If you trace the history of a text from earlier manuscripts to later ones, it\u2019s not unusual for the text to be extended in various ways. If you look at the life of a manuscript over time, it\u2019s not unusual for additional leaves or quires to be added. Or if you look at the edition history of early printed books, it\u2019s not unusual for printers to add value by supplementing a text with additions of various kinds. These processes of accretion are common enough in the material I\u2019m familiar with that I suspect they’re widespread in history. When I read the Book of Mormon, I think I see the result of similar processes, both preceding Mormon\u2019s own compilatory work and exemplified by it.<\/p>\n
Specifically, I think the Book of Mormon consists of three fundamental narrative cores: 1 Nephi, Mosiah-3 Nephi 7, and Mormon\u2019s own prophetic book. (If you prefer to draw the boundaries at 2 Nephi 5 and Helaman, I won\u2019t argue.) I would guess that compilers prior to Mormon created the first two of these core historical narratives from a variety of earlier texts, including the psalms, sermons, speeches, dialogues, and epistles that are still distinctly visible in them. The compiler of 1 Nephi is usually identified with the person of Nephi. The compiler of Mosiah-3 Nephi 7 is usually identified with Mormon.[1]<\/a> I suspect hands beyond those identified in the text helped shape the books of 1 Nephi-Omni, however, and that Mormon was not the first to assemble Mosiah-3 Nephi. (Gary Sturgess<\/a> has argued that Alma the Younger or a disciple of his was the compiler of Mosiah.[2]<\/a>)<\/p>\n Each of the three narrative cores,1 Nephi, Mosiah-3 Nephi 7, and Mormon, has in turn been supplemented with additional material that bears some relation to the original core.<\/p>\n I think the first two of these extensions both preceded Mormon, although he likely had some role in the second, while the third extension would be the work of Moroni.<\/p>\n Each of these extended compilations in turn have gained additional minor related texts.<\/p>\n The boundaries between the first two groups are marked by Mormon\u2019s editorial interruptions in the Words of Mormon, while the boundary between the second and third groups consists of Mormon\u2019s additions to 3 Nephi (28:17-30:2).<\/p>\n I surmise that each of the three narrative cores grew or was structured sequentially, while the larger or smaller accretions were added at later times. Think of writing a journal: The bulk of it is material you add from day to day, while your list of \u201cTop 10 hamburgers I\u2019ve eaten\u201d can be added much later and doesn\u2019t have the same implications of chronological sequence. Not all additions to a text come at the end, but it is easier for them to be added where there\u2019s an existing seam or boundary in the text. Consequently, the Book of Mormon isn\u2019t only linear, but also chronologically layered, with its text potentially reflecting multiple time periods.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n At least, that\u2019s what I think I\u2019m reading when I read the Book of Mormon. You may have noticed that I keep saying “guess,” “suspect,” “surmise,” and similar. There’s no good way to verify any of this. On the one hand, what I see in the Book of Mormon seems very similar to other texts I’ve worked with where I can directly observe how they have been supplemented over decades or centuries. On the other hand, I’m well aware that the kind of guesswork I’m engaged in here has a modest chance of being right. There have been cases where I’ve thought that a certain text felt like it was missing its first half, and then I later found an edition containing the whole thing, confirming my guess. But other times I’ve been sure a particular passage was an insertion followed by a resumptive repetition, only to find the exact same wording in every version going back to the original.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I.The philological instinct<\/a><\/p>\n II. What did Mormon know?<\/a><\/p>\n III. Mormon\u2019s sources<\/a> IV. The puzzle of 3 Nephi<\/p>\n V. The permissibility and utility of philology for studying the Book of Mormon [1]<\/a> Attributing all editorial work solely to Mormon is for example the approach in Thomas W. Mackay, \u201cMormon as Editor: A Study in Colophons, Headers, and Source Indicators,\u201d Journal of Book of Mormon Studies<\/em> 2.2 (1993): 90-109.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nIIIa. Nephite literacy<\/a>
\nIIIb. The material culture of Nephite literacy<\/a>
\nIIIb note 1. A note on the uniformity of the Golden Plates<\/a>
\nIIIc. The source structure of the Book of Mormon<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nVa. The permissibility of philology
\nVb. The utility of philology
\nVb1. Useful cautions
\nVb2. What did the Nephites know about Nephi?
\nVb3. The overdetermination of Nephite origins
\nVb4. Jacob and Sherem<\/p>\n