredite record, which means, of course, that he must have still been alive when king Limhi handed over these newly found records to king Mosiah (Mosiah 22:13-14). (Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, 3:1419)

 

Rather than a significant textual issue, however, I see Moroni’s reference as a reflection of the presence of Benjamin in Mosiah 21:28. Rather than an independent witness, Moroni is a dependent witness. Moroni simply uses the information as it appeared in his father’s text on the plates that Moroni had with him. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 3:374-76)

 

Skousen’s final comment is: “The occurrence of Benjamin instead of Mosiah cannot be readily explained as an error in the early transmission of the text; moreover, the text can be interpreted so that Benjamin was still alive when the plates of Ether were delivered by king Limhi to king Mosiah, who then gave the Jaredite record to his father, king Benjamin, for his examination and safekeeping.” Ibid., 3:1420-21. As I noted above, I disagree with this conclusion. (Ibid., 376 n. 4)