Here in Mosiah 10:14 we have two instances in the printer’s manuscript where Oliver Cowdery later corrected the nonstandard was to were. The ink flow for both corrections is uneven and weak in some places; perhaps the ink in the quill had started to dry out. Moreover, the writing for each supralinear were appears to be cramped. These two corrections are clearly quite different from the two virtually immediate corrections made by Oliver in verse 13 (see the preceding discussion). It is quite possible that these two changes of was to were were due to editing on Oliver’s part. One motivation for the were could have come from the occurrence of the grammatically correct “again they were wroth” found twice in the immediately following text:
In other words, the occurrence of “was wroth” twice in verse 14 could represent the original text. On the other hand, the double occurrence of “was wroth” may simply be due to dialectal overlay, the result of either Oliver Cowdery or Joseph Smith accidentally replacing an original were with was during the early transmission of the text.
In sentences of the form “ was/were wroth”, the earliest text prefers the plural were (nine times), but there are four cases where the nonstandard was shows up. Besides the two cases in Mosiah 10:14, we have the following:
In the second example, the was has never been edited to were. In this instance, the proximity of the immediately preceding singular governor may be the reason for the singular was; note that in the preceding relative clause the verb form is were (“and that part of the people that were desirous that he should be their governor”). David Calabro suggests (personal communication) another possibility for the persistence of the was in Helaman 1:7: the was refers to Paanchi alone since the conjoined noun phrase (“and that part of the people that were desirous that he should be their governor”) can be considered parenthetical. Note, for instance, that the 1830 typesetter placed commas around this long noun phrase—and these commas have persisted in the standard LDS and RLDS texts:
Also note that the pronoun usage in the following sentence of this verse supports treating Paanchi separately from the people that supported him: “therefore he was about to flatter away those people to rise up in rebellion against their brethren”. See subject-verb agreement in volume 3 for a complete discussion of the factors that affect the choice between was and were.
In the analysis of “they was yet wroth” in 1 Nephi 4:4, the evidence showed that nonstandard cases of subject-verb agreement should be maintained in the critical text whenever they are supported by the earliest textual sources. Here in Mosiah 10:14, the original manuscript is not extant, so we cannot be sure whether the text read “was wroth” or “were wroth” in 𝓞. As noted above, Oliver Cowdery’s two corrections of was to were may have been the result of either proofing or editing. Two questions therefore need to be answered:
Is there any independent manuscript evidence that Oliver tended to accidentally write was instead of were?
Is there any independent manuscript evidence that Oliver tended to grammatically emend nonstandard instances of was to were?
It turns out that the evidence elsewhere in the manuscripts is fairly conclusive: Oliver frequently wrote was accidentally instead of were, but nowhere else did he ever edit a nonstandard was to were. In fact, in a number of cases he accidentally wrote the standard were, then corrected it virtually immediately to the nonstandard was.
Consider the many cases in the manuscripts where Oliver Cowdery initially wrote an incorrect was and then corrected it to the correct were. I first list eight cases where the change is restricted to a single manuscript and there is no change at all in the level of ink flow:
correction in 𝓞
correction in 𝓟 (𝓞 is extant)
correction in 𝓟 (𝓞 is not extant)
Next I list four cases where there is an increase in the level of ink flow and the change is limited to a single manuscript:
correction in 𝓞
correction in 𝓟 (𝓞 is extant)
In each of these four cases, it should be noted, the level of ink flow is only slightly or somewhat heavier than the original inline text. These corrections appear to have involved a redipping of the quill and were probably done at about the same time as the original writing.
Finally, I list two places in the text where both manuscripts show the same correction of was to were; these examples provide four more instances of correcting was to were:
same correction in both 𝓞 and 𝓟
In the first passage, the ink flow for the correction in 𝓞 is somewhat heavier, but in 𝓟 the ink flow is unchanged. One could argue that this is a case of editing—that is, Oliver first corrected 𝓟 (where the change was virtually immediate); then he redipped his quill and corrected 𝓞 to agree with 𝓟. But such a scenario is not supported by the second passage: there both corrections appear to be virtually immediate (the ink flow is unchanged for both corrections), which argues that Oliver could make the same initial error in both manuscripts. It should also be noted that the change in level of ink flow in 𝓞 for Alma 43:47 is only somewhat heavier, which once more implies that it was during the original dictation process that Oliver redipped his pen and corrected the was to were.
All in all, we have a total of 16 instances elsewhere in the manuscripts where Oliver Cowdery accidentally wrote was in place of the correct were. Such evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that the two corrections in Mosiah 10:14 are also the result of Oliver initially writing was instead of the correct were. For these two cases, Oliver’s corrections occurred later (the ink in the quill had started to dry out); perhaps the corrections were made when he proofed 𝓟 against 𝓞.
Besides all of these cases showing Oliver Cowdery’s natural tendency to replace were with was, there are six cases where Oliver initially wrote a standard were but then either immediately or virtually immediately corrected the text to the nonstandard was. These six examples rule out any sort of editing of was to standard were. Editing in the printed editions has removed these cases of nonstandard was from the text:
In summary, the manuscript evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that Oliver Cowdery frequently miswrote was in place of the correct were but that he did not edit nonstandard was to were. In fact, he sometimes miswrote the standard were in place of the nonstandard (but textually correct) was. In all of these latter cases, Oliver persistently corrected the were to the nonstandard was since this was what Joseph Smith had dictated to him (in the case of 𝓞) or since this was what the original manuscript read (in the case of 𝓟). In other words, Oliver consistently attempted to write down the text as he had received it, at least with respect to the question of was versus were. Consequently, the most probable solution to the question of was versus were in Mosiah 10:14 is to assume that the two corrections of was to were represent proofing against 𝓞, not editing. The corrections occurred somewhat later, at a time when the ink in the quill had begun to dry out. Thus the two instances of initial was in Mosiah 10:14 can be added to the list of cases where Oliver accidentally miswrote were as was.
Summary: Accept in Mosiah 10:14 the two corrections in 𝓟 of nonstandard was to were (“his brethren were wroth ... they were also wroth”); each case of supralinear were appears to have been inserted later, probably when Oliver Cowdery proofed 𝓟 against 𝓞.