Interpreting Interpreter: A Semitic Alma

This post is a summary of the article “More Evidence for Alma as a Semitic Name” by Neal Rappleye and Allen Hansen in Volume 62 of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. All of the Interpreting Interpreter articles may be seen at https://interpreterfoundation.org/category/summaries/. An introduction to the Interpreting Interpreter series is available at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreting-interpreter-on-abstracting-thought/.

The Takeaway

Rappleye and Hansen cover new evidence related to the use of Alma as a male name in ancient Israel and note how straightforward searches for instances of the name in Joseph Smith’s time can be misleading.

The Summary

In this article, Neal Rappleye and Allen Hansen provide a brief update on evidence related to the name Alma, in terms of its use as a male name in both ancient times and in the time of Joseph Smith. Building off the discovery of the phrase “Alma Son of Judah” in a Hebrew legal document, as well as a few non-Hebrew Semitic examples, they draw attention to a new find that dates the name to the first century BC. It was found on an ossuary in Jerusalem, one that reads “Judah son of Alma,” with Alma occurring as a patronym. The scholars cataloguing the find consider it a variant of the name Elam, with the final a (aleph; א) of Alma potentially representing an abbreviated theophoric suffix (-ah, meaning “of God”). This has led to the proposed meaning “youth (or lad) of God”, based on a hypocoristic (i.e., pet-name) rendering of either ‘lm’l or ‘lmyhw, which would align with Alma the Elder’s introduction as a “young man” in Mosiah 17:2. The leading ’ (also an aleph) has been used interchangeably with the consonant ayin, ע (signified by a ‘ with the apostrophe reversed vs. the aleph), helping give space for that meaning (which would otherwise be “mute of God”), as supported by the etymology of similar biblical names (e.g., Almon and Alemeth).

This evidence is important in the context of past criticism of the name’s inclusion in the Book of Mormon. Facing clear evidence of its ancient use as a male name, critics have instead tried to find cases of men named Alma in the 1800s. Ancestry.com does indeed turn up about 42 such cases, though all but 4 of these are actually female, due to either initial clerical errors or issues with the search engine. Given that a similar search turns up thousands of records for female Almas (note from Kyler: I put the linked search together, not Rappleye and Hansen, so it’s not a direct comparison, but I think the point is a useful one), the fact that clerical errors far outnumber actual male cases helps highlight just how rare these instances were.

As Rappleye and Hansen conclude:

“Thus, if we are to hypothesize that the name Alma was randomly chosen by Joseph Smith from his environment, then it must be admitted that (1) it is much more likely that he would have thought of it as a feminine name, and (2) it is quite the remarkable coincidence that it is not only a legitimate rendering of a Hebrew masculine name, but also interplays with narrative contexts relevant to its likely Hebrew etymology.”

The Reflection

It strikes me how, for many critics, nothing is allowed to be evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. In this case, even the barest possibility, however remote, may be enough to negate the idea that the name Alma weighs on the side of authenticity. But even these critics’ efforts can teach us something useful. I’m a personal fan of rough, surface level, back-of-the-napkin kinds of analyses, since they can quickly disabuse false assumptions and lead to interesting questions. But that should never be where the analysis stops. I’m grateful for people like Rappleye and Hansen who take the analysis one level (and often several levels) deeper, because that’s where reliable truths are likely to lie. And since we can be confident that the truth is on the side of the Restoration, we should never be afraid of that deeper analysis. It will—as it so often has—push us through apparent dissonance to a more meaningful synthesis of evidence and faith.

Contents