Alma 36:2 Textual Variants

Here in the manuscripts we see a tendency to replace the verb form were with was. In the first instance, Oliver Cowdery initially wrote they was in 𝓞; but then virtually immediately he corrected the was to were, crossing out the was and supralinearly inserting were (there is no change in the level of ink flow). When it came to copying the text into 𝓟, Oliver correctly wrote they were, although somewhat later he apparently thought to alter this to they was and crossed out the were. But then, rather than writing the was, Oliver changed his mind and rewrote the correct were supralinearly (the rewriting of the were is with slightly heavier ink flow). We see here in Oliver’s scribal work a persistent influence from his own dialectal language, namely, his tendency to write was in place of standard were; for an extensive discussion regarding this tendency, see under Mosiah 10:14. As noted there, it is also clear that the original text sometimes used nonstandard was in plural contexts; for a list of various examples, see under 1 Nephi 4:4. In general, we follow the earliest textual sources in choosing between was and were with plural subjects, thus were for “they were in bondage” in Alma 36:2.

There is another instance of original were later on in this verse, namely, in the except-clause: “except it were the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”. 𝓞 is extant here and reads were, the subjunctive form. Oliver Cowdery originally copied this were into 𝓟, but at some later time (probably in Grandin’s print shop in Palmyra) Oliver changed the were to was in pencil. (For a list of corrections made later in 𝓟 with pencil, all apparently in the print shop, see the discussion under Alma 10:28.) Elsewhere in the text, there are 14 occurrences of “except it were” but none of “except it was”. The critical text will restore the original subjunctive were in the except-clause here in Alma 36:2.