Moses, Enoch, and the Heavenly Ascent

Insights from Andrei Orlov’s “IN THE MIRROR OF THE DIVINE FACE:THE ENOCHIC FEATURES OF THE EXAGOGE OF
EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN”

For Latter-day Saints, there is often a certain connection made in our minds between the prophets Moses and Enoch due to the inclusion of the story of Enoch in The Pearl of Great Price’s Book of Moses, which comes to us from Joseph Smith as part of his inspired translation of the Book of Genesis. As it is presented, the story of Enoch was apparently given to Moses as part of his vision on “an exceedingly high mountain” (Moses 1:1), by God, “face to face.” God declares to Moses that he is God’s son and that God would show Moses “the workmanship of mine hands” (Mos 1:4). After showing Moses the wonders of His creations, both in Heaven and on Earth, God tells Moses that he will speak in particular regarding this earth and that Moses was to write down the words of God (Mos 1:40). God then proceeds to tell the story of Adam and then Enoch.

Dr. Andrei Orlov, in his article “In the Mirror of the Divine Face: The Enochic Features of the Exogogue of Ezekiel the Tragedian,” presents a great example of the relationship between the story of Moses and the story of Enoch as it existed in the late Second Temple period. Ezekiel the Tragedian, known from the writings of Christian historian Eusebius (in his Praeparatio evangelica), was a writer of Greek-style dramas sometime between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC. The Exagoge (“The Exodus”) is one of his dramas, which offers an interpretation of the biblical story of Moses and the Exodus. In what we have of this story, we get a different version of Moses’ vision on Mt. Sinai than what the Old Testament presents. Exagoge 67-90 reads:

Moses: I had a vision of a great throne on the top of Mount Sinai and it reached till the folds of heaven. A noble man was sitting on it, with a crown and a large scepter in his left hand. He beckoned to me with his right hand, so I approached and stood before the throne. He gave me the scepter and instructed me to sit on the great throne. Then he gave me a royal crown and got up from the throne. I beheld the whole earth all around and saw beneath the earth and above the heavens. A multitude of stars fell before my knees and I counted them all. They paraded past me like a battalion of men. Then I awoke from my sleep in fear.

Raguel (another name for Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law): My friend (ὦ ξένε), this is a good sign from God. May I live to see the day when these things are fulfilled. You will establish a great throne, become a judge and leader of men. As for your vision of the whole earth, the world below and that above the heavens-this signifies that you will see what is, what has been and what shall be.

While there is nothing in the Book of Exodus that resembles this account of Moses’ vision, the Book of Moses account is much more similar. In the Book of Moses, both Moses and Enoch have similar visions. In his articles, Orlov notes that there are many characteristics of Exagoge’s account of Moses that link it to known Enochic traditions of the time. Some of these similarities (those of most interest to our comparison) include:

God took Enoch – Illustrated by Gerard Hoet (1648-1733)

• Heavenly Ascent–Both Exagogue and the Enochic literature (Orlov looks primarily at The Book of the Watchers of 1 Enoch) depict Moses or Enoch, respectively, as ascending to the Throne of God, which, in both, is located at the top of a high mountain. This is a very common image in 1 Enoch, according to Orlov:

The imagery of the divine throne situated on the mountain is widespread in the Book of the Watchers and can be found, for example, in 1 Enoch 18:6-8 “And I went towards the south-and it was burning day and night-where (there were) seven mountains
of precious stones. . . . And the middle one reached to heaven, like the throne of the Lord, of stibium, and the top of the throne (was) of sapphire;” 1 Enoch 24:3 “And (there was) a seventh mountain in the middle of these, and in their height they were all like the seat of a throne, and fragrant trees surrounded it;” 1 Enoch 25:3 “And he answered me, saying: ‘This high mountain which you saw, whose summit is like the throne of the Lord, is the throne where the Holy and Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit when he comes down to visit the earth for good.’ ” Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.104; 2.113 (Orlov, footnote 13).

 Also, both Moses and Enoch, as part of their visions, are taken to, or shown, regions “beneath the earth and above the heavens.”

•  Esoteric knowledge–Both Moses and Enoch are given special sacred knowledge during their visits with Deity. These were secrets involving God’s throne, the creation, and other sacred matters that were not to be revealed openly. Orlov gives some interesting insight into this type of revelation in these traditions:

In Exagoge 85 Raguel tells the seer that his vision of the world below and above signifies that he will see what is, what has been, and what shall be. Wayne Meeks notes the connection of this statement of Raguel with the famous expression “what is above and what is below; what is before and what is behind; what was and what will be,” which was a standard designation for knowledge belonging to the esoteric lore.

This idea is reminiscent of LDS scriptures such as D&C 93:24, D&C 88:79, and Jacob 4:13, where revealed truth is declared to be “things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.”

• Heavenly Counterpart–Orlov takes note of the very unique situation presented in Exagoge in which God appears to vacate his own throne, permitting Moses to sit in His place, and vesting him with the royal crown and sceptre. Such a scene would seem to signify the deification of Moses, a process which is a common feature of many Jewish apocalyptic texts. However, as Orlov explains, the visionary is usually granted a separate throne of his own–he doesn’t sit down on God’s throne in the place of God. Orlov cites James VanderKam to argue that perhaps this encounter can be explained by that this paradox can be explained by “the Jewish notion, attested in several ancient Jewish texts, that a creature of flesh and blood could have a heavenly double or counterpart.” 
  

  Moses on Throne, Michelangelo

   

I wrote on this topic in my post “Engraved on the Throne of Glory,” which looked at Orlov’s work on the Jacob tradition, where Jacob is taken up to Heaven and learns that his features are engraved on God’s throne. Furthermore, some traditions clearly state that what Jacob saw was himself seated on God’s throne. These accounts include the idea that Jacob had a spiritual heavenly counterpart, the angel Israel. In my view, the purpose of this image is likely to show the mortal Jacob the reality of his divine origin and potential. Orlov sees the imagery taking place in Exagoge as perhaps equivalent to the Jacob tradition. Moses is, therefore, seeing his heavenly self, the “noble man”, sitting on the throne, who then transfers the throne to Moses’ mortal self. As interpreted by Raguel, this meant that Moses had been given power to rule over men on earth. This is related to the Enoch traditions where Enoch is clothed with the glory of God, becomes a divine/angelic figure, and then seated on a throne that is a replica of God’s.

• Stars and Fallen Angels–Both this Moses tradition and the Enochic texts depict their respective seers as gaining great knowledge of astronomy as a result of their celestial visions. Orlov points out that these details are unknown in the biblical accounts (but, we note, are a familiar feature in the Pearl of Great Price). In Exagoge, Moses sees a multitude of stars falling before his knees–as if giving him obeisance. In ancient times, angels were often symbolically represented by stars–fallen stars being equal to fallen angels. This is a very Enochic theme, as the Enoch literature has much to say regarding the fallen angels. Orlov cites the Sefer Hekhalot, a rabbinic text which continues the Enochic lore, concerning Enoch/Metatron’s relationship to the fallen angels:

R. Ishmael said: I said to Metatron: “. . . You are greater than all the princes, more exalted than all the angels, more beloved than all the ministers . . . why, then, do they call you ‘Youth’ in the heavenly heights?” He answered, “Because I am Enoch, the son of Jared . . . the Holy One, blessed be he, appointed me in the height as a prince and a ruler among the ministering angels. Then three of the ministering angels, ‘Uzzah, ‘Azzah, and ‘Aza’el, came and laid charges against me in the heavenly height. They said before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Lord of the Universe, did not the primeval ones give you good advice when they said, Do not create man!’ . . . And once they all arose and went to meet me and prostrated themselves before me, saying ‘Happy are you, and happy your parents, because your Creator has favored you.’ Because I am young in their company and mere youth among them in days and months and years-therefore they call me ‘Youth’.” Synopse §§5-6.

Enoch, although seen as a “Youth” in comparison with the angels, is nevertheless venerated by them because of the high position in which God had placed him. (Another note: Dr. Orlov once told me that he thought it was very interesting that Joseph Smith called Enoch a youth– “lad”, Moses 6:31– before the modern discovery of any Enochic documents calling him that). It is very interesting that ‘Aza’el (and the others) likely refers to that great angel who was the leader of the rebellion of the fallen angels, Lucifer, the accuser, or Satan. So in these Enoch traditions, Satan (although calling him such may be anachronistic) is required to bow down before Enoch/Metatron. In the Adamic traditions, he is also made to bow down before Adam, who has been set in a higher station, which causes him to rebel. This is a terrific tie-in to our Book of Moses, where Satan attempts to reverse this trend, appearing to Moses and desiring that he bow down before him, and is absolutely outraged when he will not (Moses 1:12).

• Transformation of the Seer’s Face–Orlov explains that another common motif in the Enochic literature is Enoch’s transformation before the throne of God. He is transformed into a being of light, like the angels, and his appearance is altered. In the Moses traditions, even in Exodus, the prophet goes through a similar transformation. In Philo’s interpretation of this event, found in Biblical Antiquities 12:1, we read:

Moses came down. (Having been bathed with light that could not be gazed upon, he had gone down to the place where the light of the sun and the moon are. The light of his face surpassed the splendor of the sun and the moon, but he was unaware of this). When he came down to the children of Israel, upon seeing him they did not recognize him. But when he had spoken, then they recognized him.

The motif of the shining face, according to Orlov, was proof that the visionary had had an encounter with God. Both Moses and Enoch are represented in the literature as having received God’s image and glory in their countenance.

Although I have focused on the similarities between the Mosaic and Enochic traditions for the benefit of my comparison of these materials to the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, Orlov sees these similarities as a polemic, or competition, between rival groups of priests. While one group held up Moses as their hero, tracing their priesthood back to this great prophetic figure, the other claimed that their priesthood went back further–to the time of Enoch.  Orlov sees Exagoge as an attempt by the Moses party to elevate their hero to the place where Enoch had been elevated by the other party. This idea fits well with what I wrote about priestly polemics in “The Priestly Suppression of Ancient Truths“–where the priestly group at Qumran considered the mainstream priestly party to be corrupt and guilty of corrupting ancient traditions. Although there is significant evidence that such polemics were taking place at the time, I believe that because of the Book of Moses, we should certainly consider the possibility that both the Mosaic part and the Enochic party were drawing on more ancient traditions, instead of creating new ones in an attempt to “one-up” the other party. Either way, Dr. Orlov has done a wonderful job of analyzing and comparing these two traditions, and this, as well as all his other work, is definitely worthy of our attention and full of great insights. For more of Dr. Orlov’s research, please see www.andreiorlov.com and also www.marquette.edu/maqom.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed