Book of Mormon Evidence: "And" as a Disjunctive

In English grammar, the word but is often used as a disjunctive conjunction, which shows contrast or opposition between two ideas. This differs from the word and, a conjunctive conjunction that combines separate ideas together. Interestingly, this distinction is not found in all languages, especially Semitic ones.

Donald W. Parry has noted that in “Biblical Hebrew the letter waw may serve as either a conjunction or as a disjunctive, depending on the context.”1 Thus, it could be translated as either and or but. As such, when rendering the Old Testament into English, translators will often use either conjunction to fit the proper context. For example, in Proverbs 10:1, when contrasting a good son with a foolish son, the lexeme waw is translated as the disjunctive but: “A wise son maketh a glad father: but (waw) a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.” 

Disjunctives in the Book of Mormon

In the Book of Mormon, the word and does not always adhere to the standard rules of English grammar. As noted by Parry, “Sometimes in the Book of Mormon and is used where but is expected.”2 Thus, rather than serving as a conjunctive, and appears to occasionally serves as a disjunctive. In the current (2013) edition of the Book of Mormon there are at least two instances where this seems to be the case:

• Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence. (2 Nephi 4:4)
• There is nothing which is good save it comes from the Lord: and that which is evil cometh from the devil. (Omni 1:25)

In both instances, two ideas are being placed in contrast to one another. As such, “but would read more naturally than and in conventional English.”3 The earliest manuscripts and editions of the Book of Mormon contain additional examples where and seems to have been used as a disjunctive marker but was subsequently changed to the expected but. Consider the following:

• “There were no contentions nor wars in the land of Zarahemla; and the people were afflicted” (Alma 4:1–2; Printer’s Manuscript). In the 1837 edition published in Kirtland, the and was changed to a but.4
• “And they questioned them about many words, and they answered them nothing” (Alma 14:18; Printer’s Manuscript). When the Book of Mormon was published in 1830, the and was changed to a but.5
• “Behold, here are our weapons of war; we will deliver them up unto you, and we will not suffer ourselves to take an oath unto you” (Alma 44:8). The and was changed to but in the 1920 edition.6

One other passage—which, in this case, involves the use of and where one might expect but—is worth mentioning. 3 Nephi 12:22 reads: “And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” In contrast, the corresponding verse in Matthew 5:22 has but instead of and. According to Royal Skousen, “There is no reversal of polarity in the plain sense of the passage, in either the translated English or the original Greek. In the Greek, both sentences use the same conjunctive particle, the clitic form for de, which can be translated as either ‘and’ or ‘but’. Interestingly, some of the English Bibles preceding the King James had and for both conjunctions here [just like the Printer’s manuscript].”7

Conclusion

In several instances, and appears to be used as a disjunctive in the Book of Mormon. While some examples were subsequently edited out of the text to make better sense in English, others remain. Although these features could possibly have been the product of dictation or transcription errors, they might very well reflect the Book of Mormon’s underlying source texts, which likely would have made no distinction between but or and. As Parry observed, “Such examples are indicative of a literal translation from a Hebrew-like text, as opposed to a smooth, idiomatic translation into English.”8 The presence of many other Hebrew-like features in the Book of Mormon increases the likelihood that these disjunctive uses of and derive from an ancient Semitic source.9