Jump to content

Little Yhwh: The Book of Moses and 3 Enoch


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

In the Book of Moses, Enoch is taken up to the presence of God. Enoch beholds God weep for the sinfulness of mankind. After watching God weep for mankind, Enoch weeps also. However, Enoch weeps in away that demonstrates a quasi-deified status:

Moses 7:41

"And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Enoch, and told Enoch all the doings of the children of men; wherefore Enoch knew, and looked upon their wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart swelled wide as eternity; and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook."

.

Saying that Enoch's heart "swelled as wide as eternity", and that when his bowels yearned "eternity shook", associates Enoch with a quasi-deified status for "Endless and Eternal" is one of the names of God. Both God and Enoch look upon and know the misery and wickedness of mankind. Enoch weeps and his weeping has a cosmic effect. All of this makes Enoch very much like God. This is interesting when considering 3 Enoch and it's description of Enoch as the "little Yahweh".

Link to comment

I am constantly amazed that the critics can keep a straight face when they say Joseph made it all up.

Link to comment
Enoch's "exaltation" is a very nice tidbit. Lucky Joe rides again. :P

The Book of Moses purports to have been written in the mid-2nd millennium BCE. 3 Enoch likely dates to the 5th or 6th century CE, although at least one scholar dates it to the 12thâ??15th centuries CE. That's a difference of more than two thousand years!

How does finding supposed parallels between the Book of Moses and a spurious Enoch text written in the Middle Ages vindicate Joseph Smith's revelatory abilities? At best it would show an ability to mimic medieval pseudo-scripture. Is that really a strong apologetic argument?

Link to comment
The Book of Moses purports to have been written in the mid-2nd millennium BCE. 3 Enoch likely dates to the 5th or 6th century CE, although at least one scholar dates it to the 12thâ??15th centuries CE. That's a difference of more than two thousand years!

How does finding supposed parallels between the Book of Moses and a spurious Enoch text written in the Middle Ages vindicate Joseph Smith's revelatory abilities? At best it shows his ability to mimic medieval pseudo-scripture. Is that really a strong apologetic argument?

You have got to be joking! Or do you believe Joseph was surreptitiously tutored in medieval pseudo-scripture? Especially that which hadn't even been uncovered until well after his lifetime. Oh, my. Are you twisting around not to have to admit the truth!

Link to comment
You have got to be joking! Or do you believe Joseph was surreptitiously tutored in medieval pseudo-scripture?

No, I don't. But I'm not the one arguing for a connection between the Book of Moses and 3 Enoch.

(I edited my earlier post to clarify my meaning.)

Link to comment
No, I don't. But I'm not the one arguing for a connection between the Book of Moses and 3 Enoch.

But you are arguing against it. And it behooves you to bring more to the table than the idea that Joseph could mimic something that hadn't even been discovered yet. Use your logic, here.

Link to comment
The Book of Moses purports to have been written in the mid-2nd millennium BCE. 3 Enoch likely dates to the 5th or 6th century CE, although at least one scholar dates it to the 12thâ??15th centuries CE. That's a difference of more than two thousand years!

I personally dont believe that the BoMoses is Moses's original. As David Bokovoy pointed out:

Evidence that the Book of Moses does not present a restoration of an original text is seen through Joseph Smithâ??s revision of Genesis 1:1-3:

â??In the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest. And 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. And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was lightâ? (Moses 2:1-3)

However, according to Joseph's advanced theological insights gained towards the end of his ministry, Moses 2:1-3 does not reflect how the text originally read. According to the Prophet, Genesis 1:1 originally read â??the head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods!â? Teachings, 348.

Since "the head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods" is not how Moses 2:1-3 reads, clearly Joseph, by his own account, did not restore the original version of Genesis 1:1-3 in the Book of Moses. The Prophet simply produced an inspired revision.

So the BoMoses is a modern work, divine but modern.

How does finding supposed parallels between the Book of Moses and a spurious Enoch text written in the Middle Ages vindicate Joseph Smith's revelatory abilities? At best it would show an ability to mimic medieval pseudo-scripture. Is that really a strong apologetic argument?

First, I dont see anything that needs vindication. Im just pointing out that Joseph hits on Metatron like other Enochic texts do. I dont know what Joseph would mimic since 3 Enoch wasn't translated till after his death.

I can only attribute to his genius or daemons his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly. (Harold Bloom, The American Religion, 101.)
Link to comment
I personally dont believe that the BoMoses is Moses's original. . . . the BoMoses is a modern work, divine but modern.

I agree. So you're just pointing out coincidental "hits" then, since neither text is particularly ancient?

Link to comment
I agree. So you're just pointing out coincidental "hits" then, since neither text is particularly ancient?

I'd say the Enochic texts preserve ancient traditions, and the Joseph Smith texts restore the traditions to a proper context.

Link to comment
I agree. So you're just pointing out coincidental "hits" then, since neither text is particularly ancient?

As for coincidental hits:

Hel. 16: 16

16) Some things they may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken.

I'd say the Enochic texts preserve ancient traditions, and the Joseph Smith texts restore the traditions to a proper context.
Thats what I meant.
Link to comment
I'd say the Enochic texts preserve ancient traditions, and the Joseph Smith texts restore the traditions to a proper context.

The traditions in 3 Enoch don't even go back to the Persian period, let alone the Middle Bronze Age or earlier. See Philip S. Alexander, "Enoch, Third Book of," Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 2:524.

Link to comment
The traditions in 3 Enoch don't even go back to the Persian period, let alone the Middle Bronze Age or earlier. See Philip S. Alexander, "Enoch, Third Book of," Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 2:524.

I saw where you quoted this earlier. It actually does say, and I'm quoteing your citing of this, "Though 3 Enoch contains traditions and motifs that can be traced back to the Talmudic era, or even to the Second Temple period, there are indications that the macroform belongs broadly to the Gaonic period."

That's all we're saying. It contains and preserves traditions much older than itself as a work.

Link to comment

First of all, nobody is arguing that 3 Enoch goes back to the middle Bronze Age. It is a later example of the traditions associated with Enoch.

Jewish traditions were usually only commited to paper quite awhile after they had circulatedm being instead taught orally.

Link to comment
First of all, nobody is arguing that 3 Enoch goes back to the middle Bronze Age. It is a later example of the traditions associated with Enoch.

Jewish traditions were usually only commited to paper quite awhile after they had circulated being instead taught orally.

How old do you suppose the Enoch-Metatron tradition is? Andrei Orlov evidently thinks it originated in Jewish apocalyptic circles.

But, again, I don't see why Her Amun and others want to insist that Joseph Smith recovered invented Second Temple Jewish, or Rabbinic, or medieval traditions about Enoch. What would be the point of that?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...