The Days of Creation and Temple Architecture

Book of Moses Essay #46

Moses 2:1-27

With contribution by Jeffrey M Bradshaw

The illustration above from M. C. Escher depicts the first day of Creation, when “the earth was without form and void; and I caused darkness to come up upon the face of the deep; and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God.”1  The Hebrew term here translated “moved” is used in Deuteronomy 32:11 to describe an eagle hovering attentively over its young.2  In addition, one cannot help but recall the imagery of Jesus’ mourning for Jerusalem: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, … how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”3

Consistent with such a picture, the Book of Abraham employs the term “brooding,”4  the patient action of a mother bird by which eggs are incubated before they hatch. The imagery of “brooding” highlights not only the loving care of the Creator for His Creation, but may also allude to atonement symbolism. For example, Margaret Barker admits the possibility of a subtle wordplay in examining the reversal of consonantal sounds between “brood/hover” and “atone.”5  Atonement is arguably the central symbolism of Israelite temples, and may be reflected not only in the symbolism of Day One of Creation but also in the overall schema for the unfolding of the universe, as we outline in more detail below.

While it is true that some significant details were added to Genesis in the translation of Moses 2, it is perhaps more noteworthy that the effort resulted in no major reshaping of the creation story itself.6  As to the significant details, a brief prologue affirming that the account derives from the words of the Lord directly to Moses is added in verse 1. The repetition of the phrase “I, God” throughout the chapter also emphasizes its firsthand nature. Importantly, the fact that all things were created “by mine Only Begotten”7  is made clear, as is the Son’s identity as the co-creator at the time when God said “Let us make man.”8  Consistent with the words of Christ to the Brother of Jared,9  we learn that man was created in the image of the Only Begotten, which is equated to being created in God’s own image.10  Apart from these important points, the structure and basic premises of the Genesis account of the Creation were left intact.

That said, in reading the description of the seven days of Creation and the layout of the Garden of Eden, there seems to be more than meets the eye—including hints of temple themes. Can some of the enigmas of the Creation accounts be resolved through an understanding of the architecture of the Israelite temples? I believe so.

Differences Among the Four Basic Creation Stories

The Latter-day Saints have four basic Creation stories — found in Genesis, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, and the temple. In contrast to latter two accounts that emphasize the planning of the heavenly council and the work involved in setting the cosmological, geological, and biological processes in motion, the companion accounts of Genesis and the Book of Moses seem deliberately designed to relate the heavenly creation of the universe to the layout of the physical temple on earth. In addition, as we will see in a later essay,11  careful study of the first chapters of Genesis and the Book of Moses also reveals that not only the Creation, but also the Garden of Eden provided a model for the architecture of the temple.

The day-by-day description found in Genesis and the Book of Moses seem to have been deliberately shaped to highlight a step-by-step correspondence between the creation of each element of the universe and the architecture and furnishings of the Tabernacle and later Israelite temples. Understanding these parallels helps explain why, for example, in seeming contradiction to scientific understanding,12  the description of the creation of the sun and moon appears after, rather than before, the creation of light and of the earth. In Genesis and the Book of Moses, conveying the spiritual truths of how heavenly realities are symbolically reflected in earthly temples takes precedence over the scientific truths of how the Creation unfolded in physical processes over long time periods.

With this in mind, it becomes clear that the Genesis and Book of Moses creation accounts should not be quickly dismissed as naïve and outdated pre-scientific cosmology. Rather, they should be read as sophisticated reflections of temple theology. While relevant to ancient Israelite tradition, they are also of special interest to Latter-day Saint temple goers.

The Days of Creation and Temple Architecture

Building on threads in Jewish tradition, Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker suggests that the architecture of the tabernacle and ancient Israelite temples is modeled on Moses’ vision of the creation.13  In this view, the results of each day of Creation are symbolically reflected in temple furnishings. For example, the light of day one of Creation might be understood as the glory of God and those who dwelled with Him in the celestial world prior to their mortal birth. According to this logic, the temple veil that divided the temple Holy of Holies from the Holy Place would symbolize the “firmament” that was created to separate the heavens from the earth in its original, terrestrial state.14

A closer look at the word “firmament” in Hebrew confirms this interpretation as plausible. Joseph Smith translated Abraham 4:6 as “expanse” instead of “firmament.” The Prophet’s choice of the word “expanse” seems to have been based on the Hebrew grammar book that he used during his study of Hebrew in Kirtland.15  According to biblical scholar Nahum Sarna: “The verbal form [of the Hebrew term] is often used for hammering out metal or flattening out earth, which suggests a basic meaning of ‘extending.’”16  This could well apply to the idea of the spreading out of a curtain or veil. In light of correspondences between the story of Creation in Genesis and the making of the Tabernacle in Exodus, the concept of the firmament as a veil merits further study as a contrasting alternative to other biblical descriptions where it is clearly understood (misunderstood?) as a solid dome.17

Figure 2. Michael P. Lyon, 1952-: The Days of Creation and the Temple, 1994

Louis Ginzberg’s reconstruction of ancient Jewish sources is consistent with this overall idea,18  as well as with the suggestion of several scholars that a narrative of the Creation story something like Genesis 1 may have been used within temple ceremonies in ancient Israel:19

[1] God told the angels: On the first day of creation, I shall make the heavens and stretch them out; so will Israel raise up the tabernacle as the dwelling place of my Glory.20

[2] On the second day I shall put a division between the terrestrial waters21  and the heavenly waters, so will [my servant Moses] hang up a veil in the tabernacle to divide the Holy Place and the Most Holy.22

[3] On the third day I shall make the earth to put forth grass and herbs; so will he, in obedience to my commands, … prepare shewbread before me.23

[4] On the fourth day I shall make the luminaries;24  so he will stretch out a golden candlestick [menorah] before me.25

[5] On the fifth day I shall create the birds; so he will fashion the cherubim with outstretched wings.26

[6] On the sixth day I shall create man; so will Israel set aside a man from the sons of Aaron as high priest for my service.27

Carrying this idea forward to a later time, Exodus 40:33 describes how Moses completed the Tabernacle. The Hebrew text exactly parallels the account of how God finished creation.28  Genesis Rabbah comments on the significance of this parallel: “It is as if, on that day [i.e., the day the Tabernacle was raised in the wilderness], I actually created the world.” 29 With this idea in mind, Hugh Nibley famously called the temple “a scale-model of the universe.”30

The idea that the process of creation provides a model for subsequent temple building and ritual31  is found elsewhere in the ancient Near East. For example, this is made explicit in Hugh Nibley’s reading of the first, second, and sixth lines of the Babylonian creation story, Enuma Elish: “At once above when the heavens had not yet received their name and the earth below was not yet named … the most inner sanctuary of the temple … had not yet been built.”32  Consistent with this reading, the account goes on to tell how the god Ea founded his sanctuary (1:77),33  after having “established his dwelling” (1:71), “vanquished and trodden down his foes” (1:73), and “rested” in his “sacred chamber” (1:75).

Conclusion

Understanding the similitude that the account of Moses makes between the days of Creation and the temple explains its divergences from strictly scientific accounts. This temple symbolism in Creation will also be essential in understanding the layout of the Garden of Eden and the events of the Fall. Temple-going Latter-day Saints are in the best position of any living group to interpret these stories in their original context.

 

This article is adapted and updated from Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. “The LDS book of Enoch as the culminating story of a temple text.” BYU Studies 53, no. 1 (2014): 39–73. http://www.templethemes.net/publications/140224-a-Bradshaw.pdf, pp. 47-50. (accessed September 19, 2017).

Further Reading

Bailey, David H., Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, John H. Lewis, Gregory L. Smith, and Michael L. Stark, eds. Science and Mormonism: Cosmos, Earth, and Man. Interpreter Science and Mormonism Symposia 1. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2016. www.templethemes.net.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. www.templethemes.net, pp. 83-84, 97-98, 104.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Temple Themes in the Book of Moses. 2014 update ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Publishing, 2014. www.tempelethemes.net, pp. 54-55.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. “The LDS book of Enoch as the culminating story of a temple text.” BYU Studies 53, no. 1 (2014): 39–73. http://www.templethemes.net/publications/140224-a-Bradshaw.pdf, pp. 47-50. (accessed September 19, 2017).

Draper, Richard D., S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes. The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005, pp. 177-236.

References

Alexander, T. Desmond. From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2008.

Augustine. d. 430. St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis. New ed. Ancient Christian Writers 41 and 42. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1982.

Bailey, David H., Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, John H. Lewis, Gregory L. Smith, and Michael L. Stark, eds. Science and Mormonism: Cosmos, Earth, and Man. Interpreter Science and Mormonism Symposia 1. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2016.

Barker, Margaret. “Atonement: The rite of healing.” Scottish Journal of Theology 49, no. 1 (1996): 1-20. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~div054/sjt. (accessed August 3).

———. The Revelation of Jesus Christ: Which God Gave to Him to Show to His Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1.1). Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 2000.

———. “The veil as the boundary.” In The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy, edited by Margaret Barker, 202-28. London, England: T & T Clark, 2003.

———. E-mail message to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, June 11, 2007.

———. The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 2007.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/download/140123IGIL12014ReadingS.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and David J. Larsen. Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel. In God’s Image and Likeness 2. Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2014. hhttps://archive.org/download/131203ImageAndLikeness2ReadingS.

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. 1906. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.

Brown, William P. The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Cassuto, Umberto. 1944. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Vol. 1: From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 1st English ed. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1998.

Driver, Samuel Rolles. The Book of Exodus. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, ed. A. F. Kirkpatrick. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1911. https://archive.org/details/bookofexodusinre00driv/. (accessed August 31, 2020).

Flake, Kathleen. “Translating time: The nature and function of Joseph Smith’s narrative canon.” Journal of Religion 87, no. 4 (October 2007): 497-527. http://www.vanderbilt.edu/divinity/facultynews/Flake%20Translating%20Time.pdf. (accessed February 22, 2009).

Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2002.

———. 2002. The Cosmology of P and Theological Anthropology in the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira. In Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism, eds. Alexander Golitzin and Andrei A. Orlov. http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/Sirach1.pdf , http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/Sirach2.pdf. (accessed July 2, 2010).

Ginzberg, Louis, ed. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Translated by Henrietta Szold and Paul Radin. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909-1938. Reprint, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Grey, Matthew J. “Approaching Egyptian papyri through biblical language.” In Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity, edited by Mark Ashurst-McGee, Michael Hubbard MacKay and Brian M. Hauglid, 390-451. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 2020.

Hahn, Scott W. “Christ, Kingdom, and Creation: Davidic Christology and Ecclesiology in Luke-Acts.” Letter and Spirit 3 (2007): 167-90. http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/1931. (accessed July 2).

Hodges, Horace Jeffery. “Milton’s muse as brooding dove: Unstable image on a chaos of sources.” Milton Studies of Korea 12, no. 2 (2002): 365-92. http://memes.or.kr/sources/%C7%D0%C8%B8%C1%F6/%B9%D0%C5%CF%BF%AC%B1%B8/12-2/11.Hodges.pdf. (accessed August 25, 2007).

Josephus, Flavius. 37-ca. 97. “The Antiquities of the Jews.” In The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish Historian. Translated from the Original Greek, according to Havercamp’s Accurate Edition. Translated by William Whiston, 23-426. London, England: W. Bowyer, 1737. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1980.

Kearney, Peter J. “Creation and liturgy: The P redaction of Exodus 25-40.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89, no. 3 (1977): 375-87.

Leder, Arie C. “The coherenece of Exodus: Narrative unity and meaning.” Calvin Theologcal Journal 36 (2001): 251-69. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/02-exodus/Text/Articles/Leder-ExodusCoherence-CTJ.pdf. (accessed July 2).

Levenson, Jon D. “The temple and the world.” The Journal of Religion 64, no. 3 (1984): 275-98. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1202664. (accessed July 2).

McConkie, Bruce R. “Christ and the creation.” Ensign 12, June 1982, 8-15.

Milton, John. 1667. “Paradise Lost.” In Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, Samson Agonistes, edited by Harold Bloom, 15-257. London, England: Collier, 1962.

Morrow, Jeff. “Creation as temple-building and work as liturgy in Genesis 1-3.” Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies (JOCABS) 2, no. 1 (2009). http://www.ocabs.org/journal/index.php/jocabs/article/viewFile/43/18. (accessed July 2, 2010).

The NET Bible. In New English Translation Bible, Biblical Studies Foundation. https://net.bible.org/. (accessed August 12, 2017).

Neusner, Jacob, ed. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, A New American Translation. 3 vols. Vol. 1: Parashiyyot One through Thirty-Three on Genesis 1:1 to 8:14. Brown Judaic Studies 104, ed. Jacob Neusner. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985.

Nibley, Hugh W. “Meanings and functions of temples.” In Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow. 4 vols. Vol. 4, 1458-63. New York City, NY: Macmillan, 1992. http://www.lib.byu.edu/Macmillan/. (accessed November 26).

———. 1975. “The meaning of the temple.” In Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, edited by Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 12, 1-41. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1992.

———. 1980. “Before Adam.” In Old Testament and Related Studies, edited by John W. Welch, Gary P. Gillum and Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 1, 49-85. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1986.

———. 1986. “Return to the temple.” In Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, edited by Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 12, 42-90. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1992. https://mi.byu.edu/book/temple-and-cosmos/. (accessed August 21, 2020).

———. 1986. Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), Brigham Young University, 2004.

———. 1986. “The greatness of Egypt.” In Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple, edited by Stephen D. Ricks. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 17, 271-311. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2008.

Parry, Donald W. “Garden of Eden: Prototype sanctuary.” In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, 126-51. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=8&article=1075&context=mi&type=additional. (accessed August 25, 2020).

Polen, Nehemia. “Leviticus and Hebrews… and Leviticus.” In The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart and Nathan MacDonald, 213-25. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. http://books.google.com/books?id=N_jDnh8qMFMC. (accessed July 2).

Rey, Alain. Dictionnaire Historique de la Langue Française. 2 vols. 3ième ed. Paris, France: Dictionnaires Le Robert, 2000.

Ri, Andreas Su-Min. Commentaire de la Caverne des Trésors: Étude sur l’Histoire du Texte et de ses Sources. Vol. Supplementary Volume 103. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 581. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000.

Ricks, Stephen D. “Liturgy and cosmogony: The ritual use of creation accounts in the ancient Near East.” In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, 118-25. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.

Sarna, Nahum M., ed. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary, ed. Nahum M. Sarna. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Seixas, Joshua. A Manual of Hebrew Grammar for the Use of Beginners. Second enlarged and improved ed. Andover, MA: Gould and Newman, 1834. Reprint, Facsimile Edition. Salt Lake City, UT: Sunstone Foundation, 1981. https://books.google.com/books/about/A_manual_Hebrew_grammar_for_the_use_of_b.html?id=fN1GAAAAMAAJ. (accessed August 31, 2020).

Smith, Joseph, Jr. 1938. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1969.

Smith, Mark S. The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010.

Speiser, Ephraim A. “The Creation Epic (Enuma Elish).” In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James B. Pritchard. 3rd with Supplement ed, 60-72, 501-03. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972.

Tullidge, Edward W. 1877. The Women of Mormondom. New York City, NY: n.p., 1997.

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.

———. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

———. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Weinfeld, Moshe. “Sabbath, temple and the enthronement of the Lord: The problem of Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1-2:3.” In Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, edited by André Caquot and Mathias Delcor. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 212, 502-12. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker, 1981.

Young, Brigham. 1876. “Personal revelation the basis of personal knowledge; philosophic view of Creation; apostasy involves disorganization and returns to primitive element; one man power (Discourse by Brigham Young, delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, September 17, 1876).” In Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. Vol. 18, 230-35. Liverpool and London, England: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1853-1886. Reprint, Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966.

Notes on Figures

Figure 1. https://www.wikiart.org/en/m-c-escher/the-1st-day-of-the-creation (accessed August 31, 2020).

Figure 2. Adapted from a drawing published in D. W. Parry, Garden, pp. 134–135. With permission of the illustrator.

Footnotes

 

1 Moses 2:2.

2 See U. Cassuto, Adam to Noah, p. 25. Genesis Rabbah captures the spirit of this interpretation: “The spirit of God hovered like a bird which is flying about and flapping its wings, and the wings barely touch [the nest]” (J. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah 1, 2:4, p. 25).

“The basic idea of the [verb] stem is vibration, movement (see its use in, e.g., Jeremiah 23:9). Hitherto all is static, lifeless, immobile. Motion, which is the essential element in change, originates with God’s dynamic presence” (N. M. Sarna, Genesis, p 7).

3 Matthew 23:37. Cf. Luke 13:343 Nephi 10:5–6; Doctrine and Covenants 10:65; 29:2; 43:24.

4 Abraham 4:2. The change to “brooding” consistent with Joshua Seixas’ Hebrew grammar book studied by Joseph Smith in Kirtland (J. Seixas, Manual, p. 31-18). Milton interpreted the passage similarly in Paradise Lost, drawing from images such as the dove sent out by Noah (Genesis 8:6-12), the dove at Jesus’ baptism (John 1:32) and a hen protectively covering her young with her wing (Luke 13:34): “[T]hou from the first Wast present, and with mighty wings outspread Dovelike satst brooding on the vast abyss And mad’st it pregnant” (J. Milton, Paradise Lost, 1:19-22, p. 16. Cf. Augustine, Literal, 18:36; A. S.-M. Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne, pp. 113-115). “Brooding” enjoys rich connotations, including, as Nibley observes, not only “to sit or incubate [eggs] for the purpose of hatching” but also “‘to dwell continuously on a subject.’ Brooding is just the right word—a quite long quiet period of preparation in which apparently nothing was happening. Something was to come out of the water, incubating, waiting—a long, long time” (H. W. Nibley, Before Adam, p. 69).

5 Some commentators emphatically deny any connection of the Hebrew term with the concept of “brooding” (U. Cassuto, Adam to Noah, pp. 24-25). However, the “brooding” interpretation is not only attested by a Syriac cognate (F. Brown et al., Lexicon, 7363, p. 934b), but also has a venerable history, going back at least to Rashi who spoke specifically of the relationship between the dove and its nest. In doing so, he referred to the Old French term acoveter, related both to the modern French couver (from Latin cubare—to brood and protect) and couvrir (from Latin cooperire—to cover completely). Intriguingly, this latter sense is related to the Hebrew term for the atonement, kippur (M. Barker, Atonement; A. Rey, Dictionnaire, 1:555).

Margaret Barker admits the possibility of a subtle wordplay in examining the reversal of consonantal sounds between “brood/hover” and “atone”: “The verb for ‘hover’ is rchp, the middle letter is cheth, and the verb for ‘atone’ is kpr, the initial letter being a kaph, which had a similar sound. The same three consonantal sounds could have been word play, rchp/kpr. Such things did happen” (M. Barker, June 11 2007) “There is sound play like this in the temple style (see M. Barker, Hidden, pp. 15-17). The best known example is Isaiah 5:7, where justice and righteousness sound like bloodshed and cry” (M. Barker, June 11 2007). In this admittedly speculative interpretation, one might see an image of God figuratively “hovering/ atoning” over the singularity of the inchoate universe, prior to the dividing and separating process that was initiated by the first acts of Creation. See H. J. Hodges, Dovefor a cogent analysis of Milton’s sources and of general Hebrew-to-English translation issues. See also J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, Commentary 1:1-b, p. 42 and 4:5-b, p. 246.

6 With respect to “certain generalizations shared by Roman, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians,” Kathleen Flake notes two major differences with Latter-day Saint doctrine: “(1) the world was created from nothing and constituted an expression of God’s absolute goodness; hence, (2) humans, as created beings, are ontologically unrelated to God and brought evil into being by their action.… In [Joseph] Smith’s redaction of Genesis, people—as uncreated children of God—come first, and the world later” (K. Flake, Translating Time, pp. 510, 511-512). Flake observes that in LDS thought “God’s goodness and sovereignty is measured by the power to redeem human agents in extremis, not the power to create them ex nihilo” (ibid., p. 514).

7 Moses 2:1.

8 Moses 2:26

9 Ether 3:15

10 Moses 2:27.

11 See Essay #55

12 With respect to the creation accounts in scripture, the Latter-day Saints have avoided some of the serious clashes with science that have troubled other religious traditions. For example, we have no serious quarrel with the concept of a very old earth whose “days” of creation seem to have been of very long, overlapping, and varying duration (Alma 40:8; B. R. McConkie, Christ and the Creation, p. 11; B. Young, 17 September 1876, p. 23). Joseph Smith is remembered as having taught that the heavenly bodies were created prior to the earth, asserting that “… the starry hosts were worlds and suns and universes, some of which had being millions of ages before the earth had physical form” (E. W. Tullidge, Women, p. 178). For detailed discussions of the Book of Moses creation account, see J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 82-131. For additional discussion of science and Mormonism, see D. H. Bailey et al., Science and Mormonism 1.

13 M. Barker, Revelation, pp. 24-25; M. Barker, Hidden, p. 18. See also J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 146-149. Of course, the temple-centric view of the Pentateuch is not the exclusive model of Creation presented in the Bible, as scholars such as Brown and Smith explain (W. P. Brown, Seven Pillars; M. S. Smith, Priestly Vision).

14 See J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, p. 104.

15 J. Seixas, Manual, p. 21:10. See the discussion in M. J. Grey, Approaching Egyptian Papyri, pp. 420-424.

16 N. M. Sarna, Genesis, p. 8.

17 From this perspective, Enoch’s description in Moses 7:30 is particularly intriguing: “And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there” (emphasis added).

Note that the Israelite temple veil was replete with cosmic and creation symbols (M. Barker, Boundary). Materially, the temple veil was a “curtain” like the other curtains used for the Tabernacle, consistent with the NET Bible translation of “veil” as “special curtain” in Exodus 26:31. The translators note that the difference between the veil and other curtains is primarily functional: “The word פָרֹכֶת (pārōkhet) seems to be connected with a verb that means ‘to shut off’ and was used with a shrine. This curtain would form a barrier in the approach to God (see S. R. Driver, Exodus, 26:31, p. 289)” (NET Bible, NET Bible, Exodus 26:31, n. 38).

References in Exodus 24:10, Job 6:13; 37:18, and Ezekiel 1:22, 25, 26 describe the “firmament” as a polished dome, somewhat like smoothly hammered metal (Jeremiah 10:9) or sapphire. The concept of the firmament as a solid dome is also supported by references that describe heavenly “waters” literally as “water,” thus the need to fit the sky with “windows” that could open and close as needed for rainfall (e.g., Genesis 7:11, 8:2; Malachi 3:10). However, some late Jewish traditions put forth the idea that in some Creation contexts it may have referred to what Latter-day Saints would call “unorganized matter” (see e.g., J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, p. 98).

18 L. Ginzberg, Legends, 1:51. See also W. P. Brown, Seven Pillars, pp. 40-41; P. J. Kearney, Creation; C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Cosmology of P, pp. 10-11. According to Walton, “the courtyard represented the cosmic spheres outside of the organized cosmos (sea and pillars). The antechamber held the representations of lights and food. The veil separated the heavens and earth — the place of God’s presence from the place of human habitation” (J. H. Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, p. 82).

Note that in this conception of creation the focus is not on the origins of the raw materials used to make the universe, but rather their fashioning into a structure providing a useful purpose. The key insight, according to Walton, is that: “people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material proportion, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system… Consequently, something could be manufactured physically but still not ‘exist’ if it has not become functional. … The ancient world viewed the cosmos more like a company or kingdom” that comes into existence at the moment it is organized, not when the people who participate it were created materially (ibid., pp. 26, 35; cf. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 5 January 1841, p. 181, Abraham 4:1).

Walton continues:

It has long been observed that in the contexts of bara’ [the Hebrew term translated “create”] no materials for the creative act are ever mentioned, and an investigation of all the passages mentioned above substantiate that claim. How interesting it is that these scholars then draw the conclusion that bara’ implies creation out of nothing (ex nihilo). One can see with a moment of thought that such a conclusion assumes that “create” is a material activity. To expand their reasoning for clarity’s sake here: Since “create” is a material activity (assumed on their part), and since the contexts never mention the materials used (as demonstrated by the evidence), then the material object must have been brought into existence without using other materials (i.e., out of nothing). But one can see that the whole line of reasoning only works if one can assume that bara’ is a material activity. In contrast, if, as the analysis of objects presented above suggests, bara’ is a functional activity, it would be ludicrious to expect that materials are being used in the activity. In other words, the absence of reference to materials, rather than suggesting material creation out of nothing, is better explained as indication that bara’ is not a material activity but a functional one (J. H. Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, pp. 43-44).

In summary, the evidence … from the Old Testament as well as from the ancient Near East suggests that both defined the pre-creation state in similar terms and as featuring an absence of functions rather than an absence of material. Such information supports the idea that their concept of existence was linked to functionality and that creation was an activity of bringing functionality to a nonfunctional condition rather than bringing material substance to a situation in which matter was absent. The evidence of matter (the waters of the deep in Genesis 1:2) in the precreation state then supports this view” (ibid., p. 53).

19 E.g., M. Weinfeld, Sabbath, pp. 508-510; S. D. Ricks, Liturgy; P. J. Kearney, Creation; J. Morrow, Creation.

20 Exodus 40:17-19.

21 Jewish commentators have sometimes taken the term “waters” in the creation account to refer generally to the matter out of which all things were created. For a discussion and sources, see J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, p. 98.

22 Exodus 40:20-21.

23 Exodus 12:8, 25:30.

24 For a discussion how the notion of “priestly time” is reflected in the story of the creation of the luminaries, see M. S. Smith, Priestly Vision, pp. 93-94, 97-98.

25 Exodus 25:31-40, 37:17-24.

26 Exodus 25:18-22, 37:6-9.

27 See Exodus 40:12-15. See also M. S. Smith, Priestly Vision, pp. 98-102. “Through Genesis 1 we come to understand that God has given us a privileged role in the functioning of His cosmic temple. He has tailored the world to our needs, not to His (for He has no needs). It is His place, but it is designed for us and we are in relationship with Him” (J. H. Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, p. 149).

28 Moses 3:1. See J. D. Levenson, Temple and World, p. 287; A. C. Leder, Coherence, p. 267; J. Morrow, Creation. Levenson also cites Blenkinsopp’s thesis of a triadic structure in the priestly concept of world history that described the “creation of the world,” the “construction of the sanctuary,” and “the establishment of the sanctuary in the land and the distribution of the land among the tribes” in similar, and sometimes identical language. Thus, as Polen reminds us, “the purpose of the Exodus from Egypt is not so that the Israelites could enter the Promised Land, as many other biblical passages have it. Rather it is theocentric: so that God might abide with Israel. … This limns a narrative arc whose apogee is reached not in the entry into Canaan at the end of Deuteronomy and the beginning of Joshua, but in the dedication day of the Tabernacle (Leviticus 9-10) when God’s Glory — manifest Presence — makes an eruptive appearance to the people (Leviticus 9:23-24)” (N. Polen, Leviticus, p. 216).

In another correspondence between these events, Mark Smith notes a variation on the first Hebrew word of Genesis (bere’shit) and the description used in Ezekiel 45:18 for the first month of a priestly offering (bari’shon): “‘Thus said the Lord: ‘In the beginning (month) on the first (day) of the month, you shall take a bull of the herd without blemish, and you shall cleanse the sanctuary.’ What makes this verse particularly relevant for our discussion of bere’shit is that ri’shon occurs in close proximity to ’ehad, which contextually designates ‘(day) one’ that is ‘the first day’ of the month. This combination of ‘in the beginning’ (bari’shon) with ‘(day) one’ (yom ’ehad) is reminiscent of ‘in beginning of’ (bere’shit) in Genesis 1:1 and ‘day one’ (yom ’ehad) in Genesis 1:5” (M. S. Smith, Priestly Vision, p. 47).

Hahn notes the same correspondences to the creation of the cosmos in the building of Solomon’s Temple (S. W. Hahn, Christ, Kingdom, pp. 176-177; cf. J. Morrow, Creation; J. D. Levenson, Temple and World, pp. 283-284; C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Glory, pp. 62-65; M. Weinfeld, Sabbath, pp. 506, 508):

As creation takes seven days, the Temple takes seven years to build (1 Kings 6:38). It is dedicated during the seven-day Feast of Tabernacles (1 Kings 8:2), and Solomon’s solemn dedication speech is built on seven petitions (1 Kings 8:31-53). As God capped creation by “resting” on the seventh day, the Temple is built by a “man of rest” (1 Chronicles 22:9) to be a “house of rest” for the Ark, the presence of the Lord (1 Chronicles 28:2; 2 Chronicles 6:41; Psalm 132:8, 13-14; Isaiah 66:1).

When the Temple is consecrated, the furnishings of the older Tabernacle are brought inside it. (R. E. Friedman suggests the entire Tabernacle was brought inside). This represents the fact that all the Tabernacle was, the Temple has become. Just as the construction of the Tabernacle of the Sinai covenant had once recapitulated creation, now the Temple of the Davidic covenant recapitulated the same. The Temple is a microcosm of creation, the creation a macro-temple.

29 J. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah 1, 3:9, p. 35.

30 H. W. Nibley, Meaning of Temple, pp. 14-15; cf. H. W. Nibley, Greatness, p. 301; T. D. Alexander, From Eden, pp. 37-42. Speaking of the temple and its furnishings, Josephus wrote that each item was “made in way of imitation and representation of the universe” (F. Josephus, Antiquities, 3:7:7, p. 75). Levenson has suggested that the temple in Jerusalem may have been called by the name “Heaven and Earth,” paralleling similar names given to other Near East temples (see J. H. Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, pp. 180-181 n. 12).

31 H. W. Nibley, Return, pp. 71–73. See also J. H. Walton, Ancient, pp. 123–127; H. W. Nibley, Meanings and Functions, pp. 1460–1461; S. D. Ricks, Liturgy. For more on the structure and function of the story of Creation found in Genesis 1 and arguably used in Israelite temple liturgy, see J. H. Walton, Lost World of Genesis One; M. S. Smith, Priestly Vision. W. P. Brown, Seven Pillars provides perspectives on other biblical accounts of creation. See J. H. Walton, Genesis 1, pp. 17–22 for a useful table that highlights similarities and differences among creation accounts in the ancient Near East. Cf. W. P. Brown, Seven Pillars, pp. 21–32.

32 H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, p. 122. The term giparu, rendered by Nibley as “inner sanctuary” (ibid., p. 122; compare E. A. Speiser, Creation Epic, 1:1, 2 6b, pp. 60–61), has been translated variously in this context by others as “bog,” “marsh,” or “reed hut.” The latter term more accurately conveys the idea of an enclosure housing the sanctuary or residence of the en(t)u priest(ess) of the temple. For more about the temple connotation of the Babylonian reed hut and its significance for the story of the flood in the Bible and other ancient flood accounts, see J. M. Bradshaw et al., God’s Image 2, pp. 216-221.

33 See E. A. Speiser, Creation Epic, p. 61 n. 4.

Chiasmus in Moses 1

Book of Moses Essay #45

Moses 1

With contribution of Mark J. Johnson

This Essay examines the ancient literary form of chiasmus within Moses 1. Chiasmus includes “several types of inverted parallelisms, short or long, in which words first appear in one order and then in the opposite order.”1

In contrast to earlier discussions, recent studies of chiasmus have increasingly focused on its purpose and function. Scholars have relied on chiasmus to identify textual boundaries, to account for repetitions within a literary unit, to discover a composition’s main theme and as a marker for textual unity.

Here, we will focus on two of these aspects: First, we will look at chiasmus as a structuring device and second, as an indicator of textual units.

Chiasmus as a Structuring Device

Concentric structuring. Moses 1 can be structured as three scenes arranged in a concentric pattern. Moses’ face-to-face encounters with God provide a frame for the confrontation between Moses and Satan:

A  Moses in the presence of God (1:1-11)

   B  Confrontation between Moses and Satan (1:12-22)

A  Moses in the presence of God (1:23-2:1)

The contest against Satan completes a tripartite structure which is folded between the ascent accounts. Satan’s sudden arrival, temptation of Moses and expulsion is a natural hinge for the following concentric arrangement:

Moses 1:1-2:1

A  The word of God, which he spoke unto Moses upon an exceeding high mountain (1)

  B  Endless is God’s name (3)

    C  God’s work and his glory (4)

      D  The Lord has a work for Moses

        E  Moses is in the similitude of the Only Begotten (6)

          F  Moses beholds the world and the ends thereof (7-8)

            G  The presence of God withdraws from Moses (9)

              H  Man, in his natural strength, is nothing (10)

                I  Moses beheld God with his spiritual eyes (11)

 

                  J  Satan came tempting him (12)

                    K  Moses’ response to Satan (13-15)

                      L  Moses commands Satan to depart (16-18)

                        M  Satan ranted upon the earth (19)

                          N  Moses began to fear

                            O  Moses called upon God

                          N Moses received strength (20)

                        M Satan began to tremble and the earth shook

                      L Moses cast Satan out in the name of the Only Begotten (21)

                    K Satan cried with weeping and wailing

                  JSatan departs from Moses (22)

 

                I Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven (23-24)

              H Moses is made stronger than many waters

            G Moses beheld Gods glory again (25)

          F Moses is shown the heavens and the earth (27-31)

        ECreation by the Only Begotten (32-33)

  BGods works and words are endless (38)

    CGods work and his glory (39)

      DMoses to write the words of God (40-41)

A The Lord spoke unto Moses concerning the heaven and earth (Moses 2:1)

The author’s use of chiasmus as a structuring device is significant on many levels. Most importantly, it uses the center of the structure to highlight the theme of this chapter. Moses calling upon God and being strengthened by him is the turning point. After that, everything changes. Moses is able to overcome this trial by Satan and then return to the presence of the Lord to speak with him face to face. The instruction and blessings Moses receives at the end of the chapter are greater than what he received at the beginning of the chapter.2

The structure of the chapter dictates that the second half of the chapter is very closely related to the first half. The parallels are striking. The two divine encounters of the author tightly frame this epic battle with Satan at the center of the chiasm and the turning point of the story being Moses calling upon God and being strengthened. Dan Belnap elaborates that, “The differences between the two encounters will reflect the new understandings of the vision Moses gains through his confrontation with the adversary.”3

One of Nils Lund’s laws of chiasmus demonstrates that the center of the chiasm often has a parallel theme in the outer portion of the arrangement as well.4   The center of the arrangement has Moses being strengthened. This theme of strength occurs in verse 10 and later in verse 25. Perhaps the most interesting parallel is the pairing with the oft quoted Moses 1:39, where God’s work and glory is explained, with its counterpart in verse 5. Verse 39, when seen as an expansion of verse 5, gives God’s work and glory a cosmic context that places humankind as a higher priority than all the rest of creation.

It is also important to note that the boundaries of this literary unit go beyond the current chapter limits of our published Book of Moses and stretch into chapter two. The significance of this will be discussed below.

Smaller chiastic structures. Wayne Larsen5  has proposed that the description of God’s “work and glory” in verse 39 forms a chiastic bookend with God’s statement in Moses 1:31-32: “For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me. And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.”

Moses 1:31-39

a God’s purpose (verse 31)

            b Worlds without number / worlds pass away (32-34)

                        c Only an account of this earth (35)

                        c’ Moses accepts an account of only this earth (36)

            b’ Heavens cannot be numbered / heavens pass away (37-38)

a’ God’s purpose (39)Small gems like this indicate the careful way in which the English text was crafted.

Bipartite structuring. One of the strange things about the detailed structure of Moses 1 as a whole is a seemingly intrusive verse near the middle of the chapter that commands Moses not to share certain parts of his account with unbelievers. However, once the bipartite structure of the chapter is recognized, the seeming intrusion makes perfect sense.

Moses 1:1-41

A  Moses is caught up to see God (1)

B     God declares himself as the Almighty (3)

C        God is without beginning of days or end of years (3)

D           Moses beholds the world (7)

E              Moses beholds the children of men (8)

F                 Moses sees the face of God (11)

G                   Moses to worship the Only Begotten (17)

H                      Moses bore record of this, but due to wickedness, it shall not be had among the children of men (23)

A’ Moses beholds God’s glory (24-25)

B’    God declares himself the as Almighty (25)

C’       God to be with Moses until the end of his days (26)

D’          Moses beholds the earth (27)

E’             Moses beholds the earth’s inhabitants (28)

F’                Moses sees the face of God (31)

G’                  Creation through the Only Begotten (33)

H’                     Moses to write the words of God, but they shall be taken away (41)

Guiding the reader. The use of chiasmus in Moses 1 also serves as a rhetorical purpose to guide the reader along the journey the narrator has created. This structural form is appropriate for when the flood rises and falls, for times when the first shall be last and the last shall be first, and when things that are lost are to be restored. Or for when a prophet is caught up to God and then returned. The chiastic pattern rhetorically reflects the narrative direction of the unit.

Consider this example from the first ascent in the first verses of Moses 1. Here the author ends the ascent in a mirror image of the way it began:

Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain

   Moses saw God face to face, and he talked with him

      The glory of God was upon Moses

         Moses could endure his presence. (Moses 1:1-2)

         The presence of God withdrew from Moses.

      God’s glory was not upon Moses.

   Moses was left unto himself.

Moses fell unto the earth. (Moses 1:9)

The ending in verse nine mirrors the introduction in verses 1-2. This gives the audience an abrupt ending to the ascent, almost as if the reader tripped and fell down these steps, not unlike Moses falling to the earth. The phrases used by the author in verse nine are abrupt and to the point, hurrying the pace of the narrative.

With such rhetorical effect in the text, it is easy to see that Hugh Nibley has correctly referred to Moses 1 as a “literary tour de force”.6

Chiasmus as a Tool in Text Criticism

Another way that chiasmus can be used is an indicator of textual unity. If a structural device is employed in the text, it can be argued that the author or editor who was responsible for the first part of the text was also responsible for the rest of the structure. If the additions by the JST are found embedded in such structures, it is reasonable to view those as a restoration of a pre-existing text.

Consider this example from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST). In Mark 9:13, Jesus answers a question from Peter, James and John about Elijah (Elias in the KJV). The additions made in the JST continue the response of the Savior with a few additional details. Note that the text added in the JST revision of the verses is italicized.

Mark 9:13 (JST)

But I say unto you
a. that Elias is indeed come
   b. and they have done unto him
        whatsoever they listed
      c as it is written of him
      c’ and he bore record of me
   b’ and they received him not.
a’ Verily, this was Elias.

The fact that this addition to the text makes a complete chiastic unit is evidence that the added material may be a restoration of a once original text. The presence of the chiastic structure fits the observations of Francis I. Anderson who noted, “Some editor has put together scraps of … the same story with scissors and paste, and yet has achieved a result which from the point of view of discourse grammar, looks as if it has been made out of whole cloth.”7  Once the chiastic structure of the verse is recognized, the addition by the Prophet Joseph Smith to the New Testament text appears to read as whole cloth.

This notion of narrative structures in the text as indicators of a prophetic restoration has application to Moses 1. The end of Moses 1 contains an injunction from the Lord to Moses to write his words, which is carried through to Moses 2. Kent Jackson notes that in the transition between chapters, “[the words of Moses 2] do not give the impression of having been written to stand at the head of a new document, but to continue the texts that precede them.”8  This flow of the words invites a look for literary features. Here we find a connecting link between these two separate revelations in the form of a small chiasm.9   The earlier revelation of Moses 1 is presented in regular type while the separate revelation that begins the next chapters (Moses 2) is in italics.

Moses 1:40-2:1

a  …this earth upon which thou standest

     b  write the words which I shall speak. (40)

          c  And in a day when the children of men

               d  shall esteem my words as naught

                    e  and take many of them from the book which thou shall write,

                         f  behold, I will raise up another

                         f like unto thee

                    e and they shall be had again

          c among the children of men

               d as many as shall believe. (41)

     b  …write the words which I speak

aand the earth upon which thou standest. (2:1)

Note that verse 42 has been left out of the arrangement as it is a parenthetical aside from the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith and is not part of the vision itself.10  The presence of chiasmus in these verses link these two revelations together suggesting a deliberate textual unit. The words “earth upon which thou standest” act as an inclusio demarcating the limits of the segment.

The use of chiasmus to demonstrate the fabric of the text and show possible tampering has also been used cautiously by Bart D. Ehrman. He wisely notes: “Such probabilities cannot be overlooked, even if they do not prove decisive in and of themselves.”11

If a narrative structure contains elements from both the JST and the extant biblical text, it strongly suggests a textual unity between the two.12

Conclusion

The study of chiasmus in Moses chapter 1 reveals a carefully constructed literary masterwork.

In addition to testifying to the antiquity of Moses 1, chiasmus serves as an important tool for understanding the textual fabric of the Book of Moses and may indicate passages where the JST additions are carefully woven into the biblical text.

Further Reading

Bowen, Matthew L. “‘And They Shall Be Had Again’: Onomastic Allusions to Joseph in Moses 1:41 in View of the So-called Canon Formula.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 32 (2019): 297-304. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/and-they-shall-be-had-again-onomastic-allusions-to-joseph-in-moses-141-in-view-of-the-so-called-canon-formula/. (accessed July 20, 2020).

Johnson, Mark J. “The lost prologue: Reading Moses Chapter One as an Ancient Text.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 145-86. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-lost-prologue-reading-moses-chapter-one-as-an-ancient-text/. (accessed June 5, 2020).

Rappleye, Neal. “Chiasmus criteria in review.” BYU Studies Quarterly 59, no. Supplement containing the papers from the Chiasmus Jubilee Conference at BYU, August 15-16, 2017, sponsored by Book of Mormon Central and BYU Studies. John w. Welch and Donald W. Parry, eds. (2020): 289-309. https://www.byustudies.byu.edu/content/chiasmus-criteria-review. (accessed August 17, 2020).

References

Andersen, Francis I. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton, 1974.

Belnap, Daniel. “‘Where is thy glory’: Moses 1, the nature of truth, and the plan of salvation.” Religious Educator 10, no. 2 (2009): 163-79. https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/Where_Is_Thy_Glory_Moses_1_the_Nature_of_Truth_and_the_Plan_of_Salvation.pdf. (accessed August 17, 2020).

Berman, Joshua A. Inconsistency in the Torah: Ancient Literary Convention and the Limits of Source Criticism. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017. https://www.scribd.com/document/439395392/Joshua-A-Berman-Inconsistency-in-the-Torah-Ancient-Literary-Convention-and-the-Limits-of-Source-Criticism-2017-Oxford-University-Press. (accessed August 8, 2020).

Bowen, Matthew L. “‘And They Shall Be Had Again’: Onomastic Allusions to Joseph in Moses 1:41 in View of the So-called Canon Formula.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 32 (2019): 297-304. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/and-they-shall-be-had-again-onomastic-allusions-to-joseph-in-moses-141-in-view-of-the-so-called-canon-formula/. (accessed July 20, 2020).

Calabro, David. “Joseph Smith and the architecture of Genesis.” In The Temple: Ancient and Restored. Proceedings of the 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Symposium, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry. Temple on Mount Zion 3, 165-81. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2016. https://www.academia.edu/37488023/Joseph_Smith_and_the_Architecture_of_Genesis. (accessed August 25, 2020).

Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Faulring, Scott H., and Kent P. Jackson, eds. Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible Electronic Library (JSTEL) CD-ROM. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2011.

Jackson, Kent. “The visions of Moses and Joseph Smith’s Bible translation.” In “To Seek the Law of the Lord”: Essays in Honor of John W. Welch, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson and Daniel C. Peterson, 161-69. Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation, 2017. Reprint, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40(2020), 89–98. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-visions-of-moses-and-joseph-smiths-bible-translation/.

Lund, Nils W. Chiasmus in the New Testament. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1942.

Nibley, Hugh W. “To open the last dispensation: Moses chapter 1.” In Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by Truman G. Madsen, 1-20. Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978. https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/open-last-dispensation-moses-chapter-1. (accessed August 21, 2020).

Rappleye, Neal. “Chiasmus criteria in review.” BYU Studies Quarterly 59, no. Supplement containing the papers from the Chiasmus Jubilee Conference at BYU, August 15-16, 2017, sponsored by Book of Mormon Central and BYU Studies. John W. Welch and Donald W. Parry, eds. (2020): 289-309. https://www.byustudies.byu.edu/content/chiasmus-criteria-review. (accessed August 17, 2020).

Notes on Figures

Figure 1. S. H. Faulring, et al., JST Electronic Library, OT 1-2 (Moses 1:19b-36), Moses 1:19b-21a.

Footnotes

 

1 N. Rappleye, Chiasmus Criteria in Review, p. 289

2 See Essays #39-41.

3 D. Belnap, “Where Is Thy Glory”, p. 167.

4 N. W. Lund, Chiasmus, p. 42.

5 Personal communication to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw.

6 H. W. Nibley, To Open, p. 6.

7 F. I. Andersen, Sentence, p. 40.

8 K. Jackson, Visions of Moses, pp. 163-164.

9 Note that a similar arrangement has been presented by Matthew Bowen. M. L. Bowen, And They Shall Be Had Again, p. 301.

10 David Calabro has argued otherwise, arguing that verse 42 was also part of the original narrative. While his reasoning has merit, Mark Johnson sees the flow of the text without verse 42 as evidence that these last instructions were an addition for the instruction of the Prophet Joseph. See D. Calabro, Joseph Smith and the Architecture, p. 169.

11 B. D. Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 192.

12 For an additional example of the use of chiasmus to indicate textual integrity, see J. A. Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah. On pages 260-262 he discusses the possibility that a chiastic structure for the flood narrative [illustrated on Page 261] indicates that it is from a single source rather than a merger of sources. In his concluding chapter he discusses the value of chiasmus in determining textual integrity (page 276). He cites John W. Welch regarding both the criteria for determining chiasmus and the presence of it in ancient near eastern writing.

Hebrew Literary Features of Moses 1

Book of Moses Essay #44

Moses 1

With contribution by Mark J. Johnson

This Essay continues our look at the literary features of Moses 1. Since Moses 1 leads directly into the narrative flow of JST Genesis, it is natural that it should share stylistic and literary features of the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament). Below, we will highlight three topics: parallelism, Hebraisms, and figures of speech or idioms.

Parallelism

The most important thing to know about Hebrew thought is that it sought beauty and balance in writings by the use of repetition. While Western poetry is largely based on rhyming of sounds, the prose and poetry of the biblical text finds greater value in what one might call the rhyming of ideas. In other words, poetic verse and narrative structure were built on the foundation of repetition. Jack R. Lundbom emphasizes that, “repetition is the single most important feature of ancient Hebrew rhetoric, being used for emphasis, wordplays, expressing the superlative, creating pathos, and structuring both parts and wholes of prophetic discourse. Its importance can hardly be overestimated. Repetitions can be sequential or placed in strategic collocations to provide balance. … [They] can form a tie-in between the beginning and the end.”1

Forms of repetition can be visible from the minute level of strophes and stanzas in poetry, to multiline units such as poems, speeches, and oracles. The principles of repetition are also seen in the structuring of character arcs and even as the backbone of whole books. This type of repetition is frequently called parallelism.

Because of the differing size and scope of repetition as well as their presence in both poetry and prose, scholars have differing opinions about what can be truly classified as parallelism.2  Donald W. Parry’s perspective positions parallelism equally with poetry and prose, noting that “not all parallelistic forms are poetic, for parallelism serves in a variety of rhetorical and literary functions.”2

Synonymous Parallelism

This type of parallelism “sets forth [its] ideas in the first line, then restates, reinforces or reconfigures them in the next line.”4  Note this example from the early chapters of Genesis.

            Adah and Zillah

Hear my voice;

            Ye wives of Lamech

hearken unto my speech. (Genesis 4:23)

“Adah and Zillah” are mirrored in the second line with “Ye wives of Lamech” while Lamech’s declaration is repeated with “Hear my voice” and “Hearken unto my speech.”

The same type of parallelism can be found in Moses 1:

For my works

are without end,

and also my words

for they never cease. (Moses 1:4)

The use of synonymous parallelism shows God equating his works with his words. Both, he says, are endless.

Synthetic Parallelism

Parry notes that this type of parallelism “is composed of two lines, neither of which are synonymous or antithetical. Rather, line one presents a declaration and line two gives something new or instructive to the first line.”5  Examples include Proverbs 1:7 and 2 Nephi 2:25. An oft quoted verse in the Book of Moses is also written in this form:

For behold, this is my work and my glory—
to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1:39)

Inverted Parallelism

Inverted Parallelism, or Chiasmus, is a type of parallelism where the repetition of elements is in an inverted order, rather than sequential. D. Lynn Johnson6  has made note of this arrangement in Moses 1:

A And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking,

Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth,

B yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold,

C discerning it by the Spirit of God.

D And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof,

D’ and there was not a soul which he beheld not;

C’ and he discerned them by the Spirit of God;

B’ and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

A’ And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof. (Moses 1:27-29)

Hebraisms

A Hebraism is a distinctive element of Hebrew occurring in another language. This includes traces of its unique characteristics which are still apparent even after translation. The presence of Hebraisms in the scriptural text are significant since they are grammatically problematic in the English language but are characteristic of good Hebrew grammar. The presence of Hebraic features would be indicative of Moses 1 being an ancient text.

Relative Clauses

John A. Tvedtnes described the relative clause: “In Hebrew, the word that marked the beginning of the clause (generally translated which or who in English) does not always closely follow the word it refers back to, as it usually does in English.”7  This type of construction is also manifest in the Book of Mormon and in Moses 1:

But ye know that the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea,
who were the armies of Pharaoh. (1 Nephi 17:27)

and by the Son I created them,
which is mine Only Begotten. (Moses 1:33)

Compound Prepositions

Simple prepositions are words such as in, on, under, after, and around, that establish a relationship between a noun and a pronoun. Compound prepositions perform the same function, but with a combination of prepositions which act as a single word. Examples include on top of, in front of, or over against. Parry demonstrates one example from the Old Testament, “The Lord God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel” (Judges 11:23, emphasis added).8  Moses 1:1 contains an example of a compound preposition, where “Moses was caught up into an exceeding high mountain.”

Possessive Pronouns

The English language favors minimal use of possessive pronouns, while “Biblical Hebrew … regularly repeats [these] pronouns” to form them as a type of list.9  Compare this example from the Book of Joshua with Moses 1:

ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters (Joshua 2:13)

and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold, this is my work and my glory (Moses 1:38-39)

Resumptive Repetition

The biblical authors often needed to offer additional explanation as they told their narratives, so they employed a technique that modern scholars have called resumptive repetition.10  The English language would add an aside to its discourse by the use of parenthesis, commas or dashes, and then continue with the original thought. The Bible, on the other hand, returns to its subject by repeating a key phrase from earlier in the narrative.

Here is an example of resumptive repetition in the Old Testament:

And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.
And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.

And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.
But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. (Exodus 14:22-23, 27-29)

And here is a similar example from Moses 1:

And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.
Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.
And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.
And now, behold, this one thing I show unto thee, Moses, my son, for thou art in the world, and now I show it unto thee. (Moses 1:4-7)

Figures of Speech

Understanding particular figures of speech (or idioms) is an important tool as these features illuminate the meanings of text when a more literal reading would be insufficient.

Antenantiosis

This figure of speech is “the practice of stating a proposition in terms of its opposite.”11  Two negatives are combined in a statement, one of which cancels the other out thereby creating a positive. Compare an example from the Proverbs with a verse from Moses 1:

the wicked shall not be unpunished:
but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered (Proverbs 11:21)

And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof,
and there was not a soul which he beheld not. (Moses 1:28a)

The technique of antenantiosis combines “not a soul” with “beheld not” to emphasize that Moses saw every living soul in his vision.

Litotes

Litotes is a figure of speech where something is dramatically understated in order to enhance or elevate something else. This is starkly apparent in Moses 1:10 where Moses declares that he is nothing in comparison to the glory and power of the Almighty and Endless God. Compare this statement with Abraham’s discussion with the Lord over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:

Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed. (Moses 1:10)

Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?” (Genesis 18:27-28, NIV)

Not unlike Moses, Abraham acknowledges the might of God by comparing himself to dust and ashes.

Polysyndeton

Polysyndenton is a Greek word that translates to mean “many conjunctions” or more commonly “many ands.”12  This rhetorical device enumerates lists of things, but with the purpose of affecting the pace of the narrative. Bullinger notes that this form is designed to catch the attention of the reader and to isolate individual items in the list for singular consideration.13  Consider its use in 1 Samuel and in Moses 1:

And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father’s sheep,
and there came a lion,
and a bear,
and took a lamb out of the flock:
And I went out after him,
and smote him,
and delivered it out of his mouth:
and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard,
and smote him,
and slew him. (1 Samuel 17:34-35)

And it came to pass that Moses looked,
and beheld the world upon which he was created;
and Moses beheld the world
and the ends thereof,
and all the children of men which are,
and which were created;
of the same he greatly marveled and wondered. (Moses 1:8)

Synecdoche

Where the part of something is used to represent the whole. Moses 1:1 and 1:11 use this figure, where speaking ‘face to face’ represents being in God’s whole presence:

He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not lift up his soul to an idol
or swear by what is false. (Psalm 24:4)

And he saw God face to face,
and he talked with him (Moses 1:2)

Conclusion

The importance of understanding these forms and figures of speech is not to just recognize ancient Hebraic literary features in Moses 1, but also to help us read the scriptural texts as their authors intended. Recognizing the forms that ancient authors used to persuade their readers with power brings latter-day readers closer to seeing and hearing as their counterparts did long ago.

In closing, David Noel Freedman elucidates an attitude toward literary form and features that should be remembered by Latter-day Saint students of the scriptures. He speaks specifically of parallelism, but his words can be applied to everything we have discussed in this Essay. He said: “I am confident that the reader will readily agree … that the study of parallelism is, above all else, fun.”14

 

This Essay is adapted and expanded from Johnson, Mark J. “The lost prologue: Reading Moses Chapter One as an Ancient Text.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 145-86. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-lost-prologue-reading-moses-chapter-one-as-an-ancient-text/. (accessed June 5, 2020).

Further Reading

Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Revised and Expanded ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2008.

Johnson, Mark J. “The lost prologue: Reading Moses Chapter One as an Ancient Text.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 145-86. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-lost-prologue-reading-moses-chapter-one-as-an-ancient-text/. (accessed June 5, 2020).

Parry, Donald W. Preserved in Translation: Hebrew and Other Ancient Literary Forms in the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2020.

References

Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Revised and Expanded ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2008.

Bullinger, E. W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Bake Book House, 1968.

Johnson, Mark J. “The lost prologue: Reading Moses Chapter One as an Ancient Text.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 145-86.

Lundbom, Jack R. Biblical Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015.

Parry, Donald W. “Hebraisms and other ancient pecularities in the Book of Mormon.” In Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson and John W. Welch, 155-189. Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002.

———. Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon. Provo, UT: The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2007. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/bookchapters/Poetic_Parallelisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon_The_Complete_Text_/Poetic%20Parallelisms%20in%20the%20Book%20of%20Mormon.pdf. (accessed August 9, 2017).

———. Preserved in Translation: Hebrew and Other Ancient Literary Forms in the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2020.

Tvedtnes, John A. “The Hebrew background of the Book of Mormon.” In Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, edited by John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, 77-91. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1991. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books?bookid=72&chapid=867. (accessed March 22).

Welch, John W. “Antenantiosis in the Book of Mormon.” In Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch, 96-97. Salt Lake City, UT and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992. https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/node/175. (accessed May 3, 2020).

Notes on Figures

Figure 1. Photograph by Mark J. Johnson.

Footnotes

 

1 J. R. Lundbom, Biblical Rhetoric, pp. 167–68.

2 For a useful discussion, see A. Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, pp. 1–7.

3 D. W. Parry, Poetic Parallelisms, p. xi.

4 D. W. Parry, Preserved in Translation, p. 13.

5 D. W. Parry, Poetic Parallelisms, p. xxiv.

6 http://www.ldsgospeldoctrine.net/dlj/TheVisualScriptures-PearlofGreatPrice.pdf.

7 J. A. Tvedtnes, Hebrew Background, p. 87.

8 {Parry, 2002 #6565}, p. 172.

9 D. W. Parry, Preserved in Translation, p. 61.

10 D. W. Parry, Preserved in Translation, p. 57.

11 J. W. Welch, Antenantiosis, p. 96.

12 The use of the technicque of“many ands” as a syntactical technique is explored further in {Johnson, 2020 #6435}.

13 E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, p. 210.

14 David Noel Freedman, Foreword to A. Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, p. xi.

A Literary Masterpiece: Many-Great Waters and Moses’ Mission to Baptize

Book of Moses Essay #43

Moses 1:25-26

With contribution by Matthew L. Bowen and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw

In the immediately preceding set of Essays,1  we focused on the narrative of Moses 1 and its interpretation. However, beginning with this Essay, we will turn our attention to some of the beautiful and meaningful ritual allusions and literary details of the chapter.

One of the most striking and neglected motifs in the Book of Moses — and for that matter in the Old Testament — is that of baptism. The truth that baptism was taught from the beginning as part of the doctrine of Christ constitutes one of the most precious teachings of the Pearl of Great Price.2  As we have discussed elsewhere,3  the Book of Moses describes how the name, titles, and aspects of the mission of Jesus Christ were known since the time of Adam and Eve. Vestiges of these ancient teachings survive in Jewish and early Christian tradition.

The Book of Moses situates references to baptism within the Primeval History between the creation of the Earth (including the creation of the “great waters”4 ) and the “uncreation” and “re-creation” of the Flood.5  Heading up the descriptions of the events of Creation and the retrospective references to baptism is the heavenly ascent of Moses.6 Following the defeat and expulsion of Satan (a motif that precedes baptism in some ancient Christian sources7  ), Moses’ interview with God resumes and God promises him, “thou shalt be made stronger than the many waters; for they shall obey thy command even as if thou wert God.”8

Below, we give an overview of the references to “many waters” and “great waters” in scripture and show how similar symbolism is associated with the bronze “sea” of Solomon’s temple. Then we will show how Moses, Enoch, and John the Baptist reenact this same symbolism as they fulfill their mission to baptize.

Many-Great Waters in Scripture and in the Symbolism of the Bronze Sea of Solomon’s Temple

The “many waters” or “great waters” found throughout scripture correspond to the “great waters” gathered together as “Sea” (including, oceans, rivers, lakes). In fact, the Moses account of creation describes them as such: “And I, God, made the firmament and divided the waters, yea, the great waters under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so even as I spake.”9  Likewise, the creation account in the Book of Abraham designates the “gathered” waters on the earth as “Great Waters.”10

Isaiah’s use of the phrase mê tĕhôm rabbâ (“waters of the great deep” or “waters of the mighty Tehom”) is semantically and conceptually associated with the phrase mayim rabbîm (“many waters”11  or “mighty waters”12 ). Herbert G. May long ago connected Isaiah 51:9-10 with texts like Habakkuk 3:1513  where Habakkuk uses “many waters” (mayim rabbîm) in parallel with the sea (yām, cf. the Ugaritic/Canaanite deity Yamm): “Thou didst walk through the sea with thine horses, through the heap [surging] of great waters [many waters, mayim rabbîm].” He also notes that in Habakkuk 3:15 the “many waters” are “associated with the ‘rivers’ and the ‘sea’ which Yahweh fights and conquers with divine power and authority, even as Baal struggled with the Sea and River in the Ugaritic myth.”14

In the Book of Mormon, the collocations “many waters”15  and “great waters” both appear.16  Moreover, Nephi defines the Lehite name Irreantum17  in terms of the “many waters” that they beheld from the shores of the land Bountiful on the Arabian peninsula—waters which separated them from their final destination in the land of Promise and that they would thus need to cross.

Using similar symbology, Jacob, the brother of Nephi, understood Isaiah’s mythic telling of the exodus event in Israel’s salvation history as a metaphor for the Savior’s atonement and his bringing to pass the resurrection of the dead. Jacob connected the primordial deities or sea “monsters” of Isaiah 51:9-10 with Mot and Sheol18 —i.e. personified and deified Death and Hell: “O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell [cf. Mot and Sheol]” (2 Nephi 9:10); “And because of the way of the deliverance of our God, the Holy One of Israel, this death [cf. Mot], of which I have spoken, which is the temporal, shall deliver up its dead.”19  And both Nephi and Jacob understood Isaiah’s mythic language as ritual language, equating “the way” (Heb. derek) through the “sea” (yām) in the Exodus as envisaged in Isaiah 43:16 and 51:9-11 with the “the way” of “the doctrine of Christ” or the covenant path, which included the ordinance of baptism.20

Figure 2. Baptismal Font in the Salt Lake Temple, ca. 1912

The “many waters” or “great waters (mayim rabbîm) gathered and subordinated in the creation and the “Sea” (yām, or divinized Yamm) defeated by Yahweh in the Exodus appear to find their ritual and architectural realization in the bronze sea (or “brazen sea” yām hannĕḥōšet),21  also called the molten sea (yām mûṣāq)22  that stood in the outer court of Solomon’s temple. Regarding that bronze sea, David Calabro asserts: “While there is no evidence that the temple laver was used as a baptismal font, it was definitely large enough to suggest such a use, and Joseph Smith’s specifications for a baptismal font modeled after the Solomonic laver for the Nauvoo Temple show that he understood it in this connection.”23  The purification that preceded entry into the holy place in the temple corresponds to baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost in what Nephi called the doctrine of Christ.24

Moses’ Mission in Drawing Israel Out of Many-Great Waters

The dual etiology for Moses’ name given in Exodus 2:10 and Moses 1:25-27 both looks forward to his divinely appointed mission in which he will be “made stronger than many waters” and defeat “the Sea” (Hebrew yām, cf. the Canaanite deity Yamm) during the Exodus25  and also backward to the Creation of the “great waters” by “the word of [God’s] power.”26  A comparison of Moses 1:25-26 to Exodus 2:10, the Song of David parallel text, and Isaiah 63:11 helps us recognize and more fully appreciate the interrelationship between the name Moses and the act of “drawing” or “pulling” Israel out of the Sea (yām, cf. Yamm) or “many waters”:

Exodus 2:10; Psalms 18:16 [MT 17] / 2 Samuel 22:17; Isaiah 63:11

Moses 1:25-26

And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses [mōšeh]: and she said, Because I drew him out [mĕšîtihû] of the water. (Exodus 2:10)

 

He sent from above, he took me[;] he drew me out [yamšēnî] of many waters [Heb. mayim rabbîm] (Psalm 18:16/2 Samuel 22:17)

 

Then they [He] remembered the ancient days

Him [He] who pulled [mōšeh] His people out [of the water]

Where is He who brought them up from
the Sea [yām, cf. deified Yamm]? (Isaiah 63:11, njps)

 

And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou, Moses [Egyptian, “begotten”; Heb. mōšeh “drawer” or “puller”] for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters [Heb. mayim rabbîm] for they shall obey thy command even as if thou wert God. And lo, I am with thee, even unto the end of thy days; for thou shalt deliver my people from bondage, even Israel my chosen. (Moses 1:25-26)

Each one of these texts attests the name Moses (Hebrew “drawer,” “puller”; cf. Egyptian “begotten” < ms[i]),27  the verb mšy (or both), and the image of birth/delivery from water. The phrase “many waters” in the Song of David28  and Moses 1:25 constitutes an important lexical link between these two texts. Realizing that the Psalms were the hymnal of the Jerusalem temple would suggest a ritual dimension to Psalm 18:16 (“He sent from above, he took me[;] he drew me out of many waters [mimmayim rabbîm]”) and the similarly-worded Psalm 144:7: “Send thine hand from above; rid me, and deliver me out of great waters [mimmayim rabbîm].” The image of the divine “hand from above” may, in addition, suggest a symbolic or ritual gesture.

Significantly, the term mayim rabbîm could also be translated as “mighty waters.”29  Thus, one way of reading the Lord’s promise to Moses’s calling to deliver Israel is that he would be made mightier than “mighty waters” through his priesthood.

Indeed, it is Moses’ power in the priesthood that allows him to overcome the waters, as described by Hugh Nibley: “This is the de profundis. That’s the 130th Psalm. … ‘Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord’”30  With similarity to the Egyptian myth of Osiris,31  the “final test is the baptism. … Moses is delivered from the waters and comes out.”32  In the typology of such tests, the righteous are raised in glory while the wicked drown and perish:33

Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty waters.

Moses experiences something similar to Jonah the prophet who, when swallowed by the fish “for three days and three nights,”34  and “in the midst of the seas [yāmmîm; cf. Yamm]; and the floods [wĕnāhār, literally, ‘and the river’] compassed [him] about,”35   he cried “out of the belly of hell [mibbeṭen šĕʾôl].”36  Assaulted by Satan’s rage, “Moses began to fear, and as he began to fear, he saw the bitterness of hell [Sheol]. Nevertheless calling upon God, he received strength…”37  Just as the Lord answered Jonah’s prayer and “brought [his] life up from corruption,”38  Moses defeats Satan through the Lord’s “strength”—strength which the Lord subsequently promises would reside in Moses himself: “thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God.”39

“Because There Were Many Waters There”

Figure 3. Dramatization of John the Baptist baptizing Jesus in the Jordan River.

The foregoing provides the necessary backdrop for understanding the symbolism of the place where John the Baptist encountered his disciples: “And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water [Greek hydata polla, many waters40 ] there: and they came, and were baptized.”41

This statement, like so many words and images in the gospel of John, constitutes a double entendre. To be sure, John baptized in Aenon or ʿēnayim (“double spring”)42  because “water was abundant there” (NRSV)—meaning there was water sufficient to completely immerse an individual. However, it appears that John also wished to draw a connection between the waters of baptism and the “many waters” (hydata polla = mayim rabbîm) in the extant scriptural tradition and to draw upon the Old Testament symbolism and typology of that image.43   If the collocation “many waters” seems too dramatic44  as a description for the springs in Aenon, which are near the Jordan River where Jesus was baptized45  (though the river itself remains unmentioned in John 3),46  perhaps this should be taken as further evidence that John is using the description evoke the “many waters”/“great waters” passages from Psalms 18:16; 29:3; 32:6; 77:19; 93:4 107:23; 144:7.47

Jesus’ baptism was much more than a ritual ablution. He was baptized in the river Jordan, because baptism requires “many waters” that are “overcome” or “defeated” by divine power (priesthood power) as an essential aspect of the typology and symbolism.

Conclusion

In the figure of Moses a salient aspect of baptism’s symbolism thus emerges: the one who baptizes acts “as if [the baptizer] wer[e] God.”48  The baptizer, having earlier been “drawn from the water”49  and “made stronger than the many waters”50  draws or pulls others and, in terms of ritual, “ma[kes them] stronger than the many waters.”51  The “many waters” or “great waters” ultimately obeyed Moses’ “command even as if [he] wer[e] God,” obeying the same divine authority with which one baptizes—namely, the authority through which one “draws” or “pulls” (mōšeh) from the “many waters.”

In light of the pattern exemplified in Moses 1, it is no surprise that Enoch later states that the Lord specifically called him to baptize: “And he gave unto me a commandment that I should baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, which is full of grace and truth, and of the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son.”52

 

Adapted and updated from Bowen, Matthew L. “‘Thou Shalt Be Made Stronger than the Many Waters’: The Interlingual Meaning of Moses and Its Implications for Moses 1:25-26 and John 3:23 (Unpublished manuscript).” 2020.

Further Reading

Belnap, Daniel. “‘I Will Contend with Them That Contendeth with Thee’: The Divine Warrior in Jacob’s Speech of 2 Nephi 6–10.” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 17, no. 1-2 (2008): 20-39.

Bowen, Matthew L. “Messengers of the covenant: Mormon’s doctrinal use of Malachi 3:1 in Moroni 7:29-32.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 31 (2019): 111-38.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014, pp. 60-61, n. 32a; pp. 93-94 n. 1d;. pp. 102-103 n. 5c.

Calabro, David. “Joseph Smith and the architecture of Genesis.” In The Temple: Ancient and Restored. Proceedings of the 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Symposium, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry. Temple on Mount Zion 3, 165-81. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2016.

References

Belnap, Daniel. “‘I Will Contend with Them That Contendeth with Thee’: The Divine Warrior in Jacob’s Speech of 2 Nephi 6–10.” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 17, no. 1-2 (2008): 20-39. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1438&context=jbms. (accessed July 26, 2020).

Bowen, Matthew L. “‘Most desirable above all things’: Mary and Mormon.” In Name as Key-Word: Collected Essays on Onomastic Wordplay and the Temple in Mormon Scripture, edited by Matthew L. Bowen, 17-47. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2018.

———. “Messengers of the covenant: Mormon’s doctrinal use of Malachi 3:1 in Moroni 7:29-32.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 31 (2019): 111-38. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/messengers-of-the-covenant-mormons-doctrinal-use-of-malachi-31-in-moroni-729-32/. (accessed July 26, 2020).

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. www.templethemes.net.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and David J. Larsen. Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel. In God’s Image and Likeness 2. Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2014. www.templethemes.net.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and Matthew L. Bowen. ““By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified”: The Symbolic, Salvific, Interrelated, Additive, Retrospective, and Anticipatory Nature of the Ordinances of Spiritual Rebirth in John 3 and Moses 6.” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 24 (2017): 123-316. Reprint, In Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, eds. Sacred Time, Sacred Space, and Sacred Meaning. Proceedings of the Third Interpreter Foundation Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, 5 November 2016, Temple on Mount Zion Series. Vol. 4. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2020, pp. 43-237. www.templethemes.net. (accessed January 10, 2018).

Calabro, David. “Joseph Smith and the architecture of Genesis.” In The Temple: Ancient and Restored. Proceedings of the 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Symposium, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry. Temple on Mount Zion 3, 165-81. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2016. https://interpreterfoundation.org/conferences/2014-temple-on-mount-zion-conference/program-schedule/. (accessed October 27, 2014).

Clines, David J. A. “Noah’s Flood: I: The Theology of the Flood Narrative.” Faith and Thought 100, no. 2 (1972-1973): 128-42. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.730.8892&rep=rep1&type=pdf. (accessed July 25, 2020).

Faulring, Scott H., Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, eds. Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004.

Frederick, Nicholas J. “Line within line: An intertextual analysis of Mormon scripture and the prologue of the gospel of John.” Doctoral Dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, 2013.

Hoskisson, Paul Y., Brian M. Hauglid, and John Gee. “What’s in a Name? Irreantum.” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 11, no. 1 (2002): 90-93. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1349&context=jbms. (accessed July 26, 2020).

May, Herbert G. “Some cosmic connotations of Mayim Rabbîmi.” Journal of Biblical Literature 74, no. 1 (1955): 9-21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3261949.pdf?seq=1. (accessed July 26, 2020).

Newheart, Michael Willett. “Aenon.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. Vol. 1, 60. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006.

Nibley, Hugh W. 1986. Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), Brigham Young University, 2004.

Parker, Jared T. “The doctrine of Christ in 2 Nephi 31-32 as an approach to the vision of the tree of life.” In The Things Which My Father Saw: The 40th Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, edited by Daniel L. Belnap, Gaye Strathearn and Stanley A. Johnson, 161-78. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2011.

Reynolds, Noel B. “This is the way.” Religious Educator 14, no. 3 (2013): 79-91. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/1477/. (accessed July 26, 2020).

———. “The ancient doctrine of the two ways and The Book of Mormon.” BYU Studies Quarterly 56, no. 3 (2017): 49-78. https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/ancient-doctrine-two-ways-and-book-mormon. (accessed August 15, 2019).

Talmage, James E. The House of the Lord. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News, 1912. https://archive.org/stream/houseoflordstudy00talm#page/n0/mode/2up. (accessed August 5, 2014).

Wayment, Thomas A., ed. The Complete Joseph Smith Translation of the Old Testament: A Side-by-Side Comparison with the King James Version. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2009.

Notes on Figures

Figure 1. Photograph by Matthew L. Bowen.

Figure 2. Photo by C. R. Savage Co., Salt Lake City, Utah, published in J. E. Talmage, House of the Lord (1912), p. 262 Plate 11. Public Domain. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Salt_Lake_temple_baptismal_font.jpg (accessed July 25, 2020).

Figure 3. The Baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-17), The Life of Jesus Christ Bible Videos, about 2:14. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bible-videos/videos/the-baptism-of-jesus?lang=eng (accessed July 25, 2020).

Footnotes

 

1 Essays #31-42.

2 Moses 6:53, 60, 65-66; 7:11; 8:24.

3 See Essays #15.

4 Moses 2:7.

5 See, e.g., D. J. A. Clines, Noah’s Flood 1; J. M. Bradshaw et al., God’s Image 2, pp. 252-336.

6 Moses 1.

7 See, e.g., J. M. Bradshaw et al., By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified, pp. 144–146.

8 S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, OT1 Moses 1:25, p. 85. See also T. A. Wayment, Complete JST of the OT, Moses 1:26, p. 3.

9 Moses 2:7.

10 Abraham 4:10: “And the Gods pronounced the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, pronounced they, Great Waters; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed”; Abraham 4:22: “And the Gods said: We will bless them, and cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas or great waters; and cause the fowl to multiply in the earth.”

11 Numbers 24:7; Psalm 18:16 [MT 17]/1 Samuel 22:17; Psalm 29:3; 93:4; Song of Solomon 8:7; Isaiah 17:13; Jeremiah 51:13; Ezekiel 19:10; 43:2.

12 Psalms 32:6; 77:19 [MT 20]; 107:23; 144:7; Isaiah 23:3; Jeremiah 41:12; 51:55; Ezekiel 1:24; 27:26; 32:13; Habakkuk 3:15.

13 H. G. May, Some Cosmic Connotations, p. 10.

14 Ibid., p. 10.

15 1 Nephi 13:10, 12-13, 29; 14:11-12; Ether 2:6; 6:7; and possibly Mosiah 8:8 and Mormon 6:4.

16 1 Nephi 17:17; Omni 1:16; Ether 6:3. In 1 Nephi 17:17.

17 P. Y. Hoskisson et al., What’s in a Name? Irreantum, pp. 92-93.

18 See especially D. Belnap, I Will Contend.

19 M. L. Bowen, Messengers of the Covenant, pp. 123-127.

20 See especially 2 Nephi 31:13-18, 21. On Nephi’s identification of the “doctrine of Christ” as “the way,” see N. B. Reynolds, This Is the Way; see also N. B. Reynolds, Ancient Doctrine of the Two Ways.

21 2 Kings 25:13; Jeremiah 52:17; 1 Chronicles 18:8.

22 1 Kings 7:37.

23 D. Calabro, Joseph Smith and the Architecture, p. 172.

24 J. T. Parker, Doctrine of Christ, p. 173. See also his broader discussion of the correspondence between the doctrine of Christ, Lehi’s Dream, Nephi’s Vision, and the temple in pp. 172-175.

25 Exodus 10:19; 13:18; 15:4, 22; 1 Corinthians 10:1-2; 1 Nephi 4:2, 17:26; Helaman 8:11; Doctrine and Covenants 8:3. The definite article in “the many waters” is omitted in the canonized version.

26 Moses 1:32, 2:1, 5. See Essay #39 and J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 60-61, n. 32a; pp. 93-94 n. 1d;. pp. 102-103 n. 5c. Nicholas Frederick observes (N. J. Frederick, Line Within Line., p. 336):

While “word” is written in lower-case in Moses 1:32, when the phrase “word of my power” occurs again in Moses 2:5, the original JST manuscripts record a reading of “Word of my power” [S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, OT1, p. 86. The term “word” is in lower case in OT2, p. 595], perhaps suggesting that Joseph viewed “Word” or “word” as something more than just a spoken command, closer to the Johannine Logos.

27 M. L. Bowen, Most Desirable, pp. 23-24.

28 Psalm 18:16 [MT 17]; 1 Samuel 22:17.

29 Cf. Exodus 15:10 “mighty waters” (bĕmayim ʾaddîrîm); Isaiah 43:16 “mighty waters” (ûbĕmayim ʿazzîm).

30 H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 18, p. 219. See Psalm 130:1.

31 Cf. the text of the Shabaka stone as described by Nibley in, e.g., J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, p. 515.

32 H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 10, p. 118.

33 Exodus 15:10. See Exodus 14:27-30; 1 Corinthians 10:1-2; Hebrews 11:29; 1 Peter 3:18-21.

34 Jonah 1:17 [MT 2:1].

35 Jonah 2:3 [MT 2:4].

36 Jonah 2:2 [MT 2:3].

37 Jonah 2:1 [MT 2:3], 6 (same as in MT).

38 Moses 1:21-22.

39 Moses 1:25.

40 Revelation 1:15; 14:2; 17:1; 19:6.

41 John 3:23.

42 M. W. Newheart, Aenon, writes: “It is uncertain as to where Aenon was, but two sites are often mentioned. The first is 6-8 mi. south of Scythopolis, in the southwestern corner of the DECAPOLIS. Eusebius (Onomasticon 40:1) and Jerome (Epistle 73) both support this location. The second suggested site is on the eastern side of the Jordan, in Perea. This suggestion is supported by a 6th cent. map on a church floor in MEDEBA, which places Aenon opposite BETHBARA” (capitalization in original). He further notes: “Also from the 6th cent. Is the tradition from the pilgrim guide Antonius that there was a cave on the eastern location where John baptized and Jesus stayed at the time of his baptism.”

43 See, e.g., Psalms 18:16 [LXX]; 144:7.

44 Samuel Zinner (personal communication, notes in possession of authors) remains unconvinced that John’s use of hydata polla constitutes an echo of Hebrew Bible mayim rabbîm passages. He asks, “would we not expect at least a river (even granted that the Jordan is there, but unmentioned)?” We answer: not necessarily. We recall Jeremiah’s description of the pools of Gibeon in Jeremiah 41:12 as “great waters”/“many waters” (mayim rabbîm; LXX Jeremiah 48:12, hydatos pollou). Zinner further suggests that “the many waters of John [3] hint at Ezekiel 1’s many waters, since the river Jordan’s etymology can be associated with the descent to the chariot. The descent of a dove at Jesus’ Jordan baptism is of a piece with this. To this we would add that if Jordan can be understood in as “descent” or “place of descent” we can detect additional wordplay in Jordan in Nephi’s vision of the tree of life, which includes a vision of Jesus’s baptism and the descent of Holy Ghost and other heavenly beings (1 Nephi 11:16, 26-27, 30; study forthcoming).

45 See Matthew 4:13-17; Mark 1:9.

46 John earlier mentions John the Baptist’s baptizing activities in “Bethabara beyond Jordan” in John 1:28. Cf. 1 Nephi 10:9.

47 LXX Psalms 17:17 (=Psalms 18:16 [17]); 28:3 (=29:3); 31:6 (=32:6); 92:4 (=93:4); 106:23 (=107:23); 143:7 (=144:7) all employ forms of hydata polla (hydatōn pollōn, hydasi pollois) to translate Hebrew mayim rabbîm.

48 S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, OT1 Moses 1:25, p. 85.

49 Cf. Exodus 2:10.

50 S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, OT1 Moses 1:26, p. 85.

51 Ibid., OT1 Moses 1:25, p. 85.

52 Moses 7:3.

The Words of God

Book of Moses Essay #42

Moses 1:1–7, 35, 40–42

With contribution by Matthew L. Bowen and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw

Moses 1 constitutes a self-contained literary unit and prologue1  to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, demarcated by an inclusio.2  The Latin word inclusio (literally, an “inclosing” or “closing-in”) serves as “a technical term for a passage of scripture in which the opening phrase or idea is repeated, paraphrased, or otherwise returned to at the close.”3

Furthermore, this inclusio begins with an incipit,4  another Latin term meaning “it begins.” An incipit—or an incipit title—is derived from the opening word or words of a text and is typically provided in the absence of an official name or title for a work. In this case, the incipit is signaled by the following text: “The words of God, which he gave  unto Moses.”5  While this seems to clearly mark the beginning of the inclusio, one can plausibly argue for a closing bracket that occurs in any one of three adjacent texts.

The first possible closing bracket occurs in Moses 1:40: “And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things [words6] which I shall speak.” The second candidate for a closing bracket comprises part of the parenthetical statement in Moses 1:42: “These words were spoken unto Moses in the mount.”7  This option works if one counts the words in this verse as part of the vision.8  The third potential closing bracket is found in Moses 2:1a: “write the words which I speak.”9  Under any of these three scenarios, the Moses 1 (or Moses 1:1–2:1a) text with its inclusio establishes a dominant theme that threads its way throughout the early chapters of JST Genesis, namely the divine “word” and its efficacy.

The opening phrase “The words of God, which he spake unto Moses” looks and functions much like the incipit of the Book of Deuteronomy: “These be the words [Hebrew, ʾēlleh haddĕbārîm] which Moses spake unto all Israel.”10  In both Deuteronomy and the vision of Moses, the incipit title establishes a claim of divine authority for what follows. In the vision of Moses, “The words of God” claims divine authority for not only the account of Moses’ vision, but also the subsequent revelation and its inspired textual recuperations. Moreover, the incipit (“The words of God which he spake unto Moses”) together with the subsequent temporal clause (“at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain”) establishes a temple context for the vision recorded in vv. 2–9, the temptation that follows in vv. 12–23, and the second, grander vision which begins thereafter in vv. 24–41.

Additional repetition of words and phrases within Moses 1 emphasizes that the “endlessness” of God’s works are mirrored in the “ceaselessness” or “endlessness” of God’s words. This tight genetic pairing begins with the Lord’s declaration to Moses in the first vision, “And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.11 The Lord reiterates and reinforces this idea to Moses in the second vision when he states in the OT1 manuscript of Moses 1:38–39: “And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold this is my work to my glory to the immortality & the eternal life of man.”12

Thus one of the most noteworthy aspects of the divine word/language theme in the Book of Moses is that the narrative directly links the “endlessness” of God’s “works” and “words” to the notion of endless scriptural “words.”13  This theme directly bears on what we recognize today as the notion of an open-ended concept of scripture.14  The Lord commanded Moses to write the words spoken on this occasion, words with intrinsic sacral15  and authoritative character: “And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things [words] which I shall speak.”16  Nevertheless, he also anticipated the human diminution of those written words during a process of textual transmission at the hands of unbelieving tradents:17

            A         And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught

                        B           and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write,

                                    C         behold, I will raise up another like unto thee;

                        B         and they shall be had again

            A        among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.

As has been noted elsewhere,18  the Lord’s words in Moses 1:41 anticipate a future “taking [away]” or diminution of those same words similar to the diminution of the divine “word” anticipated in the Deuteronomic iterations of the so-called “canon formula.” Moses charges Israel: “Ye shall not add [lōʾ tōsipû] unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”19  This type of text has sometimes been called a “canon-formula,” because it “makes it clear that its intent is to preclude both literary and doctrinal innovation by safeguarding the textual status quo.”20  Some scholars also refer to it as a Textsicherungsformel, literally a “text-securing-formula”—something like the ancient equivalent of today’s “digital signatures” that can be used to protect the integrity of a document.

The Deuteronomic canon-formula, in turn, constitutes the source of the more famous canon-formula in Revelation 22:18–19: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”21

The Lord’s earlier statements that his “words” have “no end” and “never cease” become the basis for His promise that “they shall be had again”—in other words, re-added. By implication, human efforts “to take many of them” away from “the book which [Moses] would write” and from future repositories of divine words22  or otherwise limit them through a closed “canon” will ultimately fail.

In sum, the view of the written “word” presented at the outset of the Book of Moses is that the Lord’s words can be “taken” away or otherwise diminished in their human repositories by human custodians. Nevertheless, these words “shall be had again.”23  And, as this revelation will later emphasize, they must be fulfilled.24

This article is adapted from Bowen, Matthew L. “‘By the word of my power’: The divine word in the Book of Moses,” Presented at the conference entitled “Tracing Ancient Threads of the Book of Moses” (September 18–19, 2020), Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2020.

Further Reading

Bowen, Matthew L. “‘And They Shall Be Had Again’: Onomastic Allusions to Joseph in Moses 1:41 in View of the So-called Canon Formula.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 32 (2019): 297–304. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/and-they-shall-be-had-again-onomastic-allusions-to-joseph-in-moses-141-in-view-of-the-so-called-canon-formula/. (accessed July 20, 2020).

Calabro, David. “Joseph Smith and the architecture of Genesis.” In The Temple: Ancient and Restored. Proceedings of the 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Symposium, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry. Temple on Mount Zion 3, 165–181. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2016. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/events/2014-temple-on-mount-zion-conference/program-schedule/. (accessed October 27, 2014).

Holland, Jeffrey R. “‘My words… never cease’.” Ensign 28, May 2008, 91–94. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2008/05/my-words-never-cease?lang=eng. (accessed July 9, 2020).

Johnson, Mark J. “The lost prologue: Reading Moses Chapter One as an Ancient Text.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 145–186. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-lost-prologue-reading-moses-chapter-one-as-an-ancient-text/. (accessed June 5, 2020).

Morrison, Alexander B. “The Latter-day Saint concept of canon.” In Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, 1–16. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center, 2001.

Levinson, Bernard. “‘You must not add anything to what I command you’: Paradoxes of canon and authorship in ancient Israel.” Numen 50, no. 1 (2002): 1–51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228204266_%27_%27You_Must_Not_Add_Anything_to_What_I_Command_You%27_Paradoxes_of_Canon_and_Authorship_in_Ancient_Israel%27. (accessed July 9, 2020).

References

Bowen, Matthew L. “‘And They Shall Be Had Again’: Onomastic Allusions to Joseph in Moses 1:41 in View of the So-called Canon Formula.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 32 (2019): 297-304. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/and-they-shall-be-had-again-onomastic-allusions-to-joseph-in-moses-141-in-view-of-the-so-called-canon-formula/. (accessed July 20, 2020).

Calabro, David. “Joseph Smith and the architecture of Genesis.” In The Temple: Ancient and Restored. Proceedings of the 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Symposium, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry. Temple on Mount Zion 3, 165-81. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2016. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/events/2014-temple-on-mount-zion-conference/program-schedule/. (accessed October 27, 2014).

Faulring, Scott H., Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, eds. Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004.

Holland, Jeffrey R. 1999. “Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence” (BYU Devotional Address, 2 March 1999).  In BYU Speeches (Reprinted in Ensign, 30:3 [March 2000]). https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/jeffrey-r-holland/cast-not-away-therefore-your-confidence/ , https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2000/03/cast-not-away-therefore-your-confidence?lang=eng . Video dramatization: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2011-03-50-i-am-a-son-of-god?lang=eng. (accessed June 13, 2020).

———. “‘My words… never cease’.” Ensign 28, May 2008, 91-94. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2008/05/my-words-never-cease?lang=eng. (accessed July 9, 2020).

Hoskisson, Paul Y. “Straightening things out: The use of ‘strait” and ‘straight’ in the Book of Mormon.” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12 (2003): 58-71, 114-17. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1326&context=jbms. (accessed July 9, 2020).

Johnson, Mark J. “The lost prologue: Reading Moses Chapter One as an Ancient Text.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 145-86. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-lost-prologue-reading-moses-chapter-one-as-an-ancient-text/. (accessed June 5, 2020).

Levinson, Bernard. “‘You must not add anything to what I command you’: Paradoxes of canon and authorship in ancient Israel.” Numen 50, no. 1 (2002): 1-51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228204266_%27_%27You_Must_Not_Add_Anything_to_What_I_Command_You%27_Paradoxes_of_Canon_and_Authorship_in_Ancient_Israel%27. (accessed July 9, 2020).

Morrison, Alexander B. “The Latter-day Saint concept of canon.” In Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, 1-16. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center, 2001.

Soulen, Richard N., and R. Kendall Soulen. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. 3rd, revised ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001.

Notes on Figures

Figure 1. From the video dramatization of J. R. Holland, “Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence” (BYU Devotional Address, 2 March 1999).

Footnotes

 

1 See, e.g., M. J. Johnson, Lost Prologue.

2 Ibid., pp. 156, 161.

3 R. N. Soulen et al., Handbook of Biblical Criticism, p. 85.

4 From the Latin word, incipit, which means “it begins.” An incipit—or an incipit title—is provided in the absence of an official name or title for a work.

5 S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, Moses 1:1, OT1 Page 1, p. 83, emphasis added by the authors in all scriptural citations.

6 Hebrew dābār can denote both “word” and “thing.” See, e.g., P. Y. Hoskisson, Straightening Things Out , p. 71. The same is true of Egyptian md.t (later mt.t).

7 D. Calabro, Joseph Smith and the Architecture, p. 169.

8 Ibid. , p. 169.

9 M. J. Johnson, Lost Prologue, p. 156.

10 Deuteronomy 1:1.

11 Moses 1:4.

12 S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, Moses 1:38-39, OT1 Page 2, p. 86.

13 J. R. Holland, Words.

14 A. B. Morrison, Canon.

15 Cf. The Lord’s words to Oliver Cowdery in Doctrine and Covenants 9:9: “you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.”

16 Moses 1:40.

17 Moses 1:41.

18 M. L. Bowen, And They Shall Be Had Again.

19 Deuteronomy 4:2; see also Deuteronomy 12:32 [MT 13:1]; cf. 5:22 [MT 18].

20 B. Levinson, You Must Not Add, p. 7.

21 In recent centuries, the canonical position of the book of Revelation has had the practical effect of making its canon-formula (possibly itself an addition to the text of Revelation) a de facto canon-formula for the entire biblical corpus, as viewed by some Protestants who also embrace the notion of sola scriptura (“by scripture alone”). However, as Bernard Levinson notes to the contrary: “The association [of the ‘canon-formula’] with any notion of canon … marks a post-biblical development.” Ibid., p. 6. See, e.g., this statement (https://zrhaydon1.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/canon-vs-scripture-are-they-different-the-same-or-complicated/):

Stephen Chapman rightly suggests that understanding the tension between “canon” and “scripture” means understanding the “interpretive value” of these concepts in reference to Ancient Israel (87). How would these ancient communities have thought of “canon” or “scripture”? It seems anachronistic to impose something like “canon” (a closed list of books) on Ancient Israel, especially if books were still “migrating” between corpuses (like Daniel between the Prophets and the Writings). Equally extreme is to believe that “scripture” has no relationship with the constraining aspect of “canon,” as if to think “scripture” meant a free-flowing stream of religious books that moved (and continue to move) in and out of authoritative status depending on the whim of the community.

22 See, e.g., 1 Nephi 13:26–29.

23 Moses 1:41.

24 Moses 4:30; 5:15, 59; 6:30.

Moses in the Presence of God

Book of Moses Essay #41

Moses 1:31, chapters 2-4

With contribution by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Matthew L. Bowen, David J. Larsen, and Stephen T. Whitlock

In this Essay, we will discuss how Moses and Abraham speak with the Lord, and how both are given a vision of the Creation, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall from within the heavenly veil. Significantly, in explicit contradiction to the text of ApAb where Yaho’el declared to Abraham: “the Eternal One… himself you will not see,”1  the fourteenth–century Christian illustrator of the Codex Sylvester seems to have had no qualms about representing God visually.2  Commenting on these sorts of contradictions, Margaret Barker observes:3

To see the glory of the Lord’s presence — to see beyond the veil — was the greatest blessing. The high priest used to bless Israel with the words: “The Lord  bless you and keep you: The Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you: The Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.”4  … Seeing the glory, however, became controversial. Nobody knows why. There is one strand in the Old Testament that is absolutely opposed to any idea of seeing the divine… [On the other hand,] Jesus said: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”;5  and John saw “one seated on the throne.”6  There can be no doubt where the early Christians stood on this matter.

Figure 2. Resemblances for the Prophet in the Presence of God (Moses 1:31–40)

God’s Purpose and Will Are His Own

As the Book of Moses refers to “mine own purpose” and the “wisdom [that] remaineth in me,”7  so ApAb, in the answer to Abraham’s second question after his vision of the Fall, God declares “the will desired by me” is “inevitable” [i.e., “sure to come”8 ] just “as the will of your father is in him.” Kulik sees a “very similar context” in Ephesians 1:11, which combines the concepts of “purpose” and “will”: “predestined according to the purpose of him who does all things according to the will desired by him.”9

Alexander Kulik concludes that “we are dealing here [in ApAb] with the rabbinic conception of free will combined with the inevitability of God’s will (predetermination).”10  Similarly, in the Jewish Mishnah we read: “Everything is foreseen, and free choice is given.”11

The Book of Moses phrase “it remaineth in me” subtly echoes scriptural passages that depict God and wisdom as inseparably associated since before the creation of the earth.12  This exclusive relationship makes the mysteries of true wisdom inaccessible to man except as made known through God Himself.13  The Book of Mormon employs similar phraseology to describe how God’s hidden intentions—in this case the preservation of Nephite records — are “wise purposes in him” — things that can only be known by direct revelation.14  Note that in Moses 1:31, although God is saying he has a wise purpose, it does not seem that He tells Moses what the reason is.

Seeing the Lord Face to Face

In the illustration above, Abraham and Yaho’el are “traveling … about the air”15  with “no ground [beneath] to which [Abraham] could fall prostrate.”16  The figure pictured on the throne seems to be the Christ.17  His identity is indicated by the cruciform markings on His nimbus. Behind the enthroned Christ is a second figure, perhaps alluding to the statement in ApAb that “Michael is with me [i.e., the Lord] in order to bless you forever.”18

Beneath the throne are fiery seraphim and many-eyed “wheels” praising God. The throne is surrounded by a series of heavenly veils19  separating the Lord from the material world — the latter being signified by the outermost dark blue veil. The representation of the veils as multicolored may stem from an interpretation of Ezekiel 1:28, where the glory of the Lord is likened to a rainbow. In the depiction shown here, the illustrator has deliberately chosen to use the colors of red, green, and blue.20

Vision of the Creation, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall

At this point, just as Moses is shown the events of the Creation and the Fall,21  ApAb describes how the great patriarch looked down to see the affairs of what is called in modern revelation the “kingdoms of a lower order.”22  The Lord’s voice commanded Abraham to “look,” and a series of heavenly veils were opened beneath his feet.23  Like Moses, Abraham is shown the heavenly plan for creation — “the creation that was depicted of old24  on this expanse” (21:125 ), its realization on the earth (21:3–5), the Garden of Eden and the Fall of Adam and Eve (21:6), and the spirits of all men — with certain ones “prepared to be born of [Abraham] and to be called [God’s] people (21:7–22:5).” 26 When Abraham is told again to “Look … at the picture,” he sees Satan inciting the Fall of Adam and Eve (23:1–14),27  just as Moses saw these events following his own heavenly ascent (Moses 2-4).28

Conclusion

A close examination of the details of the account of Moses’ heavenly ascent in the context of its overall structure throws important light on the significance of temple ordinances performed in our day. As we have seen in the evidence assembled in the series of Essays #31–41, parallels with other ancient texts, such as the Apocalypse of Abraham, confirm the basic temple pattern both in its content and sequence, and constitute an impressive witness of the antiquity of the text restored by Joseph Smith’s revelations. Hugh Nibley concluded as a result of his study: “These parallel accounts, separated by centuries, cannot be coincidence. Nor can all the others.”29

This article is adapted from Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., David J. Larsen, and Stephen T. Whitlock. “Moses 1 and the Apocalypse of Abraham: Twin sons of different mothers?” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020): 179-290. www.templethemes.net.

Further Reading

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014, pp. 64-65. www.templethemes.net.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., David J. Larsen, and Stephen T. Whitlock. “Moses 1 and the Apocalypse of Abraham: Twin sons of different mothers?” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): in press.

Draper, Richard D., S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes. The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005, p. 32.

Nibley, Hugh W. “To open the last dispensation: Moses chapter 1.” In Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by Truman G. Madsen, 1-20. Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978, p. 13.

Nibley, Hugh W. 1986. Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), Brigham Young University, 2004, pp. 222-223.

References

Alexander, Philip S. “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 223-315. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.

Barker, Margaret. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 1991.

———. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. Louisville, KY: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1992.

———. An Extraordinary Gathering of Angels. London, England: MQ Publications, 2004.

———. The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 2007.

———. Christmas: The Original Story. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2008.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. www.templethemes.net.

Collins, Adela Yarbro. “Paul, Jewish mysticism, and spirit possession.” In Apocalypticism and Mysticism in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by John J. Collins, Pieter G. R. de Villiers and Adela Yarbro Collins. Religious Experience From Antiquity to the Middle Ages 7, eds. David Aune, Jan Bremmer, John J. Collins, Dyan Elliott, Amy Hollywood, Sarah Iles Johnston, Gabor Klaniczay, Paulo Nogueira, Christopher Rowland and Elliot R. Wolfson, 81-101. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 2018.

Hurlbut, Jesse. E-mail message to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, February 17a, 2020.

Knibb, Michael A. “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Vol. 2, 143-76. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.

Kulik, Alexander. Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha: Toward the Original of the Apocalypse of Abraham. Text-Critical Studies 3, ed. James R. Adair, Jr. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.

———. “Slavonic apocrypha and Slavic linguistics.” In The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Slavonic Tradition: Continuity and Diversity, edited by Christfried Böttrich, Lorenzo DiTommaso and Marina Swoboda Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 245-70. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. https://www.scribd.com/document/124601634/Article-Slavonic-Apocrypha-and-Slavic-Linguistics-1. (accessed December 3, 2019).

———. “Apocalypse of Abraham.” In Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel and Lawrence H. Schiffman. 3 vols. Vol. 2, 1453-81. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013.

Ludlow, Jared W. “Abraham’s visions of the heavens.” In Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, edited by John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid. Studies in the Book of Abraham 3, 57-73. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), Brigham Young University, 2005. http://farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=40&chapid=164. (accessed October 10).

Malan, Solomon Caesar, ed. The Book of Adam and Eve: Also Called The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan: A Book of the Early Eastern Church. Translated from the Ethiopic, with Notes from the Kufale, Talmud, Midrashim, and Other Eastern Works. London, England: Williams and Norgate, 1882. Reprint, San Diego, CA: The Book Tree, 2005.

Mayerhofer, Kerstin. “‘And they will rejoice over me forever!’ The history of Israel in the light of the catastrophe of 70 C.E. in the Slavonic Apocalypse of Abraham.” Judaica Olomoucensia 1-2 (2014): 10-35. https://judaistika.upol.cz/fileadmin/userdata/FF/katedry/jud/judaica/Judaica_Olomucensia_2014_1-2.pdf. (accessed December 3, 2019).

Neusner, Jacob, ed. The Mishnah: A New Translation. London, England: Yale University Press, 1988.

Nibley, Hugh W. “To open the last dispensation: Moses chapter 1.” In Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by Truman G. Madsen, 1-20. Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978. http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=71. (accessed October 10).

Novickij (Novitskii, Novitsky), P. P., ed. Откровение Авраама (Otkrovenīe Avraama [Apocalypse of Abraham]) (Facsimile edition of Silʹvestrovskiĭ sbornik [Codex Sylvester]). Reproduced from RGADA (Russian State Archive of Early Acts, formerly TsGADA SSSR = Central State Archive of Early Acts), folder 381, Printer’s Library, no. 53, folios 164v-186. Общество любителей древней письменности (Obščestvo Li︠u︡biteleĭ Drevneĭ Pis’mennosti [Society of Lovers of Ancient Literature]), Izdaniia (Editions) series, (= OLDP edition, 99:2). St. Petersburg, Russia: Tipo-Lit. A. F. Markova, 1891. Reprint, Leningrad, Russia, 1967. http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/spart1.pdf, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924028567927&view=1up&seq=1. (accessed December 3, 2019).

Paulsen-Reed, Amy Elizabeth. The Origins of the Apocalypse of Abraham (Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Theology in the subject of the Hebrew Bible). Harvard Divinity School. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2016. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:27194248. (accessed August 4, 2019).

Rowland, Christopher. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. New York City, NY: Crossroad Publishing, 1982.

Rubinkiewicz, Ryszard. “Apocalypse of Abraham.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 681-705. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.

———. L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en vieux slave : Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire. Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolikiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, Zrodlai i monografie 129. Lublin, Poland: Société des Lettres et des Sciences de l’Université Catholique de Lublin, 1987.

Scholem, Gershom, ed. 1941. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York City, NY: Schocken Books, 1995.

Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 2, 35-142. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.

Notes on Figures

Figure 1. Translation of caption: “Abraham bowing with an angel before the throne of God in the heavens.” Cf. A. Kulik, Retroverting, 18:3, p. 24.

Photographs of the originals of the illustrations are from Otkrovenie Avraama (Apocalypse of Abraham or ApAb), which comprises pages 328-375 of the Codex Sylvester. The Codex Sylvester, “the oldest and the only independent manuscript containing the full text of ApAb” (A. Kulik, Retroverting, p. 3), is known to scholars as manuscript “S.” It is the only illustrated manuscript of ApAb. Photographs of the illustrations from the original manuscript are published in this article for the first time with the kind permission of the Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov (RGADA — Russian State Archive of Early Acts, formerly TsGADA SSSR = Central State Archive of Early Acts) in Moscow. We express our sincere gratitude to Evgeniy Rychalovskiy, Head of the Publication Department and Vladislav Rzheutsky of the German Historical Institute in Moscow, for their assistance on 4 and 6 December 2019. Within the RGADA collection, the Codex Sylvester is catalogued as folder 381, Printer’s Library, no. 53, folios 164v-186. The six illustrations can be found in these folios: 182v, 174, 172v, 170v, 168b v, and 168a.

Photographs of the illustrations from a rare printed copy of the first facsimile edition (1891) were taken on 26 April 2009 and are © Stephen T. Whitlock and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. We express our special thanks to Carole Menzies and Jennifer Griffiths who facilitated our access to the facsimiles for filming purposes in the Taylor Bodleian Slavonic and Modern Greek Library, Oxford University, Oxford, England. The facsimile edition was originally published as N. Novickij (Novitskii, P. P., Otkrovenie Avraama and later as a reprint. Whitlock’s Image IDs are as follows: ApAb-OX10, ApAb-OX19, ApAb-OX20, ApAb-OX26, ApAb-OX30, ApAb-OX33, ApAb-OX50. For this article, the photos have been enhanced digitally for readability and size consistency, and a colored mask has been added to the backgrounds of all photos except ApAb-OX10.

Figure 2. Copyright Jeffrey M. Bradshaw.

Footnotes

 

1 A. Kulik, Retroverting, 16:3, p. 22, emphasis added.

2 Jesse Hurlbut, a specialist of illustrated medieval manuscripts gives his views on the discrepancy between the text and illustration as follows (J. Hurlbut, February 17a 2020; ibid.):

As for contradictions, it is not uncommon for medieval illustrations to differ from the texts they represent. The scribes almost never did their own illustrations, and the communication between scribes and illuminators wasn’t always successful, especially in cases where the illuminator could not (or did not) read the text. …

I’ve also had another thought about your illumination of the face-to-face encounter with God/Christ. It may be that the veil is pulled back for the benefit of the viewer–but not for Abraham. This was a frequent convention in 14th-15th-century illuminations. Here’s an example from one of the Bibles Moralisées that shows Zacharias (father of John the Baptist) serving in the temple. The walls are stripped away so we can see what’s going on, but the other present observers (“multitude de peuples“) are certainly not able to see him. Similarly, I think the artist has exposed God’s face to the reader in the ApAb, even though He remains concealed to Abraham.

3 M. Barker, Christmas, pp. 14-15.

4 Numbers 6:24-26.

5 Matthew 5:8.

6 Revelation 4:2.

7 Moses 1:31.

8 See A. Kulik, Slavonic Apocrypha and Slavic Linguistics, p. 263.

9 Ibid., p. 263. Cf. J. W. Ludlow, Visions, p. 63 and n. 20.

10 A. Kulik, Slavonic Apocrypha and Slavic Linguistics, p. 264.

11 J. Neusner, Mishnah, 3:15 I A, p. 680. See also the discussion of the views of Paulsen-Reed on ApAb’s “compatibilism,” in contrast to previous views of its “determinism,” in Essay #34.

12 E.g., Proverbs 8:22-30.

13 Job 28; 1 Corinthians 2:7-10; Alma 12:9-11; Doctrine and Covenants 76:7, 10; 84:19; 107:18-19. See also J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, Excursus 53: Comparative Explorations of the Mysteries, p. 663.

14 1 Nephi 9:5. See also e.g., 1 Nephi 3:19; 5:22; 19:3; Words of Mormon 1:7; Alma 37:12, 14, 18. The term “wisdom” recurs once in the Book of Moses, in an exposition on the gifts of the Comforter (Moses 6:61). See J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, Commentary 4:11-a, b, c, p. 253, 4:12-c, p. 255, and Excursus 2: Ancient Concepts of Wisdom, p. 516.

15 From the text of manuscript K. See R. Rubinkiewicz, Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 697 n. c.

16 Ibid., 17:5, p. 697.

17 Adela Yarbro Collins explains her view of the relationship between God the Father, Christ, and the angels in the writings of Paul as follows (A. Y. Collins, Paul, Jewish Mysticism, p. 94):

In the prose poem or hymn of Philippian [2:6], Paul portrays the pre-existent Christ as being “in the form of God.” This phrase does not refer to being God or being divine in the fullest sense. Otherwise, the “hyper-exaltation” after his death on the cross would lose its rhetorical force (Philippians 2:9). Thus “being in the form of God” is best understood as being a heavenly being, probably some sort of angel. The hyper-exalted state of Christ, historically interpreted, is best thought of as being the principal angel. The principal angel in some ancient Jewish texts is the angel who bears the name of God, such as Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham, and is closest to and most like God. That the pre-existent Christ, who became the earthly Jesus, was transformed and became the highest angel is analogous to the transformation of the human Enoch into the exalted angel Metatron, whom God gives the name “The lesser YHWH” (P. S. Alexander, 3 Enoch, 12:5, p. 265). Thus, when the bodies of Paul and the members of his communities are “conformed to his glorious body” (Philippians 3:21) they will become like those of the angels.

Curiously, however, the Christian illustrator of ApAb represents Christ, sitting on the throne of God, separately from Yaho’el, the angelic companion of Abraham, whereas the earliest Christians might have more easily seen a fusion of Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, and Jesus Christ, His earthly manifestation (e.g., M. Barker, Angel).

18 A. Kulik, Retroverting, 10:17, p. 18. The figure may also represent Metatron, whose name, according to one interpretation, is short for the Greek Metathronios, i.e., “he who stands beside the (God’s) throne,’ or ‘who occupies the throne next to the divine throne” (G. Scholem, Trends, p. 69), or perhaps Metaturannos, “the one next to the ruler” (P. S. Alexander, 3 Enoch, p. 243). “Metatron was merged with two other heavenly figures, (1) the archangel Yaho’el (ibid., 1:4, p. 257, 48D:1(1), p. 313), and (2) translated Enoch … From other texts, however, we know of an angel Yaho’el quite independent of Metatron (e.g., A. Kulik, Retroverting, 10, pp. 17-18)” (P. S. Alexander, 3 Enoch, p. 244).

Christopher Rowland speculated that Yaho’el, “like Wisdom (Wisdom 9:4) was the companion of God’s throne. While there is no explicit evidence that [Yaho’el] was the one whose seat was on the throne of God, it is not impossible that we have a theological description here which reflects that found in Ezekiel 1 and 8, where the human figure on the throne leaves the throne to function as the agent of divine will” (C. Rowland, Open Heaven, p. 103).

Other, more distant possibilities for the identity of this figure might include the “angel of the Holy Ghost” (mentioned in M. A. Knibb, Isaiah, 11:33, p. 176) or the Father, with Christ serving as his Face, in front, and the more invisible/formless Father behind.

19 For a description of the terms used to describe the different levels represented by the veils, see A. Kulik, Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 1480 n. 46.

20 Significantly, the veil in Israelite temples was woven with different colors, as described by Barker (M. Barker, Angels, p. 14. Cf. M. Barker, Gate, pp. 108-111; M. Barker, Hidden, pp. 18-19.):

The veil marked the division between the visible and the invisible creation. It represented matter, and was woven from red, blue, purple, and white threads, to represent the four elements from which the material world was made: earth (white), air (blue), fire (red), and water (purple). It was embroidered with cherubim, the winged heavenly beings found throughout the temple — in the Holy of Holies, on the walls of the great hall, and on the veil between them. They could move between the two states of creation, and transmitted heavenly knowledge to earth.

21 Moses chapters 2–4. Other ancient writings affirm what the book of Moses says about how the stories of the Creation and the Fall were revealed in vision. For example, the book of Jubilees prefaces a recital of the Creation and other events of Genesis with the Lord’s instructions to Moses to record what he would see in vision (O. S. Wintermute, Jubilees, 2:26, p. 54).

22 D&C 130:9.

23 A. Kulik, Retroverting, 19:1, 4-5, 9, pp. 24-25; cf. Abraham 3:1–18.

24 I.e., formerly shadowed, sketched, outlined, prefigured (R. Rubinkiewicz, Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 699 n. 21a). A. Kulik, Retroverting, 21:1, p. 26 translates this phrase as “the creation which was previously covered over.”

25 Cf. Abraham 5:3–5.

26 Cf. Abraham 3:22–23. See the discussion of this passage earlier in this article.

27 A. Kulik, Retroverting, pp. 26-28. Whereas R. Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, p. 177 n. 5 sees ApAb 23:4-10 as an insertion by a Bogomil editor, this idea is refuted in the more recent analysis of A. E. Paulsen-Reed, Origins, pp. 122-124.

Consistent with the emphasis in the first part of ApAb, which condemns idolatry through the story of Terah, the ApAb version of the Fall supposes that Adam, Eve, and Cain also practiced idolatry. Mayerhofer further explains the point of these illustrations for the protagonist of ApAb: “Abraham, who manages to stand up against his father’s ungodly practices, can escape both the crisis and the punishment” (K. Mayerhofer, And They Will Rejoice, p. 15). See also the discussion of idolatry in A. E. Paulsen-Reed, Origins, pp. 108-117.

28 J. W. Ludlow, Visions, p. 64 sees a parallel in ApAb 19:9, “and [Abraham saw] the orders they [the hosts of stars] were commanded to carry out, and the elements of earth obeying them” (R. Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 19:9, p. 167) as echoing “the idea found in the Book of Abraham that greater stars had power or governed over lesser stars (see Abraham 3:2-6; 4:14-17).” The idea that the stars could be commanded to carry out God’s orders also corresponds to Abraham 4:18: “And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed.”

29 H. W. Nibley, To Open, p. 15. Nibley also cites extensive parallels between Moses 1 and S. C. Malan, Adam and Eve.

Moses’ Vision at the Veil

Book of Moses Essay #40

Moses 1:27-30

With contribution from Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Matthew L. Bowen, David J. Larsen, and Stephen T. Whitlock

Having traversed the veil, Moses and Abraham experience a comprehensive vision of the earth and its mortal inhabitants through the ages. In both texts, this raises questions for the prophets, but the nature of the questions differs somewhat in Moses 1 than in the Apocalypse of Abraham (ApAb).

Figure 2. Resemblances for Moses’ Vision at the Veil (Moses 1:27–30)

Moses and Abraham Behold the Earth

The change in perspective as Moses passes upward through the heavenly veil is related in subtle beauty in the Book of Moses. Previously, as Moses stood on the earth, he “lifted up his eyes unto heaven.”1  Now, after ascending to heaven, he “cast his eyes” down to see the earth and all of its inhabitants.2  Similarly, Abraham is told: “Look now beneath your feet at the expanse [i.e., heavenly veil3 ] and contemplate the creation and those who inhabit it.”4

Significantly, Kulik notes that “Abraham’s exploration of the heavenly world in a downward direction as the heavens open below” is “unique” in the relevant heavenly ascent literature. He writes: “Other visionaries either moved from lower to upper firmaments or wandered in a horizontal direction.”5  Remarkably, this feature, unique to ApAb in the pseudepigraphal literature, also appears in Moses 1.

Figure 3. Hypocephalus British Museum 35875 (formerly 8445c)

The translation of Rubinkiewicz is stronger than that of Kulik, indicating that Abraham is not merely required to “contemplate” the creation and the inhabitants of the earth, but rather to “pay attention [to] … and understand” it!6  How can Abraham come to understand the universe? In terms that echo the vertical and horizontal divisions of hypocephali such as the one included as Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham,7  Rubinkiewicz explains:8

If we pay attention to our account, we will see an astonishing thing. Abraham sees the earth peopled by the wicked (v. 3), but he also sees Eden inhabited by the righteous (v. 6); God shows him the sea ruled by Leviathan (v. 4), but Abraham also contemplates the “upper waters” that are above the firmament (v. 5). At the conclusion, he sees people at the left and right of the picture. What should Abraham understand by this vision? The answer is simple: the division between the righteous and the wicked is based on the structure of the world, where both the forces of evil (the earth and the wicked; the sea and Leviathan) and the forces of good (the “upper waters,” Eden) each have their place. The entire universe has thus been projected by God and “it is pleasing to Him” (22:2).9

In other words, as Lehi declared: “it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things” or else “there would have been no purpose in … creation.”10

The Inhabitants of the Earth

In their visions, both Moses and Abraham seem to have not only seen the inhabitants of the earth but also witnessed the earth’s entire history from beginning to end—like Adam, Enoch, the Brother of Jared, John the Beloved, and others.11  Moroni taught that those with perfect faith cannot be “kept from within the veil” (i.e., cannot be kept outside the veil12 ). The veil in question is the heavenly veil behind which God dwells in glory, whose earthly counterpart is the temple veil that divides the holy place from the holy of holies.13

Consistent with Jewish,14  Islamic,15  and other16  ancient accounts, Abraham and Moses do not receive their cosmic visions until after they have passed through the heavenly veil. This is because the visions in such accounts, derived from a “blueprint”17  of eternity that has been worked out before the Creation, are usually described as being depicted inside the heavenly veil.18  Writes Margaret Barker:19

Those who passed beyond the veil found themselves outside time. When Rabbi Ishmael ascended and looked back he saw the curtain on which was depicted past, present and future. ‘All generations to the end of time were printed on the curtain of the Omnipresent One. I saw them all with my own eyes’…20  [Similarly,] Enoch was taken up by three angels and set up on a high place whence he saw all history, past, present and future.

The heavenly veil corresponding to the firmament of the Creation is sometimes represented as a shining pavement on which the Lord stands21  or as the “sea of glass” where God resides.22  Islamic and Jewish sources imply that the unenlightened might mistakenly confuse such a crystal pavement with water.23  Such descriptions also relate to the white stone that will be given to the Saints “whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known.”24

Jesus Himself, when He was tempted in the desert saw “all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,”25  an experience that Barker recognizes as “a characteristic of the temple mystics’ overall view of history.”26  Islamic tradition preserves the same motif in the story of how “Adam took out the cloth and spread it out. Upon it were the forms of the prophets [i.e., the pious] and the pharaohs [i.e., the wicked], rank after rank.”27

Moses and Abraham Question God

Now standing in the presence of God, Moses asks about the Creation: “Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so?”28  However, in an important divergence from Moses 1, ApAb, Abraham asks two questions of a somewhat different nature, the first about the origin of evil in the world (“Why … have you set yourself with [Satan]?”29 ) and later the other about the origin of evil in humankind (“Eternal, Mighty One! Why did you ordain it to be so?”30 ).

Moses will receive a partial answer to his question about “by what” God made these things through a vision of the Creation.31  He will also be told something about “why these things are so.”32

As with Moses, the answer to Abraham’s first question will be found in his vision of the Creation and the Fall. However, the answer to his second question will come he sees the unfolding of the history of Israel.33  Scholars, especially those who date this section of ApAb to the years following the destruction of the temple, see the subsequent material as the sort of thing that a first-century redactor might have inserted into a potentially pre-existing heavenly ascent text as a means of providing a plausible context for the theological questions he aimed to answer for his contemporaries.34

By way of contrast to ApAb, the questions about Creation posed by Moses are more universal and timeless.35

In the mystical Islamic work The Mother of Books, a petitioner also prays with a “typical list of questions”: “My Lord, how did the high king create all these spheres and palaces? From where did he make the spirits? What was the origin of his creation?” and receives an answer similar to the one given to Moses: “The creation of these realms is hard to fathom. Not everyone knows the way to knowledge, and its secret [is] well-concealed.”36  The Gospel of Philip specifies the mechanism of concealment in asserting that it is the “veil [that] at first concealed how God controlled the creation.”37

Conclusion

Joseph Smith may have been alluding to an ineffable experience of seeing behind the veil like that of Moses when he wrote the following to William W. Phelps:38

Oh, Lord, when will the time come when Brother William, Thy servant, and myself, shall behold the day that we may stand together and gaze upon eternal wisdom engraven upon the heavens, while the majesty of our God holdeth up the dark curtain until we may read the round of eternity, to the fulness and satisfaction of our immortal souls? Oh, Lord, deliver us in due time from the little, narrow prison, almost as it were, total darkness of paper, pen and ink;—and a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language.

We are told that Moses discerned his vision “by the spirit of God.”39  By this we comprehend that the power behind Moses’ experience was “not just God’s ability to produce a comprehensive vision, but an ability to change Moses so that he could comprehend it.”40

This article is adapted from Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., David J. Larsen, and Stephen T. Whitlock. “Moses 1 and the Apocalypse of Abraham: Twin sons of different mothers?” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020): 179-290. www.templethemes.net.

Further Reading

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014, pp. 62–64. www.templethemes.net.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., David J. Larsen, and Stephen T. Whitlock. “Moses 1 and the Apocalypse of Abraham: Twin sons of different mothers?” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020): 179-290.

Draper, Richard D., S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes. The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005, pp. 31–32.

Nibley, Hugh W. “To open the last dispensation: Moses chapter 1.” In Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by Truman G. Madsen, 1–20. Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978, p. 12.

Nibley, Hugh W. 1986. Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), Brigham Young University, 2004, pp. 220–223.

References

al-Kisa’i, Muhammad ibn Abd Allah. ca. 1000-1100. Tales of the Prophets (Qisas al-anbiya). Translated by Wheeler M. Thackston, Jr. Great Books of the Islamic World, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Chicago, IL: KAZI Publications, 1997.

al-Tha’labi, Abu Ishaq Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim. d. 1035. ‘Ara’is Al-Majalis Fi Qisas Al-Anbiya’ or “Lives of the Prophets”. Translated by William M. Brinner. Studies in Arabic Literature, Supplements to the Journal of Arabic Literature, Volume 24, ed. Suzanne Pinckney Stetkevych. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2002.

Alexander, Philip S. “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 223-315. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.

Barker, Margaret. “Beyond the veil of the temple: The high priestly origin of the apocalypses.” In The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy, edited by Margaret Barker, 188-201. London, England: T & T Clark, 2003.

———. “The veil as the boundary.” In The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy, edited by Margaret Barker, 202-28. London, England: T & T Clark, 2003.

———. Temple Theology. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 2004.

———. The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 2007.

Barnstone, Willis, and Marvin W. Meyer. “The Mother of Books (Umm al-kitab).” In The Gnostic Bible, edited by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer. Translated by Willis Barnstone, 655-725. Boston, MA: Shambhala, 2003.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. www.templethemes.net.

Dan, Joseph. Jewish Mysticism. 4 vols. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1998-1999.

Ginzberg, Louis, ed. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Translated by Henrietta Szold and Paul Radin. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909-1938. Reprint, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Hamblin, William J., and David Rolph Seely. Solomon’s Temple: Myth and History. London, England: Thames & Hudson, 2007.

Isenberg, Wesley W. “The Gospel of Philip (II, 3).” In The Nag Hammadi Library, edited by James M. Robinson. 3rd, Completely Revised ed, 139-60. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990.

Kee, Howard C. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1, 775-828. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.

Kulik, Alexander. Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha: Toward the Original of the Apocalypse of Abraham. Text-Critical Studies 3, ed. James R. Adair, Jr. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.

———. “Apocalypse of Abraham.” In Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel and Lawrence H. Schiffman. 3 vols. Vol. 2, 1453-81. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013.

McConkie, Bruce R. “Christ and the creation.” Ensign 12, June 1982, 8-15.

Nibley, Hugh W., and Michael D. Rhodes. One Eternal Round. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 19. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2010.

Nibley, Hugh W. 1981. Abraham in Egypt. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 14. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2000.

———. 1986. Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), Brigham Young University, 2004.

Nickelsburg, George W. E., ed. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36; 81-108. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001.

Rhodes, Michael D. 1997. The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus … Twenty Years Later. In FARMS Prelijminary Report. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0LuDGvEmEgJM0g1dkxwRTlqME0/edit. (accessed June 20, 2020).

———, ed. The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary. Studies in the Book of Abraham 2, ed. John Gee. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University, 2002.

Rubinkiewicz, Ryszard. “Apocalypse of Abraham.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 681-705. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.

———. L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en vieux slave : Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire. Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolikiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, Zrodlai i monografie 129. Lublin, Poland: Société des Lettres et des Sciences de l’Université Catholique de Lublin, 1987.

Salisbury, Frank B. The Creation. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1976.

Scholem, Gershom, ed. 1941. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York City, NY: Schocken Books, 1995.

Smith, Joseph, Jr., Matthew C. Godfrey, Mark Ashhurst-McGee, Grant Underwood, Robert J. Woodford, and William G. Hartley. Documents, Volume 2: July 1831-January 1833. The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, Richard Lyman Bushman and Matthew J. Grow. Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2013.

Smith, Joseph, Jr. 1902-1932. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Documentary History). 7 vols. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1978.

Thomas, M. Catherine. “The Brother of Jared at the veil.” In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, 388-98. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.

Wheeler, Brannon M. Prophets in the Quran: An Introduction to the Quran and Muslim Exegesis. Comparative Islam Studies, ed. Brannon M. Wheeler. London, England: Continuum, 2002.

Notes on Figures

Figure 1. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/jehovah-creates-earth-rane-fa3141a?lang=eng (accessed July 6, 2020).

Figure 2. Copyright Jeffrey M. Bradshaw.

Figure 3. Photographs by Stephen T. Whitlock of Hypocephalus of Hor (2005), whose owner may have been “the same as the owner of the Book of Breathings papyrus in the Church collection” (M. D. Rhodes, Joseph Smith Hypocephalus … Twenty Years Later, p. 2), i.e., the source of Facsimiles 1 and 3 of the Book of Abraham (see M. D. Rhodes, Hor). For more on the nature and function of the hypocephalus, see Essay #34, Note on Figure 6.

Footnotes

1 Moses 1:24.

2 Moses 1:27–28.

3 The KJV term “firmament” in Genesis 1:6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 20 translates the Hebrew term raqia‘ (רָקִ֖יעַ = “expanse”) which describes how the waters were “‘divided’ between the surface of the earth and the atmospheric heavens that surround it” (B. R. McConkie, Christ and the Creation, p. 11). Figuratively, however, it alludes to the veil that divided off the Holy of Holies in the temple (see, e.g., the selection of sources summarized in L. Ginzberg, Legends, 1:51), corresponding to the veil in the heavenly “temple” (P. S. Alexander, 3 Enoch, 45:1, p. 296 n. a.

4 A. Kulik, Retroverting, 21:1, p. 26.

5 A. Kulik, Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 1469 n. 19:3.

6 Prête attention maintenant à l’espace sous tes pieds, et comprends (mon) dessein” = “Pay attention now to the space beneath your feet and understand my design” (R. Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 21:1, p. 171). Cf. Daniel 9:23: “Understand the matter, and consider the vision.”

7 For more on the hypocephalus and possible allusions to its general imagery in ApAb, see Essay #34. For more on allusions to circular maps of the cosmos in the ancient Enoch literature, see Essay #24. In addition to the right-left mirroring that evoked for Hugh Nibley the opposing hosts of the righteous and the wicked described in ApAb (see H. W. Nibley, Abraham 2000, p. 45; H. W. Nibley et al., One Eternal Round, pp. 596, 597), the circle is “divided by straight lines into three horizontal zones. … The upper part of the hypocephalus represents the earth and sky, while the lower part, which is reversed, resents the netherworld or realm of the dead, which together depict the entire universe” (ibid., p. 595). See also pp. 286–288.

8 R. Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, p. 171.

9 Ibid., p. 171 n. adds: “This idea is not unique, for it is also found in the Testament of Naphtali 2:7–8” (see H. C. Kee, Testaments, p. 811).

10 2 Nephi 2:11, 12. Lehi specifically connected the universal need for opposition to the symbolism in Eden: “it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter” (2 Nephi 2:15). Intriguingly, the Lord expresses a similar sentiment in Moses 6:55: “And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good” (emphasis added).

11 D&C 107:56, Moses 7:4–67, Ether 3:25, 1 Nephi 14:25, 1 Nephi 14:26, Luke 4:5, M. C. Thomas, Brother of Jared.

12 Ether 3:20; cf. Moses 1:27.

13 P. S. Alexander, 3 Enoch, 45:1, p. 296 n. 45a.

14 Gershom Scholem wrote descriptively that “this cosmic curtain, as it is described in the Book of Enoch, contains the images of all things which since the day of creation have their pre-existing reality, as it were, in the heavenly sphere. All generations and all their lives and actions are woven into this curtain. … [All this] shall become universal knowledge in the Messianic age” (G. Scholem, Trends, p. 72).

15 For example, Islamic tradition speaks of a “white cloth from Paradise” upon which Adam saw the fate of his posterity (M. i. A. A. al-Kisa’i, Tales, p. 82). For a description of an account by al-Tha’labi, see H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 10, p. 117.

16 See, e.g., H. W. Nibley et al., One Eternal Round, pp. 188–585; H. W. Nibley, Abraham 2000, pp. 42–73.

17 P. S. Alexander, 3 Enoch, 45:1, p. 296 n. 45a. The English term “blueprint” is an apt choice to describe the vision of Rabbi Ishmael (ibid., 45:1, p. 296 [cf. 45:6, pp. 298–299]):

Come and I will show you the curtain of the Omnipresent One, which is spread before the Holy One, blessed be he, and on which are printed all the generations of the world and all their deeds, whether done or to be done, till the last generation.

Citing precedents in translations of similar visions in Jewish tradition, Kulik translates the relevant term in ApAb 21:2 as a “likeness” or In 22:1, 3, 5; 23:1, and “many other instances” he translates it as “picture” (East Slavic obrazovanie) (A. Kulik, Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 1470 n. 21:2).

18 For more on this subject, see, e.g., M. Barker, Beyond; M. Barker, Boundary; J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, Moses 1:27b, pp. 62–63.

19 M. Barker, Temple Theology, p. 28. See also M. Barker, Boundary, pp. 215–217.

20 P. S. Alexander, 3 Enoch, 45:6, p. 299.

21 E.g., Exodus 24:9-10; Daniel 10:6; Doctrine and Covenants 110:2.

22 Revelation 4:6, 21:18, 21; Doctrine and Covenants 130:8–9, 137:4; Ezekiel 1:22, 26.

23 A. I. A. I. M. I. I. al-Tha’labi, Lives, pp. 534–535; J. Dan, Mysticism, 1:276-279; W. J. Hamblin et al., Solomon’s Temple, pp. 131, 270; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 14:10, p. 257; B. M. Wheeler, Prophets, p. 270; Qur’an 27:38–44. See also 1 Kings 10:1–13; Ezekiel 1:22; Exodus 24:10; Revelation 21:18, 21.

24 Doctrine and Covenants 130:4–11; cf. Revelation 2:17; J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, Commentary 3:19-b, p. 177; Figure 4-4, p. 219; Endnote 4-9, p. 299; Endnote 4-22, p. 304; Excursus 53: Comparative Explorations: Jewish and Christian Analogues, p. 679. See also Commentary 1:6-g, p. 48 and 2:1-e, p. 94 regarding God’s timelessness and the scope of divine knowledge.

25 Luke 4:5.

26 M. Barker, Hidden, p. 95.

27 M. i. A. A. al-Kisa’i, Tales, p. 82.

28 Moses 1:30.

29 A. Kulik, Retroverting, 20:7, p. 25.

30 Ibid., 26:1, p. 30.

31 See Moses 2.

32 See Moses 1:39.

33 A. Kulik, Retroverting, 27:1–31:12, pp. 30–35. Nibley nonetheless sees resemblances between these passages in the Apocalypse and the Books of Moses and Abraham (H. W. Nibley, Abraham 2000, pp. 25-26).

34 For example, R. Rubinkiewicz concludes, consistent with most recent scholarship: “Our pseudepigraphon was written after 70 CE, because the author describes the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. chapter 27)” (R. Rubinkiewicz, Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 683).

35 Demonstrating that similar questions are not unknown elsewhere in the heavenly ascent literature, we note this example from the Islamic Mother of Books: “My Lord, … From where did he make the spirits? What was the origin of his creation?” (W. Barnstone et al., Mother, p. 685).

36 Ibid., p. 685.

37 W. W. Isenberg, Philip, 84:23–25, p. 159.

38 J. Smith, Jr. et al., Documents 2, July 1831-January 1833, Letter to William W. Phelps, 27 November 1832, p. 320, spelling and punctuation modernized. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 27 November 1832, 1:299.

39 Moses 1:27.

40 F. B. Salisbury, Creation, p. 65.

The Names of Moses as “Keywords”

Book of Moses Essay #39

Moses 1:25

With contribution by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Matthew L. Bowen, David J. Larsen, and Stephen T. Whitlock

Temple Names as Signposts on the Covenant Pathway

The use of temple names as signposts on the covenant pathway is ancient. It is reflected in the second-century account of the early Christian theologian, Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215 CE). His account is drawn from a group of “initiates” (= Greek mystai) who described the three successive names that they understood to have been given to Moses at different junctures of his life: “‘Joachim,’ given him by his mother at circumcision; ‘Moses,’ given him by Pharaoh’s daughter; and ‘Melchi,’1  a name he had in heaven which was given him, apparently by God, after his ascension.”2  Though interpretations of the name “Melchi” vary, the eminent scholar of Second Temple Judaism, Erwin Goodenough, saw it as representing the “eternal priesthood of Melchizedek,”3  reported in Genesis as being a “king” and “the priest of the Most High God.”4  Going beyond these three names reported in Clement’s account, Moses 1:25 can be seen as the bestowal of a final, fourth name, implied in the divine declaration that Moses is to be “made stronger than many waters.”

Who were the “initiates” from whom Clement received this information? It is possible that he received it as part of his own initiation into the mysteries of Christ, an event to which he alludes indirectly in his own writings.5  Among other things, such mysteries seem to have included unwritten temple teachings not to be shared with new Christian converts or with the world at large.6  In addition, a controversial letter purportedly written by Clement and discovered by Morton Smith, mentions certain “secret” doings and writings that were part of the “hierophantic teaching of the Lord [that would] lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth,” but that were “most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.”7  Other alternatives have also been advanced. For example, although Clement “names as his immediate informants a circle of religious savants,” some scholars conclude that “the ultimate source” for this reference “was presumably a written document.”8

In support of the idea that the practice of applying a series of sacred names to individuals was known not only by some early Christians but also hundreds of years earlier in some strands of Second Temple Judaism, we turn to a non-sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript entitled the Visions of Amram. Texts such as this one might have attracted the attention of groups of Jewish initiates that outsiders called Essenes and Therapeutai about whom the Philo of Alexandria (ca. 15 BCE–45 CE) wrote in treatises with which Clement was very familiar.9  In one of three examples this naming pattern included in the Visions of Amram, an angel identifies his three names as being Michael, Prince of Light, and Melchizedek — the latter being interpreted as a title that means “Ruler of Righteousness.”10  In further support of the idea that the Michael’s third name of Melchizedek is meant as a title rather than as a unique individual name is that it corresponds to the third name of Moses as reported by Clement. Intriguingly, a later passage in the Visions of Amram seems to portend the giving to Moses of his own names.11  The relevant line begins with the words “I will tell you your(?) names,” but unfortunately the text breaks off there and the names are not mentioned elsewhere in the fragments.12

In this Essay, we will argue that the elegantly reflective, multi-lingual nuances of the series of names and titles ascribed to Moses by Clement’s initiates can be seen as various enriched likenesses of himself, interpreted and amplified to reveal the latent character and identity of the prophet as a “God in embryo.”13  Although we cannot know whether the report that a particular series of names was given to Moses is historically authentic, the suggestions remain of interest because the meanings of the names are so remarkably apropos. A series of names of this sort would have helped Moses to discover aspects of his past, present, and future destiny while also enabling him to accomplish his heavenly ascent. It does not seem impossible that the initiates who reported these names may have known that such names were meant to be used as “keywords” in heavenly or ritual ascent.

Below, we will argue that each one of the three “ciphered” names for Moses reported by Clement is rich in meaning when “deciphered” in light of Moses’ premortal and mortal mission. And, remarkably, when the fourth title (“stronger than many waters,” foreshadowing Moses’ eternal destiny) is appended to the rest, each member of the complete set of four names is arguably “present” in Moses 1.

We will begin with a brief overview of the function of names as “keywords” in temple contexts. We will then show how the four names he was purportedly given serve to illuminate Moses’ life and mission. Finally, we offer concluding thoughts about patterns of ritual and heavenly ascent.

Figure 2. J. James Tissot, 1836–1902: Reconstruction of Jerusalem and the Temple of Herod Seen from the East, ca. 1886–1894

Temple Names as “Keywords”

The idea of “keywords” has been associated with temples since very early times. In a temple context, the meaning of the term “keyword” can be taken quite literally: the use of the appropriate keyword or keywords by a qualified worshipper “unlocks” each one of a successive series of gates, thus providing access to specific, secured areas of the sacred space.14

In temples throughout the ancient Near East, including Jerusalem, “different temple gates had names indicating the blessing received when entering: ‘the gate of grace,’ ‘the gate of salvation,’ ‘the gate of life,’ and so on,”15  as well as signifying “the fitness, through due preparation, which entrants should have in order to pass through [each one of] the gates.”16  In Jerusalem, the final “gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall enter,”17  very likely referred to “the innermost temple gate”18  where those seeking the face of the God of Jacob19  would find the fulfillment of their temple pilgrimage. The last gate, like each of those previously encountered, could be opened only to entrants who had passed every prior test. Importantly, these tests were designed not only to demonstrate knowledge relating to specific keywords but also to assess whether the entrant met the qualifications of moral fitness and experience.

These keywords can also be associated with names. As Joseph Smith taught, “The new name is the key word.”20  In this regard, it is important to understand that in each stage of that passage one was expected not only to know something but also to be something.21  Some ancient exegetes went so far as to assert: “all ancient traditions agree that the true name of a living thing reflects precisely its nature or its very essence.”22  For example, as René Guénon illustrates this particular view:23  “It is because Adam had received from God an understanding of the nature of all living things that he was able to give them their names” in the Garden of Eden.24  The idea of a strong connection between names and personal attributes is evident in Old Testament examples of figures such as Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob, who received new names only after they had been sufficiently tested and found worthy of them.25

Figure 3. Harold I. Hopkinson, 1918–2000: The Commissioned

Joachim

The first name, Joachim, meaning “Yahweh has raised up”26  is closely associated with the well-known prophecy of Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15 that speaks of a prophet “like unto” himself that the Lord will later “raise up.”

However, more pertinent to the present discussion than references to later prophets that the Lord would “raise up” is the question of how the meaning of the name “Joachim” — “Yahweh has raised up” — might be shown as being relevant to Moses himself, he being the one to whom these subsequent figures were likened. While no relevant passages justifying the application of the name to Moses are given in the Bible, these allusions to the meaning of the name appear in Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Translation passages containing the prophecies of Joseph, son of Israel, long prior to Moses’ birth. In one of these passages, the Lord declared that He would surely “raise up” Moses “to deliver [Israel] out of the land of Egypt.”27

Thus, it is apparent that Joachim, the first name said to have been given to Moses — and which would have been consistent with the premortal foreordination he received in anticipation of his earthly mission — would have been completely at home if it had been explicitly included in Moses 1:41. There, the Lord, in subtle wordplay that functions by omission, refers directly to the meaning of the most important element of Moses’ first purported sacred name (“raise up”) without explicitly mentioning the name itself in the English text.

Moses

Figure 4. Arnold Friberg, 1913–2010: The Finding of Moses by the Daughter of Pharaoh, 1953

The Hebrew etymology of Moses is given in Exodus 2:10: “And she called his name Moses [mōšeh] and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.” On the other hand, the commonly accepted Egyptian origin of the name Moses means “begotten” or “born.” Significantly, the Egyptian form of the name Moses is typically paired with the name of a god, e.g., Ramesses (“Rēʿ is begotten”), Thutmose ( “Thoth is begotten”), Ahmose ( “the moon [-god] is begotten”), and so forth.

Despite the surface level differences between the Hebrew and Egyptian etymologies, it can be shown that the two derivations function very well together. To be “drawn” from evokes “birth” imagery of being “drawn” from amniotic waters.28  One can virtually substitute the meaning of the Egyptian verb for the meaning of the Hebrew verb in the explanation for Moses’ name in translation: “And she called his name Moses: and she said, ‘Because I birthed him from the water.’”29

Significantly, the words of Joseph in JST Genesis 50:29 further illuminate the dual derivation of ‘Moses’: “For a seer will I raise up to deliver my people out of the land of Egypt; and he shall be called Moses. And by this name he shall know that he is of thy house; for he shall be nursed by the king’s daughter, and shall be called her son.30

Finally, it should be observed that Moses’ second name, the name he was given by his adoptive mother in Egypt and by which he was known throughout his mortal life, appears a remarkable twenty-five times within the forty-two verses of Moses 1. As we will see later on, the initial Hebrew and Egyptian meanings of the name “Moses” that can be seen in Exodus 2:10 anticipate the richer significance of the name that will unfold in Moses 1:25.

Figure 5. J. James Tissot, 1836–1902: The Offerings of Melchizedek, ca. 1886–1894

Melchi

Erwin Goodenough comments as follows with respect to “Melchi,” the third name of Moses that is reported by Clement: “The significance of ‘Melchi’ is not explained, but it at least suggests the eternal priesthood of Melchizedek.”31  In this context, we concur not only with Goodenough but also with Margaret Barker, who goes on to say that Melchizedek (Melchi-zedek32 ) should be regarded as a title as much as a name.33  According to Barker, the title:34

was associated with the original temple priesthood in Jerusalem, and it was a title that the first Christians gave to Jesus. … The account of Solomon’s enthronement in 1 Chronicles 29 originally described how he became the human presence of the Lord, the king (“I have begotten you with dew” [i.e., with a confirmatory anointing35 ], Psalm 110:3) and also the high priest (“a priest for eternity,” Psalm 110:4). He became Melchi (king) – Zedek (righteous one).

In this connection, it should be remembered that the blessings of the fulness of the Holy Priesthood, given to Moses and representing the roles of a king and priest, were originally connected not with the name of Melchizedek but rather with the “Son of God.”36  Only later was the name of “Melchizedek Priesthood” substituted as a description of this priesthood order, “out of respect or reverence” to the sacred name of the “Son of God,” so as “to avoid [its] too frequent repetition.”37

Thus there is no inconsistency in the fact that Moses 6:68 describes an individual who has received the fulness of the priesthood as having become, when divinely ratified, “a son of God.”38  This description resonates with the royal rebirth formula of Psalm 2:7: “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,” spoken on the occasion of the Davidic king’s enthronement.

Thus, we should not be surprised that God’s description of Moses as “my son” appears three additional times in Moses 139  — which we take, for the reasons just mentioned, as being equivalent to his being called “Melchizedek.” The importance of Moses’ status as “a son of God” is highlighted by Satan himself when the legitimacy of that title is the subject of the opening controversy in his challenge to the prophet.40

We further note that the declaration that Moses is “a son of God” hints at one possible reason why previously, in Exodus 2:10, he was given only “half a name.” Remember that the name “Moses” is lacking the theophoric prefix that is often present in the names of royal Egyptian figures with similar names, names like Ra-messes, Thut-mose, Ah-mose, and so forth. Remember that the names of these figures declared them to have been begotten as one or another of the Egyptian gods. Only now, in the account of Moses 1, is it revealed that Moses has been begotten with the name of the God of Israel, the heretofore missing theophoric prefix.

Figure 6. Moses Enthroned and Holding Stone Tablets,
the Tetragrammaton in top center (detail), ca. 1616

“As If Thou Wert God”

The closest statement to the phrase “as if thou wert God” (Moses 1:25) in the Bible is found in Exodus 7:1. Surprisingly, the verse does not say that Moses was to be “like a god” to Pharaoh. Rather, the Lord’s words to the prophet in Hebrew read literally: “I have made you God/god to Pharaoh.”41  This concept has been difficult for some scholars to accept. For example, Gary Rendsburg sees “Moses’ [temporary] elevation to the divine plane” as violating “a basic tenet of the ancient Israelites” in order to respond to “the exigency of the moment.”42  However, there are both ancient and modern sources that argue that Moses’ divine status was neither exceptional nor provisional.

Figure 7. Arnold Friberg, 1913–2010: The Lord Speaks to Moses from the Burning Bush, 1953

Moses as god and king. Drawing on Jewish sources, Wayne Meeks has written a classic chapter citing sources that portray Moses as “God and King.”43

In some accounts, Moses’ divine status is associated with that of Yahweh. For example, the promise to Moses of power over the waters resembles that given to David in Psalm 89:25.44  Like Moses, David is there depicted as a god — a “lesser YHWH” — on earth,45  consistent with the extended discussion by David J. Larsen of the enthronement of Moses and other figures in the literature of the ancient Near East.46

In other accounts, Moses’ ultimate divine status is compared to Elohim rather than Yahweh. For example, Wayne Meeks finds instances in the Samaritan literature where “the name with which Moses was ‘crowned’ or ‘clothed’ is … Elohim.”47  He further reports that the name of Elohim, conferred on Moses, was “distinguished from YHWH, ‘the name which god revealed to him’”48  on Mount Sinai.49

The theme of God’s personal disclosure of His own name to those who approach the final gate to enter His presence is reminiscent of the explanation of Figure 7, Facsimile 2 from the Book of Abraham. In the Prophet’s interpretation of that figure, God is described as “sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood.” The same concept was operative elsewhere in the ancient Near East. For example, in the Old Babylonian investiture liturgy, we might see in the account of the fifty names given to Marduk at the end of Enuma Elish a description of his procession through the ritual complex in which he took upon himself the divine attributes represented by those names one by one.50  Ultimately, it seems, he would have passed the guardians of the sanctuary gate to reach the throne of Ea where, as also related in the account, he finally received the god’s own name and a consequent fusion of identity with the declaration: “He is indeed even as I.”51

Figure 8. Arnold Friberg, 1913–2010: Moses Subdues the Shepherds at Jethro’s Well, 1953

The “rod” and “word” of Moses as symbols of his authority. Of interest in this context is that the “rod” and the “word” of Moses are associated with the authority of God through Egyptian and Hebrew wordplay. This wordplay is woven throughout both ancient and modern accounts of the life of Moses (e.g., the slaying of the Egyptian, the crossing of the sea, and the smiting of the rock).

In connection with this idea, Nephi’s multi-lingual puns on “rod” and “word” revolve around the polysemy of Egyptian term for “rod, staff”; “word” and the homonymy of the Egyptian term with the Hebrew maṭṭeh (“rod,” “staff”), the latter Hebrew term perhaps being derived from the Egyptian former.52  Moses’ repeated use of “word” and “rod” in close proximity brings together the “word of God” as creative act (“word of my power”) with power of command over the “many waters”53  and the “word of God” as scripture: “and he shall smite the waters of the Red Sea with his rod. And he shall have judgment, and shall write the word of the Lord”;54  “I will raise up a Moses; and I will give power unto him in a rod; and I will give judgment unto him in writing.”55

Figure 9. Arnold Friberg, 1913–2010: The Crossing of the Red Sea (detail), 1953

Moses the deliverer. Remarkably, the Hebrew derivation of Moses’ name is invoked in another elegant literary twist. Moses, who was said in Exodus 2:10 to have been delivered from the water as a weak and helpless infant, is told in Moses 1:25 that he is to be “made stronger than many waters.”56  The most obvious allusion here is to the power Moses will be given to divide the Red Sea.57  However, the phrase also recalls God’s subduing of the waters at Creation, particularly in light of the phrase that follows: “as if thou wert God.” Moreover, as God Himself explains the significance of Moses’ name, He links it with one of His own titles: “Almighty.”58  Fittingly, the divine name of “Almighty”59  in Moses 1:4, 25 is also closely tied to the demonstration of God’s power over the waters of chaos as the first act of Creation60  as well as the divine destruction of the Egyptian army.61

Consistent with this idea, ancient sources universally witness that the name Moses, rather than suggesting the “passive” meaning of one who is “drawn” or “pulled” out of the water as one would expect in the context of the naming scene in Exodus, is instead vowelled as a “pseudo-active” participle suggesting his future as one who will “draw” or “pull” others out of the water.62  The “many waters” or “great waters” ultimately obeyed Moses’ “command even as if [he] wer[e] God” (Moses 1:25–26) as he provided temporal deliverance to the Israelites at the time of the Exodus. Moses also used the same divine authority—the authority with which one “draws” or “pulls” (mōšeh) from the water—to deliver the Israelites spiritually through baptism.63  Elder Bruce R. McConkie commented on this idea as follows:64

Moses—mighty, mighty Moses—acting in the power and authority of the holy order, gathered Israel once. What is more fitting than for him to confer upon mortals in this final dispensation the power and authority to lead latter-day Israel out of Egyptian darkness, through a baptismal Red Sea, into their promised Zion?.65

In summary, speaking of Christ as the premortal prototype not only for Moses, but also for all those who were foreordained to priestly offices and subsequently ordained in mortal life, the Gospel of Philip suggests that the general meaning, symbolism, and sequence of the ordinances has always been the same: “He who … [was begotten] before everything was begotten anew. He [who was] once [anointed] was anointed anew. He who was redeemed in turn redeemed (others).”66  Thus, in the declaration that Moses is to be “made stronger than many waters,”67  God is saying that Moses, the delivered, will now become Moses, the deliverer.68

Conclusion

We have seen how the four names that were said to have been given to Moses fittingly summarize the whole of his divinely appointed mission. “Joachim,” a personal name that is first in sequence, anticipated the mission he was “raised up” to fulfill in the premortal world. The second, “Moses,” also a personal name, reflected the dual role he played during his mortal life as an Egyptian prince and a Hebrew prophet. The title “Melchi” was bestowed upon Moses “after his ascension” when he became “a son of God,” holding the fulness of the higher priesthood and, in likeness of Melchizedek, becoming a king and a priest forever in the holy order. And his final, fourth name was a title that represented the name of God the Father Himself. Philo Judaeus likewise argued that Moses was not only as a prophet, priest, and king, but also (like Jesus) a god, having been “changed into the divine” through his initiation into the “mysteries.”69

Elsewhere it has been argued that the narrative of Moses’ visions in chapter 1 of the Book of Moses fits squarely into the ancient literary genre of “heavenly ascent.”70  But there is evidence that the symbolism of this journey may also have been enacted in various forms of ritual ascent among Jews and early Christians. For example, in his discussion of late Second Temple Jewish mysticism, Erwin Goodenough summarized Philo’s descriptions of “two successive initiations within a single Mystery,” constituting “a ‘Lesser’ Mystery in contrast with a ‘Greater,’” as follows:

For general convenience we may distinguish them as the Mystery of Aaron and the Mystery of Moses. The Mystery of Aaron got its symbolism from the great Jerusalem cultus. … The Mystery of Moses … led the worshipper above all material association; he died to the flesh, and in becoming reclothed in a spiritual body moved progressively upwards … and at last ideally to God himself. … The objective symbolism of the Higher Mystery was the holy of holies with the ark, a level of spiritual experience which was no normal part of even the high-priesthood. Only once a year could the high priest enter there, and then only … when so blinded by incense that he could see nothing of the sacred objects within. The Mystery of Aaron was restricted to the symbolism of the Aaronic high priest.71

According to Goodenough “Philo had himself been ‘initiated under Moses’ [i.e., received the mysteries of the higher priesthood] and it seems to me quite likely that the Elder Samuel [who built the synagogue of Dura Europos] may have been so ‘initiated’ also.72  Hinting at the possibility of such ritual in the synagogue at Dura Europos, Goodenough noted: “In [a] side room were benches and decorations that mark the room as probably one of cult, perhaps an inner room, where special rites were celebrated by a select company. … So far as structure goes, it might have been the room for people especially ‘initiated’ in some way.”73  Bradshaw has written at length how the Ezekiel mural at the synagogue might be seen as a witness of ancient Jewish mysteries of the sort that Philo described.74  The controversial idea of initiation rites at the Dura synagogue receives support from Crispin Fletcher-Louis’ subsequent findings on what he calls the “angelomorphic priesthood” of the Qumran community.75  Of equal significance is David Calabro’s research hinting that the Christian Church at Dura Europos, just down the road from the synagogue, may have likewise partaken of teachings and ordinances of an esoteric nature, including baptism for the dead.76

In all this Moses was not only the model disciple, but also the model leader. Observes Old Testament scholar C. T. R. Hayward: “Philo saw nothing improper … in describing Moses as a hierophant: like the holder of that office in the mystery cults of Philo’s day, Moses was responsible for inducting initiates into the mysteries, leading them from darkness to light, to a point where they are enabled to see [God].”77  Hayward’s view echoes the teachings of Doctrine and Covenants 84:21–23:

21  And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22  For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

23  Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God.

 

This article is adapted from Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and Matthew L. Bowen. “‘Made Stronger Than Many Waters’: The Names of Moses as Keywords in the Heavenly Ascent of Moses.” In Proceedings of the Fifth Interpreter Foundation Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, 7 November 2020, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Temple on Mount Zion 6, in preparation. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2020. www.templethemes.net.

Further Reading

Bowen, Matthew L. “‘What meaneth the rod of iron?’.” FARMS Insights 25, no. 2 (2005): 2–3. https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/farms-staff/2019-10-07/insights_25-2.pdf. (accessed July 11, 2020).

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. “The Ezekiel Mural at Dura Europos: A tangible witness of Philo’s Jewish mysteries?” BYU Studies 49, no. 1 (2010): 4–49. www.templethemes.net.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Temple Themes in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. 2014 update ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014, pp. 53–79. www.templethemes.net.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., David J. Larsen, and Stephen T. Whitlock. “Moses 1 and the Apocalypse of Abraham: Twin sons of different mothers?” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): in press.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and Matthew L. Bowen. “‘Made Stronger Than Many Waters’: The Names of Moses as Keywords in the Heavenly Ascent of Moses.” In Proceedings of the Fifth Interpreter Foundation Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, 7 November 2020, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Temple on Mount Zion 6, in preparation. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2020. www.templethemes.net.

Draper, Richard D., S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes. The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005, p. 31.

Johnson, Mark J. “The lost prologue: Reading Moses Chapter One as an Ancient Text.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 145–186. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-lost-prologue-reading-moses-chapter-one-as-an-ancient-text/. (accessed June 5, 2020).

Nibley, Hugh W. “To open the last dispensation: Moses chapter 1.” In Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by Truman G. Madsen, 1–20. Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978, p. 12.

Nibley, Hugh W. 1986. Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), Brigham Young University, 2004, pp. 220–221.

Reynolds, Noel B, and Jeff Lindsay. “‘Strong like unto Moses’: The case for ancient roots in the Book of Moses based on Book of Mormon usage of related content apparently from the Brass Plates.” Presented at the conference entitled “Tracing Ancient Threads of the Book of Moses’ (September 18–19, 2020), Provo, UT: Brigham Young University 2020.

References

Adler, William. “Introduction.” In The Jewsih Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, edited by James C. VanderKam and William Adler, 1-31. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

Arp, Nathan J. “Joseph knew first: Moses the Egyptian son.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 32 (2019): 187-98. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-knew-first-moses-the-egyptian-son/. (accessed July 11, 2020).

Baker, LeGrand L., and Stephen D. Ricks. Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord? The Psalms in Israel’s Temple Worship in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2009.

Barker, Margaret. “Who was Melchizedek and who was his God?” Presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Session S19-72 on ‘Latter-day Saints and the Bible’, San Diego, CA, November 17-20, 2007.

———. King of the Jews: Temple Theology in John’s Gospel. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2014.

Bednar, David A. Power to Become: Spiritual Patterns for Pressing Forward with a Steadfastness in Christ. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2014.

Berlin, Adele, and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Study Bible, Featuring the Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Biale, David. “The god with breasts: El SHaddai in the Bible.” History of Religions 21, no. 3 (February 1982): 240–56. https://www.academia.edu/35615351/David_Biale_The_God_with_Breasts_El_Shaddai_in_the_Bible_History_of_Religions_21_3_February_1982_240_256. (accessed November 23, 2020).

Bowen, Matthew L. “‘What meaneth the rod of iron?’.” FARMS Insights 25, no. 2 (2005): 2-3. https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/farms-staff/2019-10-07/insights_25-2.pdf. (accessed July 11, 2020).

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. “The Ezekiel Mural at Dura Europos: A tangible witness of Philo’s Jewish mysteries?” BYU Studies 49, no. 1 (2010): 4-49. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol49/iss1/2/.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and Ronan J. Head. “The investiture panel at Mari and rituals of divine kingship in the ancient Near East.” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 4 (2012): 1-42. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sba/vol4/iss1/1/.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/download/140123IGIL12014ReadingS.

———. Temple Themes in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. 2014 update ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/details/151128TempleThemesInTheOathAndCovenantOfThePriesthood2014Update ; https://archive.org/details/140910TemasDelTemploEnElJuramentoYElConvenioDelSacerdocio2014UpdateSReading. (accessed November 29, 2020).

———. 2018. What Did the Lord Mean When He Said Moses Would Become “God to Pharaoh” During the Plagues of Egypt? (Old Testament KnoWhy JBOTL013A, 26 March 2018). In Interpreter Foundation. https://interpreterfoundation.org/knowhy-otl13a-what-did-the-lord-mean-when-he-said-moses-would-become-god-to-pharaoh-during-the-plagues-of-egypt-2/. (accessed July 4, 2020).

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., David J. Larsen, and Stephen T. Whitlock. “Moses 1 and the Apocalypse of Abraham: Twin sons of different mothers?” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020): 179-290. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/moses-1-and-the-apocalypse-of-abraham-twin-sons-of-different-mothers/. (accessed July 29, 2020).

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. 1906. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.

Calabro, David. “From temple to church: Defining sacred space in the Near East.” In Proceedings of the Fifth Interpreter Foundation Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, 7 November 2020, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Temple on Mount Zion 6, in preparation. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2020.

Clement of Alexandria. ca. 190-215. “The Stromata, or Miscellanies.” In The Ante-Nicene Fathers (The Writings of the Fathers Down to AD 325), edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. Vol. 2, 299-568. Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Company, 1885. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

Cumming, Sam. 2019. Names (Revision of 26 June 2019). In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/names/. (accessed November 3, 2020).

Dalgaard, Kasper. 2013. A Priest for All Generations: An Investigation into the Use of the Melchizedek Figure from Genesis to the Cave of Treasures (Volume 48, Det Teologiske Fakultet). In University of Copenhagen Department of Theology. https://static-curis.ku.dk/portal/files/188645800/48_Kasper_Dalgaard_A_Priest_for_All_Generations_e_bog.pdf. (accessed August 10, 2020).

DelCogliano, Mark. Basil of Caesarea’s Anti-Eunomian Theory of Names: Christian Theology and Late-Antique Philosophy in the Fourth Century Trinitarian Controversy. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 103. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2010. https://brill.com/view/title/17416 ; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Basil_of_Caesarea_s_Anti_Eunomian_Theory/Td95DwAAQBAJ . PDF of Emory University Doctoral Dissertation: https://etd.library.emory.edu/concern/etds/qr46r085k?locale=en.

Dolkart, Judith F., ed. James Tissot, The Life of Christ: The Complete Set of 350 Watercolors. New York City, NY: Merrell Publishers and the Brooklyn Museum, 2009.

Duke, Robert R. The Social Location of the ‘Visions of Amram’ (4Q543-547). New York City, NY: Peter Lang, 2010. https://books.google.com/books?id=knLh2SnxQ0AC. (accessed July 3, 2020).

Eaton, John H. The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary with an Introduction and New Translation. London, England: T&T Clark, 2003.

Eccles, Robert S. Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough: A Personal Pilgrimage. Society of Biblical Literature, Biblical Scholarship in North America, ed. Kent Harold Richards. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985.

Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Etheridge, J. W., ed. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee. 2 vols. London, England: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1862, 1865. Reprint, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2005. http://www.targum.info/pj/psjon.htm. (accessed August 10, 2007).

Faulconer, James E. “Self-image, self-love, and salvation.” Latter-day Digest 2, June 1993, 7-26. http://jamesfaulconer.byu.edu/selfimag.htm. (accessed August 10, 2007).

Ferguson, John. “The achievement of Clement of Alexandria.” Religious Studies 12, no. 1 (1976): 59–80. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20005313. (accessed December 7, 2020).

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “‘Now this Melchizedek…’ (Heb 7,1).” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25, no. 1 (1963): 305-21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43712272. (accessed November 3, 2020).

Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2002.

Fossum, Jarl E. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 36. Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1985.

Foster, Benjamin R. “Epic of Creation.” In Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, edited by Benjamin R. Foster. Third ed, 436-86. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005.

Gee, John. “The keeper of the gate.” In The Temple in Time and Eternity, edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. Temples Throughout the Ages 2, 233-73. Provo, UT: FARMS at Brigham Young University, 1999.

Goodenough, Erwin Ramsdell. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1935.

———. Symbolism in the Dura Synagogue. 3 vols. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period 9-11, Bollingen Series 37. New York City, NY: Pantheon Books, 1964.

———. Summary and Conclusions. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period 12, Bollingen Series 37. New York City, NY: Pantheon Books, 1965.

Gross, Andrew D. “Visions of Amram [4Q543-549].” In Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel and Lawrence H. Schiffman. 3 vols. Vol. 2, 1507-10. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013.

Guénon, René. Symboles fondamentaux de la Science sacrée. Paris, France: Gallimard, 1962.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1990.

Hayward, C. T. R. Interpretations of the Name Israel in Ancient Judaism and Some Early Christian Writings: From Victorious Athlete to Heavenly Champion. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Isenberg, Wesley W. “The Gospel of Philip (II, 3).” In The Nag Hammadi Library, edited by James M. Robinson. 3rd, Completely Revised ed, 139-60. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990.

Jacobson, Howard, ed. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers, 1996.

———. “Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities.” In Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel and Lawrence H. Schiffman. 3 vols. Vol. 1, 470-613. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013.

Johnson, Mark J. “The lost prologue: Reading Moses Chapter One as an Ancient Text.” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 145-86. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-lost-prologue-reading-moses-chapter-one-as-an-ancient-text/. (accessed June 5, 2020).

Jones, Robert. “Priesthood and cult in the Visions of Amram: A critical evaluation of its attitudes toward the contemporary temple establishment in Jerusalem.” Dead Sea Discoveries 27, no. 1 (2020): 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685179-12341504. (accessed August 10, 2020).

Jurgens, Blake Alan. “Reassessing the dream-vision of the Vision of Amram (4Q543–547).” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24, no. 1 (2014): 3–42.

Knohl, Israel. “Sacred architecture: The numerical dimenions of biblical poems.” Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012): 189–97. https://www.academia.edu/1565388/Sacred_Architecture_The_Numerical_Dimensions_of_Biblical_Poems. (accessed December 12, 2020).

Kobelski, Paul J. Melchizedek and Melchireša’. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 10. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981.

Kugel, James L. The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible. New York City, NY: The Free Press, 2003.

Larsen, David J. “Psalm 24 and the two YHWHs at the gate of the temple.” In The Temple: Ancient and Restored. Proceedings of the 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Symposium, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry. Temple on Mount Zion 3, 201-23. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2016.

———. “And He Departed From the Throne: The Enthronement of Moses in Place of the Noble Man in Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian (Originally prepared as a term paper for a Master’s Degree, Theology 228, Dr. Andrei A. Orlov, Marquette University, Fall 2008).” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Session on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism, 23 November 2009, New Orleans, Louisiana. https://www.academia.edu/385529/_And_He_Departed_from_the_Throne_The_Enthronement_of_Moses_in_Place_of_the_Noble_Man_in_Exagoge_of_Ezekiel_the_Tragedian. (accessed August 3, 2019).

Lindsay, Jeffrey Dean. ““Arise from the Dust”: Insights from Dust-Related Themes in the Book of Mormon. Part 1: Tracks from the Book of Moses.” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 22 (2016): 179-232. https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/jnlpdf/lindsay-v22-2016-pp179-232-PDF.pdf. (accessed August 7, 2019).

———. Personal Communication to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, August 5, 2019.

Litwa, M. David. “The deification of Moses in Philo of Alexandria.” The Studia Philonica Annual 26 (2014): 1–27. https://www.academia.edu/16406623/The_Deification_of_Moses_in_Philo_of_Alexandria. (accessed November 3, 2020).

Lowy, Simeon. The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis. Studia Post-Biblica 28, ed. J. C. H. Lebram. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1977.

Marmorstein, A. 1920-1937. The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature and The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God (1. The Names and Attributes of God, 2. Essays in Anthropomorphism) (Three Volumes in One). New York City, NY: KTAV Publishing House, 1968.

Martinez, Florentino Garcia. “11QMelchizedek (11Q13 [11QMelch]).” In The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, edited by Florentino Garcia Martinez. 2nd ed. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson, 139-40. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1996.

McConkie, Bruce R. “The ten blessings of the priesthood.” Ensign 7, November 1977, 33-35.

———. The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary. 4 vols. The Messiah Series 2-5, ed. Bruce R. McConkie. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1979-1981.

———. A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1985.

Meeks, Wayne A. “Moses as God and King.” In Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, edited by Jacob Neusner. Religions in Antiquity, Studies in the History of Religions (Supplements to Numen) 14, 354-71. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1968.

Milik, Józef Tadeusz. “4Q Visions de ‘Amram et une citations d’Origène.” Revue Biblique 79, no. 1 (1972): 77-97. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44088133. (accessed August 10, 2020).

Mowinckel, Sigmund. 1962. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. 2 vols. The Biblical Resource Series, ed. Astrid B. Beck and David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.

Nelson, Russell M. “Let God prevail.” Ensign 50, November 2020. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/46nelson?lang=eng. (accessed October 14, 2020).

Nibley, Hugh W. 1975. The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005.

Oaks, Dallin H. “The challenge to become.” Ensign 30, November 2000, 32-34.

Parry, Donald W. “Temple worship and a possible reference to a prayer circle in Psalm 24.” BYU Studies 32, no. 4 (1992): 57-62.

Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Second ed. Vol. 1. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2013.

Philo. “On the Life of Moses.” In Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel and Lawrence H. Schiffman. 3 vols. Vol. 1. Translated by Maren R. Niehoff, 959-88. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013.

———. b. 20 BCE. “On the Cherubim (De Cherubim).” In Philo, edited by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 12 vols. Vol. 2. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. The Loeb Classical Library 227, ed. Jeffrey Henderson, 3-85. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929.

———. b. 20 BCE. “On the Giants (De Gigantibus).” In Philo, edited by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 12 vols. Vol. 2. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. The Loeb Classical Library 227, ed. Jeffrey Henderson, 441-79. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929.

———. b. 20 BCE. “Moses 1 and 2 (De Vita Mosis).” In Philo, edited by F. H. Colson. Revised ed. 12 vols. Vol. 6. Translated by F. H. Colson. The Loeb Classical Library 289, 274-595. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935.

———. b. 20 BCE. Philo Supplement 2 (Questions on Exodus). Translated by Ralph Marcus. The Loeb Classical Library 401, ed. Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953.

Rendsburg, Gary A. “Moses as equal to Pharaoh.” In Text, Artifact, and Image: Reveling Ancient Israelite Religion, edited by Gary A Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis. Brown Judaic Studies 346, 201-19. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006. http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/faculty/core-faculty-information/gary-a-rendsburg/132-publications-of-gary-a-rendsburg. (accessed March 19, 2018).

Reynolds, Noel B., and Jeff Lindsay. “‘Strong like unto Moses’: The case for ancient roots in the Book of Moses based on Book of Mormon usage of related content apparently from the Brass Plates.” Presented at the conference entitled “Tracing Ancient Threads of the Book of Moses’ (September 18-19, 2020), Provo, UT: Brigham Young University 2020.

Runia, David T. “Clement of Alexandria and the Philonic doctrine of the divine powers.” Vigilae Christianae 58, no. 3 (August 2004): 256–76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1584621. (accessed December 7, 2020).

Schäfer, Peter. The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.

Secret Gospel of Mark. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark. (accessed December 7, 2020).

Shelemon. ca. 1222. The Book of the Bee, the Syriac Text Edited from the Manuscripts in London, Oxford, and Munich with an English Translation. Translated by E. A. Wallis Budge. Reprint ed. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1886. Reprint, n. p., n. d.

Smith, Morton. 1982. The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark. Middletown, CA: The Dawn Horse Press, 2005.

Speiser, Ephraim A. “The Creation Epic (Enuma Elish).” In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James B. Pritchard. 3rd with Supplement ed, 60-72, 501-03. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972.

Sprengling, Martin, and William Creighton Graham, eds. Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament, Part 1: Genesis-2 Samuel. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 13. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1931. https://archive.org/details/SprenglingGraham1931BarhebraeusScholia. (accessed July 3, 2020).

Talmage, James E. The Story of ‘Mormonism’ and The Philosophy of ‘Mormonism’. Salt Lake City, UT: The Deseret News, 1914. https://archive.org/details/storyofmormonism00talmi. (accessed July 5, 2020).

———. 1899. The Articles of Faith. 1924 Revised ed. Classics in Mormon Literature. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1984.

Talon, Philippe. “Enūma Eliš and the transmission of Babylonian cosmology to the West.” In Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences. Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project. Held in Paris, France, October 4-7, 1999, edited by R. M. Whiting, 265-77. Helsinki, Finland: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001. http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/. (accessed March 10, 2011).

Tissot, J. James. The Old Testament: Three Hundred and Ninety-Six Compositions Illustrating the Old Testament, Parts 1 and 2. 2 vols. Paris, France: M. de Brunhoff, 1904.

Tromp, Johannes. The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary. Studia In Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 10, ed. A.-M. Denis and M. De Jonge. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1993. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/11203. (accessed July 3, 2020).

Vermes, Geza. “Essenes – Therapeutai – Qumran.” Durham University Journal (June 1960): 97–115.

———. “The etymology of ‘Essenes’.” Revue de Qumrán 2, no. 3 (1960): 427–43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24599235. (accessed December 7, 2020).

———. “Essenes and Therapeutai.” Revue de Qumrán 3, no. 4 (1962): 495–504. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24599295. (accessed December 7, 2020).

Wells, Bruce. “Exodus.” In Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, edited by John H. Walton. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.

Young, Brigham. 1874. “The calling of the priesthood, to preach the Gospel and proceed witht eh organization of the kingdom of God, preparatory to the coming of the Son of Man; all good is of the Lord; salvation and life everlasting are before us (Discourse by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Bowery, at Brigham City, Saturday Morning, June 26, 1874).” In Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. Vol. 17, 113-15. Liverpool and London, England: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1853-1884. Reprint, Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966.

Zinner, Samuel. Personal communication to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, November 3, 2020.

———. Recovering ancient Hebrew scribal numerical and acrostic techniques, in preparation.

Notes on Figures

Figure 1. BYU Magazine, Fall 2017, https://magazine.byu.edu/article/eight-heads-ten-commandments/ (accessed July 12, 2020). “Through the generosity of Rex G. (’62) and Ruth Methvin Maughan (BS ’60), BYU acquired eight Arnold Friberg portraits used for Cecil B. Demille’s The Ten Commandments. Photo by Roger Layton.” With permission from Bruce Patrick, Art Director, BYU Magazine.

Figure 2. Image: 8 7/8 x 16 3/8 in. (22.5 x 41.6 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Purchased by public subscription, 00.159.7. Published in J. F. Dolkart, James Tissot, p. 204. With permission.

Figure 3. With the kind permission of Glen Hopkinson, son of Harold I. Hopkinson. As published in “The Foreordination of Abraham,” Book of Abraham Insight #21, https://pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/the-foreordination-of-abraham/ (accessed October 14, 2020).

Figure 4. From 1957 packet containing reprints of a series of inserts which appeared in “The Instructor” magazine beginning in March 1957 (https://ia802800.us.archive.org/2/items/instructor923dese/instructor923dese.pdf [accessed July 12, 2020]). © 1957 by The Arnold Friberg Foundation and Friberg Fine Arts.

Figure 5. Offerings. J. J. Tissot, Old Testament, 1:47. The Jewish Museum, No. 52–94. Public domain. See Genesis 14:18–20.

Figure 6. The British Museum, Asset Number 978337001, https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/978337001. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license for non-commercial use.

Figure 7. From 1957 packet containing reprints of a series of inserts which appeared in “The Instructor” magazine beginning in March 1957 (https://ia802800.us.archive.org/2/items/instructor923dese/instructor923dese.pdf [accessed July 12, 2020]). © 1957 by The Arnold Friberg Foundation and Friberg Fine Arts.

Figure 8. From 1957 packet containing reprints of a series of inserts which appeared in “The Instructor” magazine beginning in March 1957 (https://ia802800.us.archive.org/2/items/instructor923dese/instructor923dese.pdf [accessed July 12, 2020]). © 1957 by The Arnold Friberg Foundation and Friberg Fine Arts.

Figure 9. From 1957 packet containing reprints of a series of inserts which appeared in “The Instructor” magazine beginning in March 1957 (https://ia802800.us.archive.org/2/items/instructor923dese/instructor923dese.pdf [accessed July 12, 2020]). © 1957 by The Arnold Friberg Foundation and Friberg Fine Arts.

Footnotes

1 Other sources where this name or similar variants appear include (H. Jacobson, Pseudo-Philo, pp. 492-493 n. 9:16; R. R. Duke, Social Location, p. 75): Melchiel (“God is my king” H. Jacobson, Pseudo-Philo, 9:16, p. 492; 135 BCE-100 CE), Melchias (“king” George Syncellus, Chronographia (9th century CE) and George Cedrenus, Synopsis historion (11th-12th centuries CE), Amlâkâ (Shelemon, Book of the Bee, 29, p. 48), Malkēl (probably a corruption of “Malkel” — “God has ruled” M. Sprengling et al., Barhebraeus’ Scholia, Part 1, pp. 102-103; 13th century C), and Yamkil (Ishodad, Commentary on Exodus, 2:10, cited in H. Jacobson, Pseudo-Philo, p. 493 n. 9:16).

Robert Duke (R. R. Duke, Social Location, pp. 69-79) suggests that the Visions of Amram 1:9 records “Moses’ original Hebrew name. He renders the Aramaic ml’kyh, [more commonly] translated as “the messengers” as the Hebrew name, Malachiah, which he argues refers to Moses” (A. D. Gross, Visions of Amram, p. 1508 n. 1:9). Differing in this regard with Duke, Edward Cook, along with Gross, translate the passage as “the messengers” (D. W. Parry et al., DSSR (2013), 4Q583, Fragment 1 a-c, line 10, p. 883; A. D. Gross, Visions of Amram, 1:9, p. 1508).

2 E. R. Goodenough, Light, pp. 292-293. The whole of the relevant passage in the writings of Clement reads as follows (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 1:23, p. 335 (ca. 198-203 CE)):

Thereupon the [Egyptian] queen gave the babe the name of Moses, with etymological propriety, from his being drawn out of the water, — for the Egyptians call water mou,— in which he had been exposed to die. For they call Moses one who breathed [on being taken] from the water. It is clear that previously the parents gave a name to the child on his circumcision; and he was called Joachim. And he had a third name in heaven, after his ascension, as the mystics say — Melchi.

Apart from the digression on the names given to Moses at circumcision and “in heaven,” Clement’s account is based on Philo, Moses, 1:5, op. 279ff.

3 E. R. Goodenough, Light, pp. 292-293. See Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 1:23, p. 335 (ca. 198-203 CE).

4 Genesis 14:18. See also JST Genesis 14:25–40.

5 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 1:5, p. 307. For more about Clement’s view of Christianity as a “mystery religion,” see J. Ferguson, Achievement of Clement, pp. 62–63.

6 Mark 4:11. Cf. M. Barker, King of the Jews, p. 84.

7 Purported letter of Clement to Theodore, published in M. Smith, Secret Gospel, p. 14. Though some scholars dispute the nature of the “Secret Gospel of Mark” cited in the latter and some of Smith’s interpretations, most accept that the letter is an excellent match to the style of Clement. Hugh Nibley cites the work without qualification in H. W. Nibley, Message (2005), p. 515. For a summary of the debate on the nature and authenticity of this document, see, e.g., B. D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities, pp. 67–89; Secret Gospel, Secret Gospel.

8 W. Adler, Introduction, p. 22. Whereas J. Tromp, Assumption of Moses, pp. 270-285 argues that Clement obtained his information from the lost ending of the pseudepigraphal Assumption of Moses (ca. 100 BCE–100 CE), some other scholars hold differing views (see W. Adler, Introduction, p. 22 n. 96).

9 For more on these groups and their names, see G. Vermes, Etymology of ‘Essenes’; G. Vermes, Essenes – Therapeutai – Qumran; G. Vermes, Essenes and Therapeutai. On Clement’s familiarity with the writings of Philo, see D. T. Runia, Clement, pp. 256–258.

10 The extant text and English translation of the relevant passage is published in D. W. Parry et al., DSSR (2013), 4Q544 (4QVisions of ’Amramb ar), fragment 2 line 13 and fragment 3 line 2, p. 891. Though the complete set of names is not preserved in the extant text, J. T. Milik has made a strong case for his reconstruction of the missing names based on related texts (11Q13 and 1QM 13 1. 10–11. See J. T. Milik, 4Q Visions de ‘Amram, pp. 85-86; P. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša’, p. 28; K. Dalgaard, A Priest for All Generations, pp. 57-60). Here is text, with reconstructed portions shown within brackets:

[And these are his three names: Belial, Prince of Darkness], and Melchiresha’ … [and he answered and sa]id to me: [My] three names [are Michael, Prince of Light and Melchizedek].

“Milik and others since him have found this hypothetical list of names to represent the most plausible reconstruction of the surviving text” (ibid., p. 58). For a brief overview of Melchizedek in Second Temple literature, see B. A. Jurgens, Reassessing the Dream-Vision, pp. 29-33

11 According to R. Jones, Priesthood and Cult, p. 17 n. 69, at 4Q545, fragment 4 line 15b “the angelus interpres has likely just finished a description of Moses in the material preceding line 15, and is now beginning a description of Moses’ brother Aaron.” Thus, according to this view, the statement “I will tell you your(?) names” is being addressed to Moses.

12 D. W. Parry et al., DSSR (2013), 4Q545 (4QVisions of ’Amramc ar), fragment 4 line 14, p. 895.

13 J. E. Talmage, Articles (1984), p. 474 n. 4, citing J. E. Talmage, Story and Philosophy of ‘Mormonism’, p. 109.

14 See, e.g., S. Mowinckel, Psalms, 1:180, 1:181 n. 191; J. H. Eaton, Psalms Commentary, 118:19–22, p. 405; J. Gee, Keeper; J. M. Bradshaw et al., Investiture Panel, pp. 11, 20–22.

15 S. Mowinckel, Psalms, 1:181 n. 191.

16 J. H. Eaton, Psalms Commentary, 118:19–22, p. 405. See also Psalm 24:3–4.

17 Psalm 118:20.

18 S. Mowinckel, Psalms, 1:180.

19 Psalm 24:6. Donald Parry sees an allusion to a prayer circle in this verse (D. W. Parry, Psalm 24).

20 D&C 130:11, emphasis added.

21 See D. H. Oaks, To Become, p. 32. See also J. E. Faulconer, Self-Image; D. A. Bednar, Power to Become, pp. 1–35.

22 R. Guénon, Symboles, p. 36. Others, such as Basil of Caesarea in the 4th century, held, less radically, that each name had a distinct primary meaning, or notion, as well as signifying, secondarily, certain properties, but not essence itself (M. DelCogliano, Basil of Caesarea’s Anti-Eunomian Theory of Names, pp. 153–260). For a discussion of modern name theory, see S. Cumming, Names

23 R. Guénon, Symboles, p. 36, emphasis added.

24 Genesis 2:19–20.

25 Genesis 17:5, 15; 32:28.

26 F. Brown et al., Lexicon, p. 220c.

27 2 Nephi 3:10. Cf. v. 17; JST Genesis 50:26, 28.

28 Philo (like Josephus ) gave a derivation from Egyptian, explaining that “Mou is the Egyptian word for water” (Philo, On the Life of Moses, 1:17, p. 168). Niehoff explains: “Philo’s interpretation takes into account the historical background of the story, assuming that it is far more likely for an Egyptian princess to call her adopted son by an Egyptian name” (ibid., p. 968 n. 1:17).

29 The insistence of the Egyptian princess that Moses was literally begotten through her is clearly reflected the name she gave him. It is also consistent with the careful actions she is said to have taken to mimic the conditions of expectant motherhood, as reported by Philo: “[She] took him for her son, having at an earlier time artificially enlarged the figure of her womb to make him pass as her real and not a supposititious child” (ibid., 1:19, p. 968).

30 Note that the JST Genesis phrase “and shall be called her son” corresponds neatly to the “adoption” or “rebirth” formula or notice in Exodus [2:10]: “and he became her son.” The JST Genesis prophecy also points to the or double-meaning of Moses. The expression “her son” constitutes a pun on the Egyptian meaning of Moses in terms of ms (or mesu), “child”/“son,” as Nathan Arp has noted (N. J. Arp, Joseph Knew First). Nevertheless, the prophecy indicates that the name Moses would be a sign by which he would know that he belonged to the house of Israel (and the house of Joseph[?]). In other words, the phrase “by this name he shall know that he is of thy house” seems to indicate that the name Moses would mark him an Israelite thus implying the intelligibility of the Moses/mose/mōšeh in Hebrew also. Moses would have a “double-identity” as an Egyptian and an Israelite.

31 E. R. Goodenough, Light, pp. 292–293. See Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 1:23, p. 335 (ca. 198–203 CE). For an assessment of Goodenough’s views on ancient Jewish mysteries grounded in ritual, see J. M. Bradshaw, Ezekiel Mural, especially pp. 32–34.

32 The appearance of “Melchizedek” as two words is not consistent in the Bible and ancient texts. On the one hand, it is written as two words in the Masoretic Text of Genesis 14, Psalm 110, the Samaritan Pentateuch (S. Lowy, Principles, p. 320), the Targums (J. W. Etheridge, Onkelos, 14), and 11QMelchizedek (F. G. Martinez, Melchizedek, 2:9, p. 140). On the other hand, Samuel Zinner notes these counter-examples: “The LXX read it as one word, that is, as a name. In subtle ways we can determine that the gospels presuppose the LXX interpretation of the Hebrew text, whereas Shepherd of Hermas Command 1 seems to understand it as two words. … It is written as one word in the Genesis Apocryphon (J. A. Fitzmyer, Now This Melchizedek, pp. 312–313)” (S. Zinner, November 3 2020).

It may be possible to identify how four additional ancient authors read “Melchi-zedek,” either as a title consisting of two words or as a name consisting of one word. Zinner extends the evidence by using arguments that take into account the possibility that the numerical architecture of some biblical passages “are based on numerical values of the letters of the names of God” (I. Knohl, Sacred Architecture, p. 189). For example, the Song of Moses’ exordium (Deuteronomy 32:1-3) contains a total of 26 words, congruent with a hint at the numerical value of YHWH — namely 26 (ibid., p. 194). In an in-progress monograph (S. Zinner, Recovering), Zinner points out that:

MT Psalm 110 has a total of 65 words, congruent with the numerical value of the divine name ʾAdonai that occurs in the text. The 65 words are divided between a 2-word superscription + a 63-word main text, the result of the MT reading mlky-ṣdq in v. 4 as 2 words. By contrast, the LXX translators read in Psalm 110:4 mlkyṣdq, a single word, that is, the name Melchizedek. The LXX translators therefore counted only 62 words in the main text. The NA28 text of Mark 12:35-37, Jesus’ discussion of Psalm 110, contains 62 words. The NA28 text of the parallel in Matthew 22:41-45 also contains 62 words, despite Matthew’s significant variations in wording. The main parallel in Luke is found in 20:41-44. However, given the introductory elements gar and de in vv. 39 and 40 respectively, it seems that Luke intended these two transitional verses to introduce vv. 41-44. The parallel passage in Luke 20:39-44 shows even more variation in wording than does Matthew compared to Mark, but the NA28 text of Luke 20:39-44 also keeps the word total to exactly 62. These three examples’ matching word counts are hardly the result of chance. Arguably, they seem to indicate that the three gospel writers counted 62 words in the Hebrew text of Psalm 110, in accord with the LXX translators, and thus read not mlky-ṣdq but mlkyṣdq, i.e., the name Melchizedek. In Matthew and Mark, the discussion of Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (The Greatest Commandment) and of Psalm 110 form a single pericope. Shepherd of Hermas Commandment 1 almost doubtless has in mind the gospel pericope of the Greatest Commandment and Psalm 110. Hermas Commandment 1 in Bart Ehrman’s Loeb Greek text has a 2-word superscription and a 63-word main text, matching the MT word count for Psalm 110. Apparently, Hermas read mlky-ṣdq, not mlkyṣdq, in Psalm 110:4.

33 M. Barker, Who Was Melchizedek. That the third name in the sequence of names is meant as a title is supported by similar passages in the Visions of Amram that were reconstructed by Józef Milik. See J. T. Milik, 4Q Visions de ‘Amram, pp. 85–86; P. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša’, p. 28; K. Dalgaard, A Priest for All Generations, pp. 57–60.

34 M. Barker, King of the Jews, pp. 81-82, 83.

35 Note that in Israelite practice, as witnessed in the examples of David and Solomon, the moment when the individual was made king would not necessarily have been the time of his first anointing. The culminating anointing of David corresponding to his definitive investiture as king was preceded by a prior, princely anointing. See L. L. Baker et al., Who Shall Ascend, p. 353–358. See also 1 Samuel 10:1, 15:17, 16:23; 2 Samuel 2:4, 5:3; 1 Kings 1:39; 1 Chronicles 29:22. Cf. J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 519–523.

36 See Doctrine and Covenants 107:2. The various names of this order are also illustrated elsewhere in scripture: “after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was [ultimately] after the order of the Only Begotten Son” (D&C 76:57. Compare B. Young, 26 June 1874, p. 113).

37 Doctrine and Covenants 107:4.

38 Emphasis added. See J. M. Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Oath, pp. 53–65; B. R. McConkie, Mortal Messiah, 1:229; B. R. McConkie, Ten Blessings, p. 33.

39 Moses 1:6, 7, 40, emphasis added.

40 Satan’s first words to the prophet are “Moses, son of man” (Moses 1:12, emphasis added). In immediate response, Moses highlights the difference in title and glory between himself and his adversary: “Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory that I should worship thee?” (Moses 1:13, emphasis added).

41 B. Wells, Exodus (Zondervan), Exodus 7:1. For a more extensive treatment of this topic, see J. M. Bradshaw, What Did the Lord Mean.

42 G. A. Rendsburg, Moses as Equal, p. 204.

43 W. A. Meeks, Moses.

44 Zinner observes that verse 25 in the King James Bible is verse 26 in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (counting the superscription as verse 1)—suggesting the numerical value of YHWH (26) (S. Zinner, November 3 2020).

45 See D. J. Larsen, Psalm 24, pp. 212–213. Speaking more broadly, Peter Schäfer is reluctant to take passages with similar implications taken to their logical conclusions in the medieval Jewish mystical literature “at face value” because they are so “common,” leaving one to conclude that there must be an “enormous number of deified angels in heaven” (P. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, p. 137). However, he does concede that this is “just one more indication that the boundaries between God and his angels in the Hekhalot literature … become fluid” and that when references to individuals bearing God’s name are made, “we cannot always decide with certainty whether God or his angels are meant” (ibid., p. 137). Cf. J. L. Kugel, God of Old, pp. 5-36.

46 See D. J. Larsen, And He Departed.

47 W. A. Meeks, Moses, p. 359.

48 Ibid., p. 360.

49 Nevertheless, it must be mentioned that Jarl Fossum takes issue with Meeks’ reading, arguing that in the instances cited by Meeks name “Elohim” is “a secondary notion, derived from the original idea of his investiture with the Tetragrammaton.” See J. E. Fossum, Name of God, p. 90. For the full argument, see pp. 88–92.

50 Talon elaborates (P. Talon, Enūma Eliš, p. 27):

The importance of the names is not to be understressed. One of the preserved Chaldaean Oracles says: “Never change the Barbarian names” and in his commentary Psellus (in the 11th century) adds “This means: there are among the peoples names given by God, which have a particular power in the rites. Do not transpose them in Greek.” A god may also have more than one name, even if this seems to introduce a difficult element of confusion, at least for us. We can think, for example, of Marduk, who is equated with Aššur and thus named in many texts (especially Assyrian texts written for a Babylonian audience). He then assumes either the aspect of the One himself or the aspect of only an emanation of the One. The same occurs when Aššur replaces Marduk in the Assyrian version of Enuma Elish.

51 E. A. Speiser, Creation Epic, 7:140, p. 72. Foster elaborates (B. R. Foster, Epic, pp. 437-438):

The poem begins and ends with concepts of naming. The poet evidently considers naming both an act of creation and an explanation of something already brought into being. For the poet, the name, properly understood, discloses the significance of the created thing. Semantic and phonological analysis of names could lead to understanding of the things named. Names, for this poet, are a text to be read by the informed, and bear the same intimate and revealing relationship to what they signify as this text does to the events it narrates. In a remarkable passage at the end, the poet presents his text as the capstone of creation in that it was bearer of creation’s significance to humankind.

52 See M. L. Bowen, What Meaneth the Rod of Iron?

53 Moses 2:7.

54 JST Genesis 50:35.

55 2 Nephi 3:17.

56 Moses 1:25, emphasis added. Jeff Lindsay illustrates the resonance of this imagery with the Book of Mormon. He points out an allusion to the strength of Moses in 1 Nephi 4:2 that corresponds to Moses 1:20–21, 25 while having no strong parallel in the Bible (J. D. Lindsay, Arise, Part 1, pp. 189–190). In a personal communication, Lindsay further explains that 1 Nephi 4:2 “has Nephi urging his brethren to be strong like Moses, as if they were familiar with this concept, but the [King James Bible] has nothing about Moses being strong” (J. D. Lindsay, August 5 2019). Elsewhere, Noel Reynolds and Jeff Lindsay write (N. B. Reynolds et al., Strong Like Unto Moses):

Mark J. Johnson (M. J. Johnson, Lost Prologue, pp. 178-179) observed that the three references in Moses 1 to strength involving Moses describe a three-tiered structure “for personal strength and spirituality” in which strength is described in patterns reminiscent of sacred geography, each tier bringing Moses closer to God. The first instance depicts Moses having “natural strength like unto man,” which was inadequate to cope with Satan’s fury. In fear, Moses called upon God for added strength, allowing him to gain victory over Satan. Next, Moses is promised additional strength which would be greater than many waters. “This would endow Moses with powers to be in similitude of YHWH, to divide the waters from the waters (similar to Genesis 1:6) at the shores of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21).” Johnson sees the treatment of the strength of Moses as one of many evidences of ancient perspectives woven into the text of Moses 1. In light of Johnson’s analysis, if something like Moses 1 was on the brass plates as a prologue to Genesis, to Nephite students of the brass plates, the reference to the strength of Moses might be seen as more than just a random tidbit but as part of a carefully developed literary tool related to important themes such as the commissioning of prophets and becoming more like God through serving Him. If so, the concept of the strength of Moses may easily have been prominent enough to require no explanation when Nephi made an allusion to it.

57 Exodus 14:21–22; Joshua 3:14–17.

58 Moses 1:25.

59 Note the plausible connection between šadday and Akkadian šadu(m) (= “mountain, range of mountains”), significant in a creation context. See D. Biale, God with Breasts. “The ancients thought of breasts as mountains, for obvious reasons, so one cannot really separate mountains and breasts in the tradition” (S. Zinner, November 3 2020).

60 Moses 2:1–2.

61 A. Marmorstein, Doctrine, p. 64 #5. In addition, the authority of God’s law, given through Moses, rested on the argument that it came “from the mouth of the all-powerful, Almighty” (ibid., p. 82 #32, emphasis added).

62 As one example of how the relevant participle is interpreted as active rather than passive, we can compare the King James Bible translation of Isaiah 63:11 (“Then he remembered … Moses”) to the Jewish Publication Society translation (“Then they remembered … Him, who pulled His people out [of the water]” [A. Berlin et al., Jewish, Isaiah 63:11, p. 909]). While it is not directly consequential to the active-passive interpretation of the name, we note a comment from the editors of the JPS Study Bible stating that “it is not clear whether ‘He [he] who pulled …’ refers to God or to Moses” (ibid., p. 909 n. 11).

63 Cf. analogous symbolism used in 1 Peter 3:18-21.

64 B. R. McConkie, New Witness, p. 529.

65 See Doctrine and Covenants 110:11.

66 W. W. Isenberg, Philip, 70:36–71:3, p. 152.

67 Moses 1;25.

68 President Russell M. Nelson has recently pointed attention to the similar role reversal reflected in the two names given to Jacob/Israel (R. M. Nelson, Let God Prevail). In reviewing this reversal, Victor P. Hamilton observes that up until his “wrestle” with God in Genesis 32, “Jacob may well have been called ‘Israjacob,’ ‘Jacob shall rule’ or ‘let Jacob rule.’ In every confrontation he has emerged as the victor: over Esau, over Isaac, over Laban”—and now, startlingly, he attempts to prevail in his conflict with God (V. P. Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, p. 334). Speaking of this “crucial turning point in the life of Jacob,” President Nelson taught:

Through this wrestle, Jacob proved what was most important to him. He demonstrated that he was willing to let God prevail in his life. In response, God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (Genesis 32:28), meaning “let God prevail.” God then promised Israel that all the blessings that had been pronounced upon Abraham’s head would also be his (Genesis 35:11–12).

69 Philo, Exodus, p. 70. For an up-to-date review of the literature on the deification of Moses, see M. D. Litwa, Deification of Moses . For more on the specifics of how this description of the deification of Moses might be understood, see J. M. Bradshaw, Ezekiel Mural, pp. 41–42, Endnote 68. See also ibid., pp. 19–21.

70 J. M. Bradshaw et al., Moses 1 and the Apocalypse of Abraham.

71 E. R. Goodenough, Light, pp. 95–96. See Philo, Giants, 54, 2:473. See C. T. R. Hayward, Israel, pp. 156–219, regarding Philo’s explanation of the name Israel as meaning “the one who sees God.”

72 E. R. Goodenough, Dura Symbolism, 9:118, 121, 122. Observes Hayward, “Philo saw nothing improper … in describing Moses as a hierophant: like the holder of that office in the mystery cults of Philo’s day, Moses was responsible for inducting initiates into the mysteries, leading them from darkness to light, to a point where they are enabled to see [God]” (C. T. R. Hayward, Israel, p. 192).

Philo said the following about his initiation: “I myself was initiated (muetheis) under Moses the God-beloved into his greater mysteries (ta megala mysteria),” and readily became a disciple of Jeremiah, “a worthy minister (hierophantes) of the same” (Philo, Cherubim, 49, 2:37).

73 E. R. Goodenough, Dura Symbolism, 10:198; see also, E. R. Goodenough, Summary, 12:190–97. Often criticized for his interpretations, Goodenough showed ambivalence in his writings about the terms “initiation” and “mystery,” speaking in his early writings in ways that at least sometimes seemed to imply a literal ritual, while in his last writings leaning toward a figurative sense of the word (R. S. Eccles, Pilgrimage, pp. 64–65).

74 J. M. Bradshaw, Ezekiel Mural.

75 C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Glory, pp. 212–13, 476 (emphasis in original).

76 D. Calabro, From Temple to Church.

77 C. T. R. Hayward, Israel, p. 192, emphasis in original.