SMPT Teaser: A Close Reading of Alma 32

13 comments for “SMPT Teaser: A Close Reading of Alma 32”

1. For your bibliography, David Bokovoy’s article in JBMS 23 (2014) on Alma 32 was really good.

2. Thanks! Slipped my memory, and did not come up in google searching.

3. While this is for the Greek ‘makarios’ (blessed), it might be worth pointing out that this was a word ascribed to the gods, who were free from the frailties and misfortunes of human life. (It was also used to the describe the dead, the rich, and the wise). In essence, ‘makarios’ was the divine life. The Septuagint often used this to translate the Hebrew ‘asre’, meaning “Oh the happiness of the one” and describing those with divine approval due to proper religious behaviors or attitudes. Unfortunately, this experiential understanding of the word is lost in the English “blessed.” As one pair of biblical scholars explains, “Consequently, we often interpret [Matt. 5:9] to mean, “If you are a peacemaker, then God will bless you.” But this isn’t what Jesus meant. Jesus meant, “if you are a peacemaker, then you are in your happy place.” It just doesn’t work well in English” (E. Randolph Richards, Brandon J. O’Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012, 75).

   I don’t know if this view of “blessed” changes the way you approach that verse at all.

   See also D.E. Garland, “Blessings and Woes,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 78-79.

4. Ben, your analysis might benefit from a review of Alma’s other sermons and discourses, which are rife with a kind of epistemic modesty that has drawn my attention lately. That is, Alma is striking in the way he reports to his listeners what he does know, what he doesn’t know, and how he does or doesn’t know what he does or doesn’t know. When he knows something by the Spirit, he transparently says as much. But there several times in which he then goes on to report the limits of that knowledge, i.e., ‘but I do NOT know X, because the Spirit has NOT told me that.’

   This makes Alma one of the most trustworthy characters in the Book of Mormon, in my eyes. Other writers in the book (and many who speak by authority in today’s church) are less clear regarding these divisions, and their sources of knowledge. For example, Mormon intuits various things based on other evidence, and sometimes deduces various things as well. This leads a reader to wonder whether Mormon’s logical deductions carry the imprimatur of prophetic pronouncement, or whether the reader’s own logical faculties, which may sometimes run counter to Mormon’s, can be given equal weight. The ramifications for life in today’s church are significant, since some leaders testify based solely on direct inspiration received, while others rely on an amalgamation of inspiration, second-hand truths (inspiration given to others), logic, opinion, culture, and other sources of knowledge.

   Anyway, I’ve been very interested in analyzing Alma’s rigour with respect to what he does and does not know, and I admire it greatly. Alma 32 is of course directly relevant to these tendencies of Alma’s, so a close reading of that text may well benefit from studying more generally what he thinks about knowledge, belief, and the reliability of reason. There’s lots of this stuff in his early travels (beginning in Alma 5) and in his later discourses (i.e, to his sons).

5. Ryan. Another place to look for this is Jack Welch’s article on Melchizedek from By Study and Also By Faith (FARMS, 1990). In that, he shows where Alma likely got his sources for Alma 13, another place where he tells us what he knows, but kind of leaves out what he doesn’t know.

   Ben S. Sorry I’ll miss your presentation, but this is an excellent taste that I will ponder(ize).

6. Thanks Ryan and Terry. Excellent suggestions.

7. Re: your paraphrase and the commentary on verse 24: Here’s an alternate reading that assumes the “missed” comma isn’t needed:

   “I don’t want you to think that I intend to answer your question based solely on the fact that you were thrown out of your prayer houses.”

   Taking into account the next clause in the sentence (found in what we have as verse 25), this reading assumes that Alma’s reference to “that which is true” points to the contingent truth of his audience’s circumstances (i.e., the truth that they were afflicted by and cast out of their religious community) and not simply to some general truth (i.e., the moral truth against which Alma would judge their actions).

   Which is to say that Alma’s response to the Zoramite poor seems to be based on more than the conspicuous truth that they were forced into humility; rather it also takes into account the possibility that some of them would choose to be humble notwithstanding their circumstances. This suggests that Alma, as a sensitive rhetor, is considering the dynamic context of his audience’s experience. By acknowledging the diversity of this context in his sermon, he allows for the varieties of experience that would likely exist in the audience and shows that he’s not lumping all members of the audience into a single category (i.e., humble-because-compelled). Alma’s rhetorical move further shows that he’s really trying to understand where these people are coming from them and that, as such, he’s someone they can trust and respect.

   Anyway. Something to consider.

8. It seems odd that the bibliography for this chapter is so sparse. This is a rather well-loved chapter of the Book of Mormon, isn’t it? Even if there are few treatments of the chapter as a whole, I’d expect many of the BoM commentaries to have a few things to say about it (and you include Gardner’s commentary, so I figure the others are worth looking at, even if they’re less likely to be very analytical in their approach, right?). Plus, it seems like it should be ripe fodder for General Conference talks and Ensign articles. If those things are all outside the scope of the project, that’s fine, but it might be worth making that clear.

9. I haven’t looked at the Ensign or scripture citation index yet, on the assumption that most coverage there will be proof-texty/homiletic, instead of analytic. I’d love to be wrong, and I will be looking at it.

   Interesting reading Tyler. Have to think about that.

10. I’d be careful pushing individual words too far. I think the most likely view is that the Book of Mormon is a fairly loose translation. That implies word choice may be a matter of good enough. At a minimum we don’t know what language Alma was speaking in, how writing to the plates affected that, and then what Mormon had to do to put it in the type of writing he was doing. Throw in the final translation and I get a bit skeptical of pushing careful semantics too far.

    I’d mentioned it over at my blog a few weeks ago and at LDS-Herm, but I’ve really enjoyed Hazony’s The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture even if the political parts are a bit more questionable. Hazony notes that for the Hebrews truth is a property of things rather than language. It’s interesting that Alma 32 fits Hazony’s thesis to a tee. So when Alma says, “things which are not seen, which are true” he’s talking about the things themselves being the types of things that they present themselves as. More or less something similar to Aristotelian essences but put into a more process conception rather than the static conception our language tends to adopt. For us truth is a property of propositions and they are usually indexed to a particular time, for the Hebrews for Hazony, truth is a property of things and they show themselves to be reliable as these things over time. So truth is essentially a kind of unveiling of things.

    For Hazony it matters in the prophetic tradition that prophesy only shows itself over time. One of the examples Hazony gives is Abraham’s servant setting out to Mesopotamia. (I give the full quote at my blog) “When he first sets foot upon this road, there is no way for him to know that the road is true. All he has is a hope as to what this road can do: He hopes that it will bear him safely through the wilderness, and that it will bring him to the successful completion of his mission. But it is only after these things have come to pass that he actually comes to know that the road was true.”

    In this then Alma’s presentation is very much explaining a traditional Hebrew conception. It’s possible that he does this because already there has become a grave cultural alienation between the Hebrew traditions and scripture and the people who have been living in America for centuries – most likely adopting the indigenous culture.

    The metaphor Alma uses is very much a traditional one. You see in in say Jer 2:21 among other places. What’s interesting is that Alma then ties the notion of a true seed (a seed that has as its “essence” to grow up as say a tasty grape vine) with context. Even a true seed can only yield fruit if the farmer does what it is supposed to do.

    Again in our language this is hard to make sense of. But when you think in terms of process and essences (to use the best contemporary language that fits) then all of this makes perfect sense.

    When applied to prophetic utterance then this is the traditional question of testing the words. Hazony suggests that the word davar which is sometimes translated thing but which isn’t really separable from the thing. (This may be the word that underlies Alma’s use of “thing” in 18 – 21 — assuming Alma had some priestly knowledge of Hebrew and Hebrew scripture) Hazony notes that in “the biblical conception, then, it would seem that the truth or falsity of the spoken word cannot be known until it has proved itself reliable in the course of investigation, which is to say, in the course of time.” For Hazony the davar is something like the object as understood. This lines up with Alma where this understanding comes from use and inquiry.

11. Oh on Bibliography while it primarily focuses on Zenos’ allegory the book The Allegory of the Olive Tree discusses both directly and indirectly Alma 32. The question of how influenced Alma is by Zenos is a good one. His application of the metaphor seems different but I think the same notion of “truth” is at play in both.

12. I have always loved verse 31. When Alma says “behold are you sure” I have interpreted that Alma is speaking to the crisis of faith that so many of us have when we are new to the faith. I have seen many “are ye sure” experiences with new members, and it seems to me that those who are successful remember the good experiences/impressions they have already received (thus good seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness).

13. Alma seems like a poor spokesman for faith – he saw an angel! He didn’t have to live faithfully for years before receiving confirmation; the confirmation came in earth-shaking angel form and literally knocked him out.

Comments are closed.