The Epistle Of Jude And Endowment Connections

[Magyar]

Jude, the New Testament writer best known for invoking the apocryphal Book of Enoch, addresses his epistle to "them that are sanctified by God the Father; and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called."

Without stepping into the realm of that which is too sacred to discuss before the world, I felt strongly as I read that verse that connections are in order with the last stage of the temple endowment -- the candidate, having been taught of Jesus Christ and made sacred covenants and accepted His sacrifice, is called forward by the Father, embraced and invited to enter celestial glory.

[diglot]

Does this analogy between Jude and the temple endowment depend on the precise wording of "sanctified"? I ask this because the King James translation is in error by saying "sanctified by God the Father." It should instead read, "beloved by God the Father."

The KJV reading is based on Byzantine reading of ηγιασμενοις ("sanctified") instead of ηγαπημενοις ("beloved"). The former is only found in the Byzantine tradition (e.g. 018, 020), whereas the latter is found in the earliest extant papyrus witness (P72), the important uncials (01, 02, 03), important minuscules (81, 88, 1739), as well as the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic traditions. Additionally, on internal grounds “beloved” is the better reading considering the author’s frequent use of the word stem αγαπ-

Keep in mind, though, I am completely oblivious to LDS temple endowments, so maybe it is irrelevant to your point as to whether Jude reads "beloved" or "sanctified".

Edited November 1, 2011 by diglot

[KevinG]

Called into the presence of God is the key here. Beloved or Sanctified works either way. Although they both imply we have been accepted by God by the efficacy of Jesus atonement.

LDS doctrine as well as our sacred ceremonies teach that our ultimate destination is to return to the presence of God. The idea that we are called by God is the significant and meaningful part of this verse IMO.

[kolipoki09]

The NRSV renders it as this:

"To those who are called, who are beloved in God the Father and kept safe for Jesus Christ."

diglot is correct in noting that the use of the term egapemenois (beloved) is probably the earliest (and most accurate) among the textual variants of Jude 1:1.

Regardless, if you're interested in a good Greek Study Bible, I might make a few recommendations:

1. Stay away from Interlinear GNT's. If you're trying to learn Greek, they won't help.

2. United Bible Society 4th Edition (Reader's Edition)

3. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar

4. Basics of Biblical Greek Workbook

5. Complete Vocabulary to the Greek New Testament

I don't doubt that the early Christians practiced something similar to the endowment. Of course, I tend to read the New Testament through a Mormon lens, which may or may not be to my benefit. Here's one of my favorite nuances from the Greek that simply can't be picked up the same way in the KJV.

The KJV translates the Greek term tekmeriois in Acts 1:3 as "infallible proofs." Likewise, the NRSV translates it as "convincing proofs." Literally, tekmeriois means "sure tokens." Though only appearing once in the Greek text, Plato and Aristotle both use the term tekmerion to describe "the strongest proof of which a subject is susceptible." Thus, when I read the Greek text of Acts 1:3, this is what I see:

After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many sure tokens, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

[wenglund]

Called into the presence of God is the key here.

In light of this, John Tvedtnes gave a FAIR presentation on Early Christian and Jewish Rituals relate to the LDS Temple, in which he had this to say about admittance into God's presence:

The ultimate goal in passing the heavenly sentinels is to enter into the presence of the Lord, which is achieved by passing through gates or veils. In the Testament of Isaac 6:4, we read, "Then they (the angels) took me by the hand and led me to the curtain before the throne of the father."⁴⁶ In the medieval Sepher Hekhalot ("Book of the [Heavenly] Temples"), Rabbi Ishmael reports being presented at the curtain that hangs before God.

Compare this with a Nag Hammadi text, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth 58:7-14, which has the resurrected Christ speaking of those who "did not put me to shame, they were not put to shame. Since they were not afraid before me, they will pass by every gate without fear and will be perfected in the third glory."<a name="enloc48">⁴⁸

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 1, 2011 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

Called into the presence of God is the key here. Beloved or Sanctified works either way. Although they both imply we have been accepted by God by the efficacy of Jesus atonement.

LDS doctrine as well as our sacred ceremonies teach that our ultimate destination is to return to the presence of God. The idea that we are called by God is the significant and meaningful part of this verse IMO.

The passage doesn't actually say called into the presence of God. It just says "called," which in the New Testament context simply means that the author is referring to God's elect. See Rom 8:30 ("Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called"). I don't think you can make a good argument this relates to temple ceremonies.

[volgadon]

In the medieval Sepher Hekhalot ("Book of the [Heavenly] Temples"), Rabbi Ishmael reports being presented at the curtain that hangs before God.

From behind that curtain, the pargod, is where knowledge or assignments are given.

[Cobalt-70]

In the medieval Sepher Hekhalot ("Book of the [Heavenly] Temples"), Rabbi Ishmael reports being presented at the curtain that hangs before God.

Isn't this just an allusion to the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place in the Jerusalem temple, and stood before the throne of YHWH (ie, the Ark of the Covenant)? The curtain metaphor is well known in Jewish symbology, and Mormons cannot claim exclusive ownership of it. Besides, in Sepher Hekhalot, doesn't the curtain actually stand before Metatron, rather than God? I don't think you can infer from Sefer Hekhalot that early Jews practiced the Mormon Endowment ritual.

[Magyar]

Does this analogy between Jude and the temple endowment depend on the precise wording of "sanctified"? I ask this because the King James translation is in error by saying "sanctified by God the Father." It should instead read, "beloved by God the Father."

The KJV reading is based on Byzantine reading of ηγιασμενοις ("sanctified") instead of ηγαπημενοις ("beloved"). The former is only found in the Byzantine tradition (e.g. 018, 020), whereas the latter is found in the earliest extant papyrus witness (P72), the important uncials (01, 02, 03), important minuscules (81, 88, 1739), as well as the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic traditions. Additionally, on internal grounds “beloved” is the better reading considering the author’s frequent use of the word stem αγαπ-

Keep in mind, though, I am completely oblivious to LDS temple endowments, so maybe it is irrelevant to your point as to whether Jude reads "beloved" or "sanctified".

Thank you, diglot, for this detailed and interesting response. I appreciate it.

[volgadon]

Isn't this just an allusion to the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place in the Jerusalem temple, and stood before the throne of YHWH (ie, the Ark of the Covenant)?

No. The earthly sanctuary was considered a representation of the heavenly one.

The curtain metaphor is well known in Jewish symbology, and Mormons cannot claim exclusive ownership of it.

So?

Besides, in Sepher Hekhalot, doesn't the curtain actually stand before Metatron, rather than God?

In "Seder Mahanoth," the text in question, Metatron shows R. Ishmael the curtain standing before God.

I don't think you can infer from Sefer Hekhalot that early Jews practiced the Mormon Endowment ritual.

I would agree that in this particular text R. Ishmael isn't presented at the curtain in the same way that it is done in LDS ceremonies.

[zerinus]

Jude, the New Testament writer best known for invoking the apocryphal Book of Enoch, addresses his epistle to "them that are sanctified by God the Father; and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called."

Without stepping into the realm of that which is too sacred to discuss before the world, I felt strongly as I read that verse that connections are in order with the last stage of the temple endowment -- the candidate, having been taught of Jesus Christ and made sacred covenants and accepted His sacrifice, is called forward by the Father, embraced and invited to enter celestial glory.

I don't see anything in there that directly links the two. If you had a mind to, you could imagine some kind of a link between any two scriptures you care to quote.

[Cobalt-70]

So?

My point is that just because there is a reference to a "curtain" and some deity or angel standing on the other side giving instructions, that does not mean there was a Mormon Endowment ceremony in early Judaism. The veil in the Mormon ceremony was based on the veil in Freemasonry, which consciously included symbolic references to the Jerusalem Temple, and may have been based to some extent on Jewish mysticism. But that doesn't mean that ancient Jews or Christians practiced anything more than superficially similar to a Mormon endowment ceremony.

[volgadon]

My point is that just because there is a reference to a "curtain" and some deity or angel standing on the other side giving instructions, that does not mean there was a Mormon Endowment ceremony in early Judaism.

The veil in the Mormon ceremony was based on the veil in Freemasonry, which consciously included symbolic references to the Jerusalem Temple, and may have been based to some extent on Jewish mysticism. But that doesn't mean that ancient Jews or Christians practiced anything more than superficially similar to a Mormon endowment ceremony.

A detailed look at hekhalot texts does reveal something conceptually similar to the LDS endowment ceremony.

[Cobalt-70]

A detailed look at hekhalot texts does reveal something conceptually similar to the LDS endowment ceremony.

I agree that there are similarities, perhaps even in substance, because of the fact that Freemasonry has a connection to Jewish mysticism, and because Smith was interested in hermeticism and Jewish mysticism anyway. But what I'm saying is that the Mormon endowment ritual was influenced and derived from some of these older traditions, not the other way around. Obviously, we Mormons want to see full-blown Mormon rituals and culture in ancient societies, but the human mind's incredible pattern recognition ability sometimes makes us see historical parallels everywhere, while giving us a blind spot to historical differences.

[mfbukowski]

Keep in mind, though, I am completely oblivious to LDS temple endowments, so maybe it is irrelevant to your point as to whether Jude reads "beloved" or "sanctified".

Yes, imo it is irrelevant.

[mfbukowski]

My point is that just because there is a reference to a "curtain" and some deity or angel standing on the other side giving instructions, that does not mean there was a Mormon Endowment ceremony in early Judaism. The veil in the Mormon ceremony was based on the veil in Freemasonry, which consciously included symbolic references to the Jerusalem Temple, and may have been based to some extent on Jewish mysticism. But that doesn't mean that ancient Jews or Christians practiced anything more than superficially similar to a Mormon endowment ceremony.

My present position is that Joseph was inspired by all the sources around him INCLUDING divine additions and inspirations, from which he essentially created the endowment. We know that the endowment is not "magic"- because it has been changed. Its purpose is to bring us closer to Christ through symbolic learning and expand our minds and encourage us to seek our own inspiration- not to impart divine incantations which are historical and never to be altered. It is a quilt which is to be interpreted by the Comforter.

But clearly there are many many many ancient parallels.

Edited November 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

My present position is that Joseph was inspired by all the sources around him INCLUDING divine additions and inspirations, from which he essentially created the endowment. We know that the endowment is not "magic"- because it has been changed. Its purpose is to bring us closer to Christ through symbolic learning and expand our minds and encourage us to seek our own inspiration- not to impart divine incantations which are historical and never to be altered. It is a quilt which is to be interpreted by the Comforter.

But clearly there are many many many ancient parallels.

Excellent statement. I agree.

[wenglund]

Isn't this just an allusion to the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place in the Jerusalem temple, and stood before the throne of YHWH (ie, the Ark of the Covenant)? The curtain metaphor is well known in Jewish symbology, and Mormons cannot claim exclusive ownership of it. Besides, in Sepher Hekhalot, doesn't the curtain actually stand before Metatron, rather than God? I don't think you can infer from Sefer Hekhalot that early Jews practiced the Mormon Endowment ritual.

I am not claiming that members of Christ's church have exclusive ownership of the curtain symbolism, nor am I claiming exact parallels between Jewish or other ancient practices and the Mormon Endowment. In fact, I would expect there to be some differences due to loss and corruption as a result of apostasy and borrowings as well as expansion resulting from collective progression.

Also, I would expect some differences because of the sacredness, then and now, of the subject matter. The historical record may only contain a fragment of the mysteries because there was a concerted effort on the part of the initiates to keep things secret and out of the public domain. I trust that just bits and pieces have leaked out over time, and from those few archeological bone we may attempt to see what kind of body may be made of them--whether somewhat reminiscent of our current temple rituals or not.

I, and John Tvedtnes in the linked article, and a number of other people interested in this subject matter, am not just looking at certain symbols or rituals in isolation, but in the context of a whole set of symbols and rituals.

Such things, however, because of the depth of the symbolism, may not be readily apparent to superficial glances or eyes that cannot see or that are not prepared to see. I was oblivious to it until recently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 2, 2011 by wenglund

[volgadon]

I agree that there are similarities, perhaps even in substance, because of the fact that Freemasonry has a connection to Jewish mysticism, and because Smith was interested in hermeticism and Jewish mysticism anyway.

Evidence for such interest is entirely slim. At any rate, it appears that you are trying to have your pie and eat it, too. At first the ony similarities are superficial, then, they are similar but only because of masonry.

But what I'm saying is that the Mormon endowment ritual was influenced and derived from some of these older traditions, not the other way around.

Such a sweeping statement would require careful study which hasn't been done yet.

Obviously, we Mormons want to see full-blown Mormon rituals and culture in ancient societies, but the human mind's incredible pattern recognition ability sometimes makes us see historical parallels everywhere, while giving us a blind spot to historical differences.

You can speak for yourself. I'm very careful not to overstate the similarities and understate the differences.

[volgadon]

If we are talking of differences, then why isn't the veil in the LDS endowment considered as being woven of purified souls? This was the kabbalistic understanding that can be found in the works of near-contemporaries such as William Blake. It was certainly more accessible than the Hekhalot traditions.

[Calm]

My present position is that Joseph was inspired by all the sources around him INCLUDING divine additions and inspirations, from which he essentially created the endowment. We know that the endowment is not "magic"- because it has been changed. Its purpose is to bring us closer to Christ through symbolic learning and expand our minds and encourage us to seek our own inspiration- not to impart divine incantations which are historical and never to be altered. It is a quilt which is to be interpreted by the Comforter.

But clearly there are many many many ancient parallels.

Which makes sense. Why dispense with a perfectly good teaching method when all that is needed to keep it serving its purpose is to update the content to match the current sacred environment of the students?

[jadams_4242]

Does this analogy between Jude and the temple endowment depend on the precise wording of "sanctified"? I ask this because the King James translation is in error by saying "sanctified by God the Father." It should instead read, "beloved by God the Father."

The KJV reading is based on Byzantine reading of ηγιασμενοις ("sanctified") instead of ηγαπημενοις ("beloved"). The former is only found in the Byzantine tradition (e.g. 018, 020), whereas the latter is found in the earliest extant papyrus witness (P72), the important uncials (01, 02, 03), important minuscules (81, 88, 1739), as well as the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic traditions. Additionally, on internal grounds “beloved” is the better reading considering the author’s frequent use of the word stem αγαπ-

Keep in mind, though, I am completely oblivious to LDS temple endowments, so maybe it is irrelevant to your point as to whether Jude reads "beloved" or "sanctified".

The only problem with yer analogy is that "sanctified by the father" translated from hebrew, then into vulgate, then into another.. then into english may not mean "sanctified" at all nor it may not mean "beloved" either.... if you have the original copies to see; then we would know for sure;; but to simply ,make the claim i;e ...welll the n.i.v says this and the k.j.v says that does not work because both are probably wrong;;; you are using the words of the k.j.v then translating :sanctified into hebrew.....it does not work if sanctified was not the meaning of the original writings...

[diglot]

The only problem with yer analogy is that "sanctified by the father" translated from hebrew, then into vulgate, then into another.. then into english may not mean "sanctified" at all nor it may not mean "beloved" either.... if you have the original copies to see; then we would know for sure;; but to simply ,make the claim i;e ...welll the n.i.v says this and the k.j.v says that does not work because both are probably wrong;;; you are using the words of the k.j.v then translating :sanctified into hebrew.....it does not work if sanctified was not the meaning of the original writings...

I'm sorry. You've completely lost me.

What does Hebrew have to do with anything? Jude was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew.

[kolipoki09]

I am not claiming that members of Christ's church have exclusive ownership of the curtain symbolism, nor am I claiming exact parallels between Jewish or other ancient practices and the Mormon Endowment. In fact, I would expect there to be some differences due to loss and corruption as a result of apostasy and borrowings as well as expansion resulting from collective progression.

I, and John Tvedtnes in the linked article, and a number of other people interested in this subject matter, am not just looking at certain symbols or rituals in isolation, but in the context of a whole set of symbols and rituals.

Such things, however, because of the depth of the symbolism, may not be readily apparent to superficial glances or eyes that cannot see or that are not prepared to see. I was oblivious to it until recently.

I suspect that the current understandings of symbolism in the endowment mean something somewhat different from what most members of the Church in Joseph Smith's day were taught. Joseph's understanding of the Hebrew text cannot be overlooked. In my mind, early accounts of the endowment from journals kept by faithful Latter-day Saints suggest a willingness to be as true to the original as possible. For instance, each time we "make" a covenant, either in the temple or read about them in the scriptures, the Hebrew verb root is karat, meaning literally "to cut" or "to cut off." The Israelites metaphorically (and sometimes literally) "cut" their covenants with God. Obviously, older members of the church (pre-1990) will readily see the significance, but the vast majority are simply unaware.

Though it is easy to see ancient parallels everywhere, reducing everything to Joseph Smith's 1842 environment will yield far too many gaps. In my mind (and in Joseph's view), there is clearly a restoration of sorts going on here. That Joseph Smith incorporated practices from his own surroundings - I have little doubt. That he exclusively borrowed the endowment from Freemasonry and Jewish Mysticism - that I also question. I suspect I'm on safe ground by inferring that Joseph clearly incorporated ancient and modern concepts into the endowment.

[mfbukowski]

I am not claiming that members of Christ's church have exclusive ownership of the curtain symbolism, nor am I claiming exact parallels between Jewish or other ancient practices and the Mormon Endowment. In fact, I would expect there to be some differences due to loss and corruption as a result of apostasy and borrowings as well as expansion resulting from collective progression.

Also, I would expect some differences because of the sacredness, then and now, of the subject matter. The historical record may only contain a fragment of the mysteries because there was a concerted effort on the part of the initiates to keep things secret and out of the public domain. I trust that just bits and pieces have leaked out over time, and from those few archeological bone we may attempt to see what kind of body may be made of them--whether somewhat reminiscent of our current temple rituals or not.

I, and John Tvedtnes in the linked article, and a number of other people interested in this subject matter, am not just looking at certain symbols or rituals in isolation, but in the context of a whole set of symbols and rituals.

Such things, however, because of the depth of the symbolism, may not be readily apparent to superficial glances or eyes that cannot see or that are not prepared to see. I was oblivious to it until recently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dang.

We have to get together in some temple sometime! I have noticed not only "linear" symbolism, but "vertical" symbolism as well. If linear narrative of the endowment was a string, as an analogy, and if it were rolled into a ball, there would be connections slicing through the ball as one segment of the string overlayed the others.

Another analogy would be a crossword puzzle where the text reads not only horizontally but vertically as well. Is that kind of what you mean?