In the original manuscript and 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Alma 31:35 read thusly:
Behold O Lord their souls are precious
and many of them are our near brethren.
and many of them are our near brethren.
The 1837 printing removed “near” and has simply read “brethren” since then.
Interestingly, some critics of the Book of Mormon have argued that Alma describing the Zoramites as being “near brethren” as evidence against the claim that indigenous populations were incorporated into the Nephite and Lamanite populations (on this, see John L. Sorenson, When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?), such as Brent Lee Metcalfe. John Tvedtnes, writing in response to Metcalfe on this issue, wrote the following in Reinventing the Book of Mormon:
“Our Brethren”
Metcalfe’s first example derives from Alma 31:35, where Alma prays for the Zoramites, saying, “O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren.” While some understand this to mean that “many” but not all the Zoramites were of Israelite descent, Metcalfe argues that this “interpretation is unsound” (p. 20). He points out that the printer’s manuscript and the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon use the term near brethren, which he interprets as meaning that “‘many’—but not all—of the Zoramites were close relatives of Alma and some of his companions” (p. 21). To illustrate that the term near denotes a close relative, he cites Alma 10:7, where Amulek speaks of “journeying to see a very near kindred” (p. 21). On the surface, this seems plausible, but there are factors that Metcalfe does not consider. The first is that Amulek used the term very near in reference to his relative, not merely near, as in Alma’s prayer for the Zoramites.
Assuming that Alma uttered his prayer in Hebrew, (Some assume that the Nephites used only “reformed Egyptian,” although the term is used only in reference to the abridgment plates prepared by Mormon and used also by Moroni. Indeed, Moroni indicates that Hebrew, the native tongue of the Israelites, was still used in his day (Mormon 9:32-33)) what words would he have used? A check of occurrences of the term near kin in the Bible shows that, in Leviticus 18:12-13, 17; 20:19, the King James Version (KJV) actually translates a single Hebrew word, שׁאר (see’r), which really means “flesh,” as near kinswoman, the way it is translated in most Old Testament passages. KJV’s near kin in Leviticus 18:6 employs two Hebrew words (שׁאר, see’r, and בשׂר, basar), but both of them mean “flesh.” (The second of these is rendered “kin” in Leviticus 25:49.)
So in all these examples, the Hebrew text does not contain a word meaning “near,” thus invalidating Metcalfe’s citation of some of the biblical passages (p. 24 nn. 9-10). However, the word near (Hebrew קרוב, qarob) does appear with שׁאר (see’r) in Leviticus 21:2, which KJV renders his kin that is near unto him, while the word קרוב (qarob) alone is rendered near of kin in 2 Samuel 19:42 and Ruth 2:20 and kin in Leviticus 25:25. (See also Numbers 27:11: “And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him,” which employs the same two words.) Other occurrences of near kinsman or next kinsmen in the book of Ruth (Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12 KJV) derive from the term גאל (go’el), which alludes to a clan member with specific obligations and not to kinsmen in general. In these passages, the Hebrew employs a single word, without an additional word suggesting the near of the KJV, and it is interesting that elsewhere KJV renders that term kinsman without the word near (Ruth 3:13; 4:1, 3, 6, 8, 14). The term near kinsman of Ruth 3:12 KJV is a translation of the single word go’el while kinsman nearer in the same verse is the only time we find both go’el and qarob together. Had there not been the necessity of comparison, the word nearer would not have been used. Dropping the word near in Alma 10:7 in post-1830 editions of the Book of Mormon actually produces a better correspondence to the normal Hebrew usage.
How proper is it to assume that “many” of the Zoramites were “close relatives” to Alma and his missionary companions? These companions included two of Alma’s sons, three of the sons of King Mosiah, and two of the men Alma had converted in the city of Ammonihah (Alma 31:6-7). Does Alma’s use of the term brethren (or even near brethren) really imply close family members? To this, we must add that the Nephites often termed the Lamanites brethren, (See the discussion in John A. Tvedtnes, “The Charge of ‘Racism’ in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): especially 185 n. 6, in which the Book of Mormon passages are listed. Significantly, the vast majority of the passages that refer to the Lamanites as “brethren” are in portions of the Book of Mormon that predate the coming of Christ and the union of the Nephites and Lamanites that took place at that time.) so one would expect that there were others who were not descendants of the Mulekite and Lehite migrants. (I have proposed elsewhere that the tribal affiliations of Book of Mormon peoples remained part of their culture even during times when various peoples merged. This does not preclude the adoption of other peoples into these cultures. Thus, the Zoramites whom Alma and his companions sought to recover (they being “dissenters from the Nephites,” Alma 31:8) may have been descendants of the original Zoramites (Jacob 1:13) as well as others who merged with them. See John A. Tvedtnes, “Book of Mormon Tribal Affiliation and Military Castes,” in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 296-326.)
Interestingly, a very good case can be made that “near brethren” and “brethren” in Alma 31 is not biological but sociological in any event, further nullifying Metcalfe’s argument. As Royal Skousen, discussing a suggestion from Hebraist David Calabro, wrote the following about “near brethren” denoting “former church members” in Alma 31:35:
Another possible interpretation, pointed out by David Calabro (personal communication), is that the term brethren could mean ‘religious brethren’, so that “our near brethren” in Alma 31:35 could be referring to former fellow members of the church who had been led astray. In support of this kind of usage, Calabro cites a non-LDS religious essay:
1877, “To the Work”, The Church Advocate
Neither have we a right to bring availing accusation
against our near brethren in the Lord . . .
Neither have we a right to bring availing accusation
against our near brethren in the Lord . . .
Early English Books Online provides some direct evidence in Early Modern English that the phrase near brethren can refer to fellow religious believers:
1633, Thomas Taylor, Christ’s Victory over the Dragon
These are near brethren: They have all one father and mother and elder brother . . .
God their father, their mother Church, and one elder brother Jesus Christ.
These are near brethren: They have all one father and mother and elder brother . . .
God their father, their mother Church, and one elder brother Jesus Christ.
1648, John Allin, A Defense of the Answer Made unto the Nine Questions or Positions Sent from New England
the sad distances and sharp contentions between such near brethren
whom the Lord hath so conjoined in the same cause of reformation.
the sad distances and sharp contentions between such near brethren
whom the Lord hath so conjoined in the same cause of reformation.
The first of these, like the second, refers to fellow brethren in the gospel, but it also treats the relationship metaphorically, as if they are all blood brothers . . . There is one other use of near with the meaning ‘close’, but it refers to friends rather than kin:
Acts 10:24 and Cornelius . . . had called together his kinsmen and his near friends
This last example shows that near brethren in Alma 31:35 could be referring to closely associated church brethren rather than near relatives; here in Acts 10:24, near refers to the closeness of their association (that is, friendship). (Royal Skousen, The History of The Text of the Book of Mormon, Part Four: The Nature of the Original Language [Provo, Utah: The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies/Brigham Young University Studies, 2018], 1219-20)
