Alma 33 and Searching the Scriptures

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It would have been this. A kind of town crier type thing because a bulletin would be meaningless to most of those present.

I am trying to acknowledge the view that the Nephites were generally more literate than those who think they weren't very literate -- I've done the same for folks who think they were not literate. A town crier is better than a bullet in (the head).  My personal opinion (FWIW)? As a population they were not as literate as we are.

From the Arnold Freiburg: The Lost Paintings Collection: (used by--?) permission:

...and thus Moroni stole the idea for the standard of liberty (and it was easier reading)

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Because scribing documents is a skill. Farmer Joe couldn’t just sit down and copy the scriptures. Even if he could he likely couldn’t afford the book. Even if he could do both he probably can’t afford to not work his farm for a year or more and would starve doing this.

Doing this would take a year of more of a scribe’s labor per family. And they would wear out too so you would have to replace them. I don’t think any subsistence agriculture society could realistically feed a group of scribes big enough to do the job. Family copies of the Bible for anyone other than the elite didn’t become a thing until the printing press was developed and improved to the point that books were relatively cheap.

Also it is very very hard to become literate without books to read and practice on so if the peasants don’t have access to written works they aren’t gonna be literate. Our society is literate because we are reading all the time. 

Given the short sermon that King Benjamin gave, would it take a year?  We aren't talking about a bible, for example.   Just a sermon here and there.

I agree that there are many reasons to assume that there weren't a lot of readers running around BOM times.  But they could have had more than the average group, since they come from a literate culture that valued the written word.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Given the short sermon that King Benjamin gave, would it take a year?  We aren't talking about a bible, for example.   Just a sermon here and there.

I agree that there are many reasons to assume that there weren't a lot of readers running around BOM times.  But they could have had more than the average group, since they come from a literate culture that valued the written word.

No, something shorter can be done more quickly. I expect King Benjamin’s address was copied out in advance so that “satellite” groups could hear it read by someone else or even they made just one copy and carried it around reading it to large groups so everyone got to hear it.

You can write up a one shot document pretty quickly though it would be harder than doing it now.

The highest estimates I have heard from the ancient world come from Rome where some have suggested it may have been as high as 30% due to how much writing they put all around them. That is the high end though and it is a very debated point. Even then it is likely some of those people were only semi-literate and recognized common phrases and names so they could work out inscriptions (which also often seem to be a simpler form of Latin writing). High literacy also seemed to be an urban phenomenon.

Even if you prize literacy (like the Greeks and Romans and [sometimes] the Egyptians) you are still hampered by needing stuff to read to be literate and everyone out copying books is one less person producing food (and other stuff) and there wasn’t a lot of slack in the food supply to accommodate pulling people out of those other jobs. Rome could pull it off because they had an empire to produce a lot of that stuff and Egypt feeding their concentrated population. I don’t think the Nephites were widespread enough to do the same and didn’t have the river or ocean network to move those quantities of food needed to concentrate literacy.

Don’t get me wrong. Literacy is very valuable. One of the big things the Mediterranean lost when the western Roman empire fell was a bunch of literate administrators. The church stepped in some but there weren’t enough of them. This is part of why vassalage was a thing. Administering large territories (read: getting taxation out of them) means you need administrators and bureaucrats which means literacy. The lack of it meant you had to rely on what someone could personally manage so you base your government on personal relationships. This person administers this territory and swears fealty to me because I don’t have the administrative capacity to run it myself. You also get a chicken and egg situation where you need administrators to tax your territory but you can’t afford to train and pay them because you don’t have administrators to get the taxes to do so. 

Edit: Also if the Nephites were pretty literate or even semi-literate like the Romans we should expect lots of writing all over their cities (wherever they are) in public areas and on lots of monuments and I don’t think there are any cultures like that in the New World but I might be wrong here. In any case I don’t know any that ever wrote in some form of Egyptian or Hebrew.

Edited August 13, 2025 by The Nehor

[Calm]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

a population they were not as literate as we are.

Even if they were relatively literate compared to other societies at the time, there would be likely a large enough percentage of the population that weren’t literate that the town crier system would still be needed, so unless one is only focused on the elite, I don’t see the inference they were highly literate making much of a contribution to scripture interpretation.  I don’t see how it would be possible preprinting press or some sort of mass producing of texts for ‘family scriptures present in the home’ to be a valid default assumption, let alone personal, individual scriptures.

Edited August 14, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even if they were relatively literate compared to other societies at the time, there would be likely a large enough percentage of the population that weren’t literate that the town crier system would still be needed, so unless one is only focused on the elite, I don’t see the inference they were highly literate making much of a contribution to understanding.  I don’t see how it would be possible preprinting press or some sort of mass producing of texts for ‘family scriptures present in the home’ to be a valid default assumption.

I don't either.  I would assume that any references to 'studying the scriptures' would be something akin to how Jewish people studied the Torah.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 8/12/2025 at 5:03 PM, Risingtide said:

In researching literacy rates of jews at the time of Christ I'm seeing sub one percent to 3 percent by those who study the subject. This question may have been brought up in the past on this board. Can you help me made sense of this? I guess we could speculate that the Nephite/Zoramites were unusually advanced in literacy for a people at this time in history, and these societies dedicated an unusual amount of labor and resources to copying scripture so it was widely available.

I do not know where you are getting your statistics of sub one percent to three percent, but those aren't figures that would generally be accepted today. The very lowest estimates (and these aren't taken all that seriously today) are at 3%, with estimates generally closer to around 10%. The 3% figure in modern literature comes primarily from Ehrman - but his views are a challenge because he relies almost entirely on Catherine Hezser's work. Hezser places Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine as closer to the 10-15% mark represented in Roman society. The problem that exists between the two is over what we mean by literacy. If we only consider literacy to exist when we have professional level skills, then the 3% or less almost certainly applies. If we are talking about the ability for basic reading comprehension and the ability to read and create signatures, we are going to see something much closer to that 10-15% range. And Hezser makes this comment in this regard: "Even if only a very small minority of Jews can be considered to have reached the highest levels of literacy, whereas many were able to write their own signature only or were totally illiterate, Jewish society as a whole can be called a "literate society", that is, a society in which writing was employed in various social contexts in Roman-Byzantine times." (Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 449).

In a similar fashion, I think that we need to be cautious about creating generalities from the Book of Mormon text. I think that we can assert that the Book of Mormon suggests that the Nephite Society was a literate society - but this doesn't require us to see more than modest percentage of the population from being somewhat literate and a small percentage from being highly literate. 

One of the most illuminating discoveries that reflects the literacy of Jewish Palestine around the time of Jesus was the collection of documents in the so-called Cave of Letters. There we find in some of the personal documents comments about literacy. In and around all of this, there is a clear recognition that there is a professional class of literate individuals - and that they helped the illiterate population produce and maintain personal libraries of important documents (not so different even from modern collections - like my bundle  of documents which include my birth certificate, my social security card, my marriage license, my passport, my lifetime immunization records, property titles, and so on. Some of these same kinds of documents are found in this collection - and help us complete a picture of the way in which writing functions even among the illiterate parts of the population.

The Book of Mormon requires (in its reading) a relatively high level of literacy. But this is a complicated issue because the Book of Mormon text is (at least according to itself) a complex text. Most of the Book of Mormon is written in two specific periods of time. We have Nephi/Jacob writing, and we have Mormon/Moroni writing. and the text tells us that these four authors are responsible for nearly the entire Book of Mormon. These four authors have a high degree of understanding of earlier texts and textual traditions that they incorporate into the text - in ways that suggest that they are participating as part of the highly literate crowd. We also don't have a very good grasp on the extent to which the Book of Mormon (as translation) creates in a modern audience a sense of greater literacy than might actually have existed historically. So, if we follow the general dating used in the published book of Mormon, we have Alma 33, which describes events around 40 BCE. But Alma 33 is composed by Mormon (the author of Alma 33) six centuries later. And then this text is translated in 1830 - and the relationship between the translation in 1830 and the source text (the Gold Plates) and any earlier documents produced closer to that 40 BC time frame is unclear. All of this adds to the problem of uncertainty in the way in which Alma 33 in the Book of Mormon (written around 600 CE, and translated in 1830 CE) reflects Nephite literacy in 40 BCE. 

I think that the best we can conclude with some certainty is that there existed a highly literate class, a partially literate class, and an illiterate class - and without being able to place the Nephites into a specific historical context, we can't get much better than that, other than the text suggests that the majority of the people were not particularly literate, while the priestly class was. The literacy of the political leadership (as distinct from the religious leadership) is implied. I wouldn't be unhappy with estimates comparable to what we see in Jewish Palestine in the Book of Mormon. Part of the deceptiveness of the text is that we are almost certainly reading about the interactions of the highly literate groups rather than the illiterate groups (this is where histories come from). And, unlike the situation with ancient Palestine, we don't have any collections of Nephite documents - no land titles, no marriage contracts, no lawsuit documentation, and so on. Those are the kinds of things that are the most helpful in understanding the pervasiveness and role of literacy in a society, and in determining the role of literacy among those that are not literate - and which simply don't exist here.

[Risingtide]

From what I know about literacy in the ancient world, which I admit isn't much, the poorest were generally illiterate. I speculated that the outcast Zoramites would be illiterate, because of their poverty. That Alma was asking this group of people to search the scriptures when I imagined that would be totally beyond the expectations of of persons familiar with the abilities of the poor is what caused my concern. None of us know the rates of literacy in Zoramite society. There could be an unexplored  explanation as to why Alma expected these outcast poor to have access to scriptures and the ability to read them. Or maybe he didn't really expect this of the poor. Maybe it was just a turn pf phrase, or it was written as council for us in our own time. I don't know.   I've read that passage so many times without it troubling me. I guess I've been influenced by Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel which deals with the progression of civilizations.

Thank you Benjamin for taking the time to share your insights. That was generous of you.

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 hours ago, Risingtide said:

From what I know about literacy in the ancient world, which I admit isn't much, the poorest were generally illiterate. I speculated that the outcast Zoramites would be illiterate, because of their poverty. That Alma was asking this group of people to search the scriptures when I imagined that would be totally beyond the expectations of of persons familiar with the abilities of the poor is what caused my concern. None of us know the rates of literacy in Zoramite society. There could be an unexplored  explanation as to why Alma expected these outcast poor to have access to scriptures and the ability to read them. Or maybe he didn't really expect this of the poor. Maybe it was just a turn pf phrase, or it was written as council for us in our own time. I don't know.   I've read that passage so many times without it troubling me. I guess I've been influenced by Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel which deals with the progression of civilizations.

Just a couple of thoughts - 

First, I think that the poor Zoramites were likely illiterate (at least for the most part). And this means that there is this incongruity between what is going on and what is being said. But, I would offer a somewhat different reading perhaps. This section seems really dialogic. And I think that there are two dialogues going on. The first is between Alma and the Zoramite experience as a whole. The second is between Alma and the poor that he is talking to. The text in Alma 33 tends to conflate these two conversations. The reason why I see this is that if we don't have these two different discussions going on, but only one (and to an illiterate group at that), parts of this discussion make even less sense than the whole study and read thing. The best we could say is that Alma is trying to point to them where to find a better theology. And yet, we could all come up with something better than this poetry in scripture that makes these same points. So, I would suggest that when Alma is telling the Zoramites to study the scriptures, he is speaking as if to the entire Zoramite population (not just those in front of him). And both groups are present - in Alma 32:6-7 we have two groups:

Quote

And now when Alma heard this, he turned him about, his face immediately towards him, and he beheld with great joy; for he beheld that their afflictions had truly humbled them, and that they were in a preparation to hear the word. Therefore he did say no more to the other multitude; but he stretched forth his hand, and cried unto those whom he beheld, who were truly penitent, and said unto them:

The thing is that Mormon's editorial comment misleads us. Alma continues to talk to both groups - even if he is directing his attention more specifically to the one group. He wants the other group to hear what he is saying also. So we have this dialogue going on between Alma and the poor outcasts of the Zoramites, but Alma is using this dialogue to critique the larger Zoramite community and their theology.

The second idea is that Alma's use of Zenos and Zenock is not random. It seems likely that Zenos and Zenock play a significant role of some sort in the Zormaite theology. So Alma doesn't have to justify his quoting of it. There is an assumption (which is why the question in verse 33:12 is rhetorical) that the Zoramites believe these texts - at least in some way - and they are familiar with them, and so he prooftexts. In verses 13-15: "Behold, if ye do, ye must believe what Zenos said; for, behold he said: ... I would ask if ye have read the scriptures? If ye have, ... For it is not written that Zenos alone spake of these things, but Zenock also spake of these things." The idea that Zenos and Zenock are at odds with Zoramite theology only really matters if this creates a conflict. And it is only after these two that we turn to what we would consider the normative arguments like the idea of Moses in the wilderness. So rather than seeing this language of searching the scriptures being directed at the poor, it is being directed at the other (the original) audience - they are the once who are being accused of selective reading of scripture. The message to the poor is simple: your scriptures contain material that hasn't been fully shared with you. And if you believe that Zenos and Zenock were prophets (and Moses as well for that matter), I (Alma) can use these texts to show that your exclusion is theologically wrong. But Alma isn't interested in these people returning to worship with the other Zoramites in their synagogues (whatever that term means here in this context), he is interested in helping them return to Nephite orthopraxy.

Anyway, this might help in terms of reading Alma 31-33. These situations where we get only one side of the dialogue without a full context are places where Mormon often distances us from the historical context in his selective presentation and editing. It is the disconnects like the one that you notice that help us understand that perhaps we need to approach the text differently.

A final note. I like Diamond. I think though, that it's hard to develop these sweeping theories without also creating some problems. It's been a long time since I really looked at a lot of that stuff, but in terms of the shifts in civilizations, it's easy to over-generalize. Not long after he published that book, I found this research interesting. This is from the abstract:

Quote

Lack of draft animals is often considered to have been an impediment to urban growth in Mesoamerica. Transport, however, was only one of several factors that influenced the growth of cities. This paper contrasts the effects of energetic efficiency differences between horses and human porters with productivity differences between European and Mesoamerican agricultural systems. Depending on strength and nutritional requirements, horses may be from one to five times as efficient as human porters. Furthermore, horses compete with humans for food. Where the horse played a major transport role, one-third of available, arable land was devoted to oat production. With this in mind, I compare maize versus wheat productivity to show that a unit of land in Mesoamerica could support up to twice as many people as the same unit of land in Europe. Thus, the transport advantage enjoyed by European cities is essentially offset by a more intensive agricultural system in Mesoamerica.

Edited August 15, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[Risingtide]

31 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Just a couple of thoughts - 

First, I think that the Zoramites were likely illiterate (at least for the most part). And this means that there is this incongruity between what is going on and what is being said. But, I would offer a somewhat different reading perhaps. This section seems really dialogic. And I think that there are two dialogues going on. The first is between Alma and the Zoramite experience as a whole. The second is between Alma and the poor that he is talking to. The text in Alma 33 tends to conflate these two conversations. The reason why I see this is that if we don't have these two different discussions going on, but only one (and to an illiterate group at that), parts of this discussion make even less sense than the whole study and read thing. The best we could say is that Alma is trying to point to them where to find a better theology. And yet, we could all come up with something better than this poetry in scripture that makes these same points. So, I would suggest that when Alma is telling the Zoramites to study the scriptures, he is speaking as if to the entire Zoramite population (not just those in front of him). And both groups are present - in Alma 32:6-7 we have two groups:

The thing is that Mormon's editorial comment misleads us. Alma continues to talk to both groups - even if he is directing his attention more specifically to the one group. He wants the other group to hear what he is saying also. So we have this dialogue going on between Alma and the poor outcasts of the Zoramites, but Alma is using this dialogue to critique the larger Zoramite community and their theology.

The second idea is that Alma's use of Zenos and Zenock is not random. It seems likely that Zenos and Zenock play a significant role of some sort in the Zormaite theology. So Alma doesn't have to justify his quoting of it. There is an assumption (which is why the question in verse 33:12 is rhetorical) that the Zoramites believe these texts - at least in some way - and they are familiar with them, and so he prooftexts. In verses 13-15: "Behold, if ye do, ye must believe what Zenos said; for, behold he said: ... I would ask if ye have read the scriptures? If ye have, ... For it is not written that Zenos alone spake of these things, but Zenock also spake of these things." The idea that Zenos and Zenock are at odds with Zoramite theology only really matters if this creates a conflict. And it is only after these two that we turn to what we would consider the normative arguments like the idea of Moses in the wilderness. So rather than seeing this language of searching the scriptures being directed at the poor, it is being directed at the other (the original) audience - they are the once who are being accused of selective reading of scripture. The message to the poor is simple: your scriptures contain material that hasn't been fully shared with you. And if you believe that Zenos and Zenock were prophets (and Moses as well for that matter), I (Alma) can use these texts to show that your exclusion is theologically wrong. But Alma isn't interested in these people returning to worship with the other Zoramites in their synagogues (whatever that term means here in this context), he is interested in helping them return to Nephite orthopraxy.

Anyway, this might help in terms of reading Alma 31-33. These situations where we get only one side of the dialogue without a full context are places where Mormon often distances us from the historical context in his selective presentation and editing. It is the disconnects like the one that you notice that help us understand that perhaps we need to approach the text differently.

A final note. I like Diamond. I think though, that it's hard to develop these sweeping theories without also creating some problems. It's been a long time since I really looked at a lot of that stuff, but in terms of the shifts in civilizations, it's easy to over-generalize. Not long after he published that book, I found this research interesting. This is from the abstract:

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts. You brought up things I hadn't considered. I hadn't considered that Alma was speaking to two audiences: the poor, and the proud. That would go along way to explain the urging to "search the scriptures" Your point that Zenos and Zenock were still admired among the Zoramites and quoting them justified Alma's message to the to both groups.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Risingtide said:

There could be an unexplored  explanation as to why Alma expected these outcast poor to have access to scriptures and the ability to read them. Or maybe he didn't really expect this of the poor. Maybe it was just a turn pf phrase, or it was written as council for us in our own time. I don't know. 

They would likely be an oral culture and have some scriptures that would be recited among them. Searching could be done by recitation and then discussion.