The printer’s manuscript has behold, but the 1830 edition has beheld. Usage elsewhere in the text argues that the original manuscript read behold and that the 1830 compositor accidentally set behold as beheld. There are a considerable number of cases in the textual history of mix-ups between behold and beheld (see, for instance, the extensive discussion under Jacob 5:37). For this particular example here in 3 Nephi 17:5, we first consider whether Oliver Cowdery tended to replace beheld with behold; there are two instances, one of which was permanent:
On the other hand, there is no independent evidence of the 1830 compositor ever accidentally mixing up behold and beheld. When he made such a change, it appears to be a needed correction of an error that the scribes had introduced into the manuscripts (as in 1 Nephi 8:26, where he corrected the behold of his copytext, the printer’s manuscript, to beheld ). Thus errors in the early transmission of the text indicate that it is somewhat more likely that Oliver Cowdery created the variant here in 3 Nephi 17:5. Nonetheless, the number of examples showing these two particular types of change is nearly zero (a permanent one by Oliver and none by the 1830 compositor).
Note that the example from 1 Nephi 8:26 is especially similar to the case here in 3 Nephi 17:5. First of all, the initial predicate refers to casting one’s eyes (a)round about. Secondly, Oliver Cowdery was the scribe in 𝓟, and he copied the beheld in 𝓞 as behold in 𝓟. So one could argue that here in 3 Nephi 17:5, Oliver made the same mistake of replacing an original beheld with behold. Under 1 Nephi 8:9, I discuss the possibility that Oliver’s behold in 1 Nephi 8:26 is the original Book of Mormon reading (in other words, that the scribe in 𝓞, the unknown scribe 3, accidentally wrote beheld in this passage rather than the correct behold ). Ultimately, this proposed emendation is rejected, mainly because it would create a behold- clause without a verb in 1 Nephi 8:26 (“and behold ...a great and spacious building”); such usage is not found in the Book of Mormon text.
When we turn to other cases where the initial predicate refers to casting one’s eyes in some direction, we find that there are no other examples of “and beheld”, only “and behold”:
On the other hand, in cases of past-tense or past-participle beheld followed by a direct object clause, we almost always get the subordinate conjunction that (43 times), including these three of the form “and beheld”:
As explained under 1 Nephi 12:23, there is only one case in the text where the that is lacking for a direct object clause after the past-tense verb form beheld (namely, in 1 Nephi 12:11: “and I looked and beheld three generations did pass away in righteousness”).
Although the current reading “and beheld they were in tears” is possible here in 3 Nephi 17:5, it is not as likely as the conjectured “and beheld that they were in tears”. But the most likely of all is the reading in 𝓟, “and behold they were in tears”, especially since the initial clause refers to casting one’s eyes in some direction. The critical text will therefore accept the reading in 𝓟 as the original reading in 3 Nephi 17:5. This would mean that the 1830 compositor accidentally set beheld instead of the correct behold.
Summary: Restore the reading of the printer’s manuscript in 3 Nephi 17:5 (“and behold they were in tears”); the 1830 reading (“and beheld they were in tears”) is not as likely a candidate for the original reading, although it still remains a possibility (but with relatively little support from usage elsewhere in the text).