See More El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron Various at IGN.com

I’m not much into video gaming these days (more of a lack of time than lack of interest really), but this one looks pretty neat, especially since it involves a character named Enoch and his struggle with the Fallen Angels, led by none other than Lucifer himself.  At this point it is difficult to determine how closely the game will actually follow the themes of the Enochic literature, but from the short descriptions I have read it seems that they have at least remained faithful to the principal elements of the narrative.  From the title, it seems that “heavenly ascent” will be a theme in it somehow.

It seems a bit odd to have this very Jewish title and background fit into a very Japanese action-adventure video game, but just the idea of getting to play the role of Enoch/Metatron is enough to get me curious!  How cool is that?!? Unfortunately (for me) it will only be released on XBox 360 and Playstation 3, neither of which I own.

To read more about the game, check out this gaming website here or here.

This is the official “teaser” website, although it doesn’t have much on it yet: http://elshaddai.jp/index.html

Here are some screenshots from the game:

And here is the teaser trailer, although it really doesn’t show much at all.

—————————————————————————

Steve:

I’m new to your Heavenly Ascents blog – it looks fascinating and well researched.

I have two questions, if you would be kind enough to consider them: I was introduced to the ascent motif via the work of the late Morton Smith, who postulated that a mystical method of heavenly ascent was extant in Jesus’ time and that Jesus and his disciples may have had some personal experience with this practice. I realize that some of Smith’s statements were likely issued with a twinkle in his eye (did he forge Secret Mark, etc.), but he does seem to make a serious case for ascent in Jewish culture even before Jesus’ time, e.g., he points out that at least one other person “ascended” – one member of the DSS community, as reported in 4Q 491, who claimed to have ascended into the angelic assembly and to have gained divine wisdom thereby.

First question: But there are claims that most Jewish ascent literature came after Jesus’ time, too late to influence and/or be expressive of primitive Christian beliefs. I am unclear on this timeline. Some say, for example, that some of this literature was too late to have been strongly influential in nascent “Jewish Christianity”, with Enoch maybe dating from that time but maybe from a later time. So would you be able to firm up for me the time frame of ascent literature as it might bear on the religion of Jesus, his disciples, and their Jewish successors, say, until after the Second Revolt in CE 135? I.e., can we date extra-biblical ascent literature from Jesus’ own lifetime up until just after the final Jewish War?

The second question concerns what, from my admittedly meager reading, poses a mystery vis a vis the Jewish nature of ascent literature. I understand that with the rise of rabbinical Judaism post-Jamnia, orthodoxy was stressed, e.g., per Alan Segal, the rabbis came down on anything smacking of a “Two Powers in Heaven” belief, beliefs concerning a Chief Assisting Angel, and beliefs about God’s human form or “Kavod”. What puzzles me is that post-70 ascent literature – IF Jewish – seems to be replete with just those kinds of beliefs that were being more and more strongly condemned by the rabbis. Do we conclude from this (if my assumption is correct) that ascent authors and communities were not Jewish; or if they were Jewish, they were by definition heretical? And if they were heretical, by what means were these ideas promulgated and texts preserved?

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,

Steve Bastasch¹

——————————————————–

Me:

Dear Mr Bastasch,

Thank you for your excellent and very relevant questions. Before I give my response, just as a forewarning, although my website is called Heavenly Ascents, I cannot claim to be an expert (yet!) on the topic, so bear that in mind as I give you my best answers to your questions.

I will begin by saying (and this may shape your opinion of my overall answer!) that in my estimation, the ascent to heaven motif is of great antiquity, much older even than the mentions attested to in the Qumran texts. It may not have been conceived of in exactly the same ways that it is later expressed in the Christian era, but I think that later texts build on these earlier attestations of the motif.

When I say much older, I believe that a form of heavenly ascent was practiced as a ritual in the pre-exilic times, the First Temple period. I base this conclusion partially on what I see as evidence for the idea in the liturgical setting of some of the Psalms. I believe that psalms such as 24, 47, 68, 118, and 132 (and others, cf. 139:8) describe a procession(s) that involved ascending the temple mount in order to reach the throne of God in the Temple. The Hebrew word for ascent (ʽālâ), is often used in this context. The expressed purpose of the ascent, according to Psalm 24:6, was to “seek the face of the God of Jacob” (see RSV or similar translation). The features of this ritualized ascent share many of the same features as the later ascent narratives, including passing through gates with guardians (Pss. 15, 24, 118 imply that there is a question-and-answer dialogue between those desiring to be found worthy of entry and the gatekeepers), seeing the Lord on his throne (Ps. 24:6; cf. Isa. 6, etc.), exaltation and enthronement of the individual (Pss. 2, 110, 89, etc.), and other similar features. While I can’t give a full description here, I believe that all this describes a practice of a primitive heavenly ascent ritual. The holy mountain with the temple at its pinnacle, while obviously located physically on earth, represented the mountain of God that reached into the heavens upon which God’s throne was located.

Whether one accepts these ideas and others in the Hebrew Bible as authentic precursors to the later ascent literature or not, I think there is still very good evidence that the belief in and practice of heavenly ascent was common in Jewish circles well before the Christian era. You mention the works of Morton Smith — he did some good research on this topic. However, you should take a look at the more recent work of James Davila in his article on heavenly ascents in the Dead Sea Scrolls in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (vol. 2; Brill, 1999), edited by Peter Flint and James VanderKam. Besides the one example of the anonymous figure ascending that you mention (4Q 491), Davila cites five other examples of ascent found at Qumran, including narratives of the heavenly ascent of Enoch, Melchizedek, Levi, Methuselah, and perhaps also Noah (4Q534) and Moses (4Q374, although this text is very unclear). Besides these, there are phrases from some of the sectarian literature that perhaps assume a belief in heavenly ascent. For example, in the Hodayot there are lines such as “You have exalted his [man's] glory beyond flesh” (7:21) and “[s]ons of God to be united with the sons of heaven” (frg. 2 10) and 11:19-23 where the speaker claims to have been “raised eternally to an exalted realm in communion of praise with the angels” (quoting Davila’s summary). Although the nature of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is much debated, and Davila expresses doubts in this article, elsewhere he and also other scholars such as Crispin Fletcher-Louis, have described this text as possibly narrating a heavenly ascent ritual performed at Qumran. In the Davila article above, he emphasizes the fact that there seems to be a “ritual context” and “experiential component” behind these ascent texts. For me, this is all pretty clear evidence for the practice of a heavenly ascent ritual before the time of Jesus Christ. If you look at some of the works of Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker, this is the assumption that she is working with as well.

As far as the age of the Enochic literature, I follow the general opinion that the oldest sections of 1 Enoch were likely written around 300 BC and the latest sections around the first century BC. Martha Himmelfarb, in her classic Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses considers 1 Enoch’s “Book of the Watchers” (ca. 3rd Century BC) to be the earliest “ascent apocalypse”. 2 Enoch, which has a much clearer account of the ascent to heaven, is a much later text, probably from the first century AD. It is debatable whether this is originally a Jewish or Christian text. Coming up with a timeline for specific texts is very tricky and scholars have widely diverging opinions on when some of these texts were originally penned and by what group — Jewish or Christian. There certainly seems to be a blooming of this type of literature in the first few centuries of the Christian era, and these texts are preserved more often by the hands of Christians than Jews — this fact, however, does not mean that they were not originally written by Jews, and it is possible that some of these texts are considerably older than the attested examples. It is very difficult to tell. I’m sorry that I don’t have more specific details for you, but in my opinion, we can be quite certain, based on the examples I mentioned above and others, that the ascent idea was quite prevalent in at least some Jewish circles well before the time of Christ, and may have even been a main feature of the pre-exilic Israelite religion. Although Martha Himmelfarb is one that would perhaps deny this, I also believe that beyond, and perhaps in some cases accompanying, the ancient narratives regarding ascent, there was also an ascent praxis.

For a great treatment of the idea of the “mysteries” in connection with human access to the divine council at Qumran, see Samuel I. Thomas’s very recent book, The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It doesn’t go into the “heavenly ascent” idea in much detail, but I think connections with ascent literature are not hard to make.

Why do we get so much talk of chief angels and the anthropomorphic Kavod in the ascent literature? My opinion is that these ideas are perpetuations of very old motifs that for some reason are well-preserved in this type of literature. If you look at the studies of scholars like Gabriele Boccaccini and others, you get the idea that there was a much larger degree of pluralism in early Judaism than most imagine. There seem to have been several different Jewish sects (even beyond the Pharisee, Sadducee, Essene, etc. divisions that we usually hear about). Some scholars claim that some of these Jewish sects preserved the older Israelite religion better than others. In the Second Temple period, some of the mainstream groups seemed to be very interested in reforming and reshaping the Jewish religion — censoring older ideas that they now found heretical. Theoretically, many of these ideas that they wanted to discard involved the possibility of heavenly ascent, of seeing God on his throne, of any “Two Powers” notions, etc. It seems that these issues were hotly debated well before the rise of Christianity. According to some, this may have been why the “sectarians” went to Qumran. The religious tenets that they held to had become unacceptable by the mainstream. Rabbinical Judaism would develop out of this mainstream of “Zadokite” Judaism and would continue to try to purge Jewish culture of these beliefs that they found heretical. It appears that the early Christians had beliefs that were in line with, or similar to, some of these “other” Jewish groups that were unacceptable to the Rabbis.

I don’t believe that all of the post-70 ascent literature was Christian. I think that a lot of it was originally Jewish, but that it came from Jewish groups that were outside of the Rabbinic mainstream. I think a lot of the literature was eventually preserved only by Christians because they had very similar beliefs and because the Jewish groups that would have possibly written the texts and could have preserved them eventually waned under Rabbinic suppression. However, we do see that there were Jewish circles that did preserve many of these more “mystical” ideas into medieval times and beyond (e.g. merkavah mysticism, hekhalot texts, Kabbalah, Sefer Yetzirah, Zohar, etc.). It seems that some of the groups that preserved these traditions were more ascetical and priestly and were generally opposed by the Rabbis. If you look at E.R. Goodenough’s work on the Dura Europos synagogue, which is full of mystical and ascent motifs, you can get an idea for how and by whom some of these ideas were perpetuated in Jewish circles. I believe that both Christians and these “sidelined” Jewish groups preserved this material because they believed that it was part of a more authentic ancient Israelite belief system that had roots in the First Temple period and that had not been so altered by reformers.

For more on this line of thinking, see Margaret Barker’s The Older Testament, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God, Temple Themes in Christian Worship, or pretty much any other book of hers.

I’m sorry if my thoughts here are more general than specific, but feel free to ask me any further questions. I would enjoy further discussing these ideas.

Cheers,

David

1. Author’s name reproduced with permission

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA WATCH: The Pope cites a couple of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in his Easter Vigil homily. First, from the Life of Adam and Eve:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

An ancient Jewish legend from the apocryphal book “The life of Adam and Eve” recounts that, in his final illness, Adam sent his son Seth together with Eve into the region of Paradise to fetch the oil of mercy, so that he could be anointed with it and healed. The two of them went in search of the tree of life, and after much praying and weeping on their part, the Archangel Michael appeared to them, and told them they would not obtain the oil of the tree of mercy and that Adam would have to die. Subsequently, Christian readers added a word of consolation to the Archangel’s message, to the effect that after 5,500 years the loving King, Christ, would come, the Son of God who would anoint all those who believe in him with the oil of his mercy. “The oil of mercy from eternity to eternity will be given to those who are reborn of water and the Holy Spirit. Then the Son of God, Christ, abounding in love, will descend into the depths of the earth and will lead your father into Paradise, to the tree of mercy.” This legend lays bare the whole of humanity’s anguish at the destiny of illness, pain and death that has been imposed upon us.

This story is from L.A.E. 35-42. There’s been much scholarly discussion of the Life of Adam and Eve in recent years and the current consensus is that it is a Christian work. I don’t know that that affects the Pope’s point, though.

Second, a citation from 2 Enoch:

Once again, an ancient Jewish text can help us form an idea of the mysterious process that begins in us at baptism. There it is recounted how the patriarch Enoch was taken up to the throne of God. But he was filled with fear in the presence of the glorious angelic powers, and in his human weakness he could not contemplate the face of God. “Then God said to Michael,” to quote from the book of Enoch, “‘Take Enoch and remove his earthly clothing. Anoint him with sweet oil and vest him in the robes of glory!’ And Michael took off my garments, anointed me with sweet oil, and this oil was more than a radiant light … its splendour was like the rays of the sun. When I looked at myself, I saw that I was like one of the glorious beings” (Ph. Rech, Inbild des Kosmos, II 524).

The quotation is from 2 Enoch 22. Again, it is debatable whether 2 Enoch is a Jewish or a Christian work. It may well have ancient Jewish elements in it but later Christian elements may well also be present. And in this case, that may make some difference, in that the baptismal connection may be even closer than the Pope posits, which perhaps would add support to his comparison.

Melchizedek the Priest-King blessing Abram

The title of this post is actually somewhat deceptive as it implies that the post is going to be about Melchizedek, who can be considered a king, a priest, and also a god, and about the “Forbidden Degrees” (sounds tantalizing, eh?), which the title seems to suggest have some connection to Melchizedek. Well, as far as I know, there is no direct connection, so sorry if that was misleading.

But this post is about two exciting, if apparently unrelated, subjects that I’ve read about recently.

Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God

First, I would like to post a few very interesting remarks on the person of Melchizedek that I was recently re-reading in an article by my PhD supervisor, James Davila, entitled “Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God” (in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response, ed. S. Daniel Breslauer (Albany: State University of New York) 217-34). This article contains some of the most current, thorough, and exciting research on Melchizedek I’ve seen. It covers the Melchizedek traditions from the Old Testament (Gen. 14; Ps. 110), the New Testament (Hebrews), the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelchizedek; Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice), Gnostic texts (2nd Book of Jeu, Pistis Sophia, a Coptic Gnostic tractate), and comparisons with the Ugaritic (Canaanite) traditions.

I highlight here some of the most significant ideas.

Davila addresses the first mention of Melchizedek, in Gen. 14:18–21.  Here, Melchizedek is presented as the king of Salem (which Davila later identifies as Jerusalem) and priest of God Most High (El Elyon). He notes that scholars have difficulty dating this passage and identifying its source.  John Van Seters wants to date it to the post-exilic period, imagining that Melchizedek describes the priestly leadership of the Second Temple period. Davila, on the other hand, rejects this view, explaining:

I see no reason for the post-exilic priesthood to hold up a non-Israelite priest-king as an example unless he had already been firmly established in the traditions of the First Temple period. I read Genesis 14 as an epic tale of the heroic exploits of the Abram that, in its present form, serves to show the ancient roots of the priesthood held by the line of Davidic kings. ((Davila, 218))

Psalm 110, Davila suggests, “unambiguously associates the priesthood of Melchizedek with the king in Zion.”¹ This psalm, one of the “royal psalms”, is the only other mention of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible.  Most scholars agree that it had its life setting “in the pre-exilic Judean royal cult located in Solomon’s temple during the period of the Judean monarchy.” It is often associated with an annual New Year enthronement festival. The key verse (v. 4) in this psalm reads: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. This promise of Melchizedek priesthood is given to the Davidic king.  Davila notes:

[T]here are other indications that the Davidic line of kings also carried out priestly functions. In 2 Samuel 6 we are told that  David himself wore a priestly ephod and danced before the ark of the covenant when it was brought into Jerusalem. The list of David’s court officials in 2 Sam. 8:15–18 also informs us that “David’s sons were priests” (v. 18). Thus, Psalm 110 associates a priesthood of Melchizedek with the Davidic royal cult in the Jerusalem temple.²

So, in summary, the Hebrew Bible presents Melchizedek as (apparently) a mortal man who is both the king of Jerusalem and a priest of God Most High. He was seen as the model for the Israelite kingship ideology, and the Davidic kings were likewise seen as both king of Jerusalem and priest of God Most High. Besides the passages in Genesis and Psalm 110, Melchizedek is not mentioned again in the Hebrew Bible — which we may think odd considering his apparent stature and influence in pre-exilic times.  Of course the great histories of the Bible were written just before and after the exile, and these scribes had varying (mostly negative) opinions concerning the monarchy, as well as significantly different religious ideas from that of the royal cult of pre-exilic times. It is only in the New Testament book of Hebrews that we hear tell of Melchizedek again. We read in Hebrews 7:1–3:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;  2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;  3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Davila comments:

It is then argued that Melchizedek was greater than both Abraham and the Levitical Priesthood, and that Jesus is a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek as described in Psalm 110. For the writer of Hebrews, Melchizedek is a preexistent and immortal priestly divine being “like the Son of God.”³

He next turns his analysis to the Qumran text 11QMelchizedek, which although fragmentary, gives some incredible insights regarding the community’s view of this figure, which differs greatly from the simple treatment in the OT and gives possible insights into the thinking of the writer of Hebrews. Davila explains that this text speaks eschatologically and “seems to give a chronology leading up to the eschaton and then describes the final judgment as administered by a divine being named Melchizedek.” Melchizedek is supposed to come at the end of the “tenth jubilee”, on the Day of Atonement, to judge the nations, save the good and destroy the wicked. Furthermore, Davila notes:

…[I]n line 10 of this text Melchizedek is called a “god” (elohim)…So in this document from Qumran Melchizedek is pictured as an angelic or divine being (an elohim) who may have priestly associations and who is an eschatological judge.⁴

Davila goes on to highlight some of the other beliefs expressed in further texts from Qumran and from Gnostic sources.  In most of them, Melchizedek is described as an angelic high priest or god and even identified as Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. What are we to make of all this? Davila is right on with his analysis of it all. He says, summarizing the trajectory of these traditions:

He begins as a king and priest of pre-Davidic Jerusalem and then, some centuries later, is described also a a divine heavenly being, a god (elohim or theos) who defeats and destroys the forces of evil at the last judgment and delivers souls from the underworld. I submit that the problem of the development of this tradition has never been squarely face by scholars. How do we get from Melchizedek the priest-king to Melchizedek the god? My proposal is this: his divinity was not invented in the Second Temple period; rather it was suppressed in the Hebrew bible. In other words, the apparent change from man to god is a matter of suppression of older traditions that were excluded from the biblical canon, not of innovation in the Second Temple literature.⁵

This conclusion is remarkably significant. According to Davila, we are to assume that in the royal religion of the First Temple, Melchizedek would have been seen as a priest-king who was deified.  I think it stands to reason that we could say, then, that the subsequent kings of Jerusalem of the Davidic line could have been viewed in like manner. This helps us understand why in Psalm 45:6 the king is specifically addressed as a god.

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

While the idea that the king is somehow divine is common in Egyptian and other Ancient Near Eastern religions, the idea has not been readily accepted for the Israelite/Judean kings, and that has to do greatly with the fact that there is not much evidence for the idea in the Old Testament as we now have it. However, as Davila states it, it is very likely that these ideas did exist, once upon a time, but were suppressed by later writers and editors that no longer followed that belief system.

The Seal of Melchizedek

The Forbidden Degrees

The following is taken from Dr. Andrei Orlov’s blog (see the specific post here; don’t worry that some of it is in Russian, most is English). For those who haven’t followed this blog long, Andre Orlov was my adviser for my MA program in Theology at Marquette University.  Orlov (who has also written much on Melchizedek), is an expert in the mystical traditions of early Judaism.

I have reproduced some passages that he posted on his blog from the Hagigah (or Chagigah), a Jewish treatise found in the Babylonian Talmud.  I am no expert on these writings, so I really couldn’t share much background info on them with you. It seems that the word hagigah signifies “festivity” and refers to a “festal-offering” that was given at one or more of the three principal pilgrimage festivals of ancient Judaism. The writings apparently give rules for ritual cleanliness and guidelines for the offerings, but offer rules for many other subjects as well. Again, I’m no expert on this, but from what I’ve seen and what I quote below, there is some very interesting material, if you can get past all the technical language and debating over ritual requirements.

A word of warning: the following is not easy to get through and even less easy to understand.  If you can get anything out of it, consider yourself a true sage and enlightened soul!

One more introductory thought: the rabbis (R. Johanan, etc.) cited here were under the belief that certain mystical doctrines were too sacred to speak of (only under certain circumstances with worthy and prepared individuals). These include, as you can read below, the “forbidden degrees”, the “Story of Creation”, and the writings of Ezekiel concerning “the Chariot” (God’s throne). There were certain consquences (good and harmful) when these topics were spoken of, so the greatest of care was needed in addressing them, and they were never expounded on in public. I am not quite sure what the “forbidden degrees” refers to (I can speculate, but may be wrong). I have seen other lists of these forbidden topics, and from what I can remember, I believe the topic of sacred marriage (perhaps as discussed in Song of Solomon?) is sometimes cited. If anyone has any further insights on this, please let me know!

UPDATE: In an email, Dr. Orlov directed me to Rachel Elior’s opinion on what the “forbidden degrees” were as explained in her book, The Three Temples. She indicates that they may have had reference to “the sexual union of the Cherubim” in the Holy of Holies of the temple (I wasn’t far off!).  Now, if the rabbis wouldn’t talk about it, I probably shouldn’t either. I will say that there are some Jewish traditions that say that the cherubim that were in the Holy of Holies were (at least at times) understood to be entwined in a conjugal embrace which likely has something to do with the reason that holiest place was sometimes called “the bridal chamber.” To read more about this, have a look at Raphael Patai’s The Hebrew Goddess, and also Eugene Seaich’s A Great Mystery: The Secret of the Jerusalem Temple, The Embracing Cherubim and At-One-Ment with the Divine.

Here is the text, thanks to Dr. Orlov’s blog:

m. Hagigah 2:1 The forbidden degrees may not be expounded before three persons, nor like Story of Creation before two, nor [the chapter of] the Chariot before one alone, unless he is a Sage that understands of his own knowledge.

Whoever gives his mind to four things it were better for him if he had not come into the world — what is above ? what is beneath ? what was beforetime? and what will be hereafter? And whosoever takes no thought for the honour of his Maker, it were better for him if he had not come into the world.

b. Hagigah 13 R. Johanan said to R. Eleazar: Come, I will instruct you in the ‘Work of the Chariot’. He replied: I am not old enough. When he was old enough, R. Johanan died. R. Assi [then] said to him: Come, I will instruct you in the “Work of the Chariot’. He replied: Had I been worthy, I should have been instructed by R. Johanan, your master.

The Rabbis taught: There was once a child who was reading at his teacher’s house the Book of Ezekiel, and he apprehended what Hashmal was, whereupon a fire went forth from Hashmal and consumed him. So they sought to suppress the Book of Ezekiel, but Hananiah b. Hezekiah said to them: If he was a Sage, all are Sages! What does [the word] Hashmal mean?-Rab Judah said: Living creatures speaking fire. In a Baraitha it is taught: [Hashmal means], At times they are silent, at times they speak. When the utterance goes forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are silent, and when the utterance goes not forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they speak. b. Hag 14b Our Rabbis taught: Once R. Johanan b. Zakkai was riding on an ass when going on a journey, and R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak was driving the ass from behind. [R. Eleazar] said to him: Master, teach me a chapter of the ‘Work of the Chariot’.2 He answered: Have I not taught you3 thus: ‘Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge’? [R. Eleazar] them said to him: Master, permit me to say before thee something which thou hast taught me.4 He answered, Say on! Forthwith R. Johanan b. Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up,5 and sat upon a stone beneath an olive tree. Said [R. Eleazar] to him: Master, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? He answered: Is it proper that whilst thou art expounding the ‘Work of the Chariot’, and the Divine Presence is with us, and the ministering angels accompany us, I should ride on the ass! Forthwith, R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak began his exposition of the ‘work of the Chariot’, and fire6 came down from heaven and encompassed all the trees in the field; [thereupon] they all began to utter [divine] song. What was the song they uttered? — Praise the Lord from the earth, ye sea-monsters, and all deeps . . . fruitful trees and all cedars . . . Hallelujah.8 An angel9 [then] answered10 from the fire and said: This is the very ‘Work of the Chariot’. [Thereupon] R. Johanan b. Zakkai rose and kissed him on his head and said: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, Who hath given a son to Abraham our father, who knoweth to speculate upon, and to investigate, and to expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’ — There are some who preach well but do not act well, others act well but do not preach well, but thou dost preach well and act well. Happy art thou, O Abraham our father, that R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak hath come forth from thy loins.

Now when these things were told R. Joshua, he and R. Jose the priest were going on a journey. They said: Let us also expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’; so R. Joshua began an exposition. Now that day was the summer solstice; [nevertheless] the heavens became overcast with clouds and a kind of rainbow appeared in the cloud, and the ministering angels assembled and came to listen like people who assemble and come to watch the entertainments of a bridegroom and bride. [Thereupon] R. Jose the priest went and related what happened before R. Johanan b. Zakkai; and [the latter] said: Happy are ye, and happy is she that bore you; happy are my eyes that have seen thus. Moreover, in my dream, I and ye were reclining on Mount Sinai, when a Bath Kol was sent to us, [saying]: Ascend hither, ascend hither! [Here are] great banqueting chambers, and fine dining couches prepared for you; you and your disciples and your disciples’ disciples are designated for the third class. But is this so? For behold it is taught: R. Jose b. R. Judah said: There were three discourses: R. Joshua discoursed before R. Johanan b. Zakkai, R. Akiba discoursed before R. Joshua, Hanania b. Hakinai discoursed before R. Akiba; — whereas R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak he does not count! — One who discoursed [himself], and others discoursed before him, he counts; one who discoursed [himself], but others did not discourse before him, he does not count. But behold there is Hanania b. Hakinai before whom others did not discourse, yet he counts him! — He at least discoursed before one who discoursed [before others].

1. Davila, 219
2. Davila, 219
3. Davila, 221
4. Davila, 222
5. Davila, 224

Michelangelo's Depiction of Moses on a Throne

The following are some notes that I made this week in association with my study of this Sunday’s Gospel Doctrine (Old Testament) Lesson 5.

The lesson covers Moses 5-7 and is titled: “If Thou Doest Well, Thou Shalt Be Accepted”

This title has to do with the Book of Moses narrative regarding Cain and Abel in which they both offer sacrifices to the Lord, but Cain’s offering is rejected. It seems that the reason Cain’s offering is rejected is because 1) it was Satan who commanded Cain to give this offering (Cain had no desire to obey or please God), and 2) the offering was of the wrong type (it should have been like Abel’s animal sacrifice, which is in the similitude of the sacrifice of the Son of God, as God had commanded (Moses 5:5, 20–23).

The Prophet Joseph Smith commented on this:

Abel offered to God a sacrifice that was accepted, which was the firstlings of the flock. Cain offered of the fruit of the ground, and was not accepted, because he could not do it in faith. … Shedding the blood of the Only Begotten to atone for man … was the plan of redemption; … and as the sacrifice was instituted for a type, by which man was to discern the great Sacrifice which God had prepared; to offer a sacrifice contrary to that, no faith could be exercised … ; consequently Cain could have no faith; and whatsoever is not of faith, is sin (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 58).

And that’s all I have to say about that….

Moses 6:5 — Adam’s Book of Remembrance

Moses 6:5 informs us:  And a book of remembrance was kept, in the which was recorded, in the language of Adam, for it was given unto as many as called upon God to write by the spirit of inspiration;

It is amazing to contemplate the possibility that Adam and Eve made a book recording their experiences, in their own language and writing (that itself is a awesome claim), that was preserved by their children (v. 8). What wouldn’t you give to have a copy of that book?!?  Ancient Jews and Early Christians (and also Muslims) seemed to have been enamored with this idea, as can be seen from the works that I posted links to last week, which claim to be books written by Adam and Eve, including the last words of Adam, etc.  Here are those links again:

The Testament of Adam

The Book of Adam and Eve (or The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan)

The Apocalypse of Adam — Adam’s last words to his son Seth, including prophecies regarding future generation.

The Life of Adam and Eve (Vita Adam et Evae)

The Cave of Treasures

Moses 6:7 — Now this same priesthood which was in the beginning…

In Moses 6:7, we read: Now this same Priesthood, which was in the beginning, shall be in the end of the world also.

This line appears to be somewhat out of place, as if it were stuck in there as an afterthought, or to make a specific point, but it relationship to the surrounding verses is not readily apparent.  However, it is a significant verse and emphasizes the notion that Adam had the Priesthood, that it was passed on to his descendants, and that the same authority would be had in the last days of the world’s history.

The idea that the early patriarchs were priests (i.e. that they held the priesthood) is suggested, although not explicitly, in the biblical text. Abel, Noah, Abraham, etc., are depicted as offering sacrifices, the quintessential priestly function. Therefore, the idea that Adam and other patriarchs were priests before Aaron is not foreign to the Bible, although some claim that before Sinai any Israelite could offer sacrifices. Even after the establishment of the Levitical Priesthood, many non-levites still offered sacrifice: Gideon, of the tribe of Manasseh, was commanded by Yahweh to build an altar and sacrifice a bull upon it (Judg 6:25–26);  Manoah, of the tribe of Dan, father of Samson, offered a burnt and a cereal offering at the request of the angel of Yahweh (Judg 13:2, 16–19); Elkanah the Ephraimite, father of Samuel, offers sacrifice at Shiloh (1 Sam 1:1–3). Specific examples of non-Levitical priests are King David’s sons (2 Sam 8:18), Ira the Jairite (2 Sam 20:26), and the priests that Jeroboam appointed (1 Kgs 12:31).

The priestly community that made Qumran their home did not imagine that their priesthood originated with Aaron. They traced their priesthood much further back, believing that their priesthood came down from the patriarchs and that it had originated with the angels. In The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (found among the Dead Sea Scrolls), the participants in the cultic ritual depicted see themselves as part of the angelic priesthood.

Some traditions further indicate that all the biblical patriarchs, beginning with Adam, had this priesthood. Adam was the first prophet, high priest, and king, whose temple was the Garden of Eden. He was the image and original son of God (see Moses 6:22, 68).

As is alluded to in Gen 4, Adam passed his priesthood on to his sons, and the tradition held that there was an uninterrupted line of priesthood succession from Adam to Seth to Enoch to Noah down to Melchizedek (who was considered to be either the son of Noah, or of Noah’s brother Nir).¹   It was Melchizedek who accepted tithes from and blessed Abraham. Melchizedek is said to have passed the priesthood on to Abraham, making him the connection between the patriarchal priesthood and the Israelite priesthood.²  As Adam, Seth, Enoch, and Noah had been before him, Melchizedek was both king and high priest.³  As stated, the book of Genesis presents him as both king and priest of the city of Salem, which several ancient sources identify with Jerusalem.

Moses 6:8–10, King as Son of God and Image of God

The previous discussion, especially the idea of Adam as the image of God, the son of God, and also prophet/priest/king, leads us to another interesting passage in Moses 6:8–10. We read:

There is so much that could be said about these lines, but I will stick to the emphasis I mentioned above.  Adam was the son of God, begotten in his image (the image of his own body). Adam, as we discussed above, was given dominion over Eden (and the world) — which makes him the king. When Adam’s son, Seth (who would be the next king), was born, he was in the likeness and image of his father, the king.

This same pattern can be seen in the Egyptian ritual cycle “Birth of the Divine King,” which illustrates the procreation, birth and breeding of the crown prince as “son of God.” Unfortunately, I do not have the images that accompany it, but the sequence is as follows:

• The Goddess Hathor presents the crown prince, whom Amun acknowledges, declaring, “My son of my flesh, my shining image, coming out of me.”
• The next scene has Amun putting the crown prince on his knees, saying, “Welcome in peace my beloved son. You are the king.”
• Subsequently, the prince is presented to the public, is invested with royal regalia, and Amun declares, “My beloved son of my flesh, whom I have begotten as my image.”⁴

I note that in last week’s post there was the discussion of Adam as a “shining image” (wearing “garments of light” in Eden) in Jeffrey Bradshaw’s book, In God’s Image and Likeness (pp. 234-237). See here.

The most clear parallel to the “Birth of the Divine King” cycle that we have in our Bible is Psalm 2. We read in Psalm 2:6–8:

“I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.” 7 I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.

Then, in lines from Psalm 89 which likely come from a similar royal setting:

He shall cry to me, `Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ 27 And I will make him the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth (Ps. 89:26–27).

(see also Ps. 22)

This language addressed to the Davidic king is very reminiscent of the Egyptian kingship ideology. All of this goes back to the idea that the Primordial Man was the son of God and king over all the earth and its creatures. As many scholars have noted, the Israelite kings imitated Adam — in their clothing, in the temple setting, and religious rituals. The king, at his enthronement, was made a new Adam, as he was also a pre-figuring of the Second Adam.

For more parallels between Adam, Israelite kingship, and Moses 6:59, please see the comments at the bottom of this post. Please see also Moses 1:4, Moses 1:6, and Moses 1:13.  Moses is called here “son of God” and we note that Moses also “regained” the shining image of Adam when he talked with God on Sinai and was considered to be a king (also prophet and priest) in later Jewish literature. This is a topic that I’d like to spend a lot more time on, but can’t at the moment.

Also note (out of curiosity), the similarity between the name Amun (Egyptian High God) and one of the names Joseph Smith gives God the Father: Ahman (see Journal of Discourse, vol. 2, p. 342; D&C 95;17; Rev. 3:14; Moses 6:57).

Some Comments on Enoch

The sections on Enoch in Moses 6 and Moses 7 are some of the most intriguing and valuable passages in all of Scripture. I could write several posts on these chapters. The fact that since the mid-1800s a number of ancient texts which feature Enoch as their hero have come to light makes the study of these exclusively LDS scriptures even more exciting.  Unfortunately, I have insufficient time to do this topic justice.

You can take a look at some of the ancient Jewish and Christian Enochic literature that we now have available to us here:

1 Enoch

2 Enoch — also try here

3 Enoch

See here, here, and here for a few of the many posts I have previously written on Enoch.

A Few Odd Observations

Following the discussion above of the son of god kingship motif, we should note that Enoch was also considered, like the other patriarchs, to be prophet, priest, and king in ancient Jewish literature. Enoch was a very important figure to the Qumran community, as can be seen by the preservation of multiple copies of the Enochic writings. It is significant, then, that Enoch is called “son” by God in Moses 6:27.  We can also perhaps understand from these chapters that Enoch was the king over the people of Zion.

Moses 6:35 — Note the fact that Enoch anointed his eyes with clay and could see the spiritual realm. It is interesting how this is similar to Jesus’ practice of instructing the blind to anoint their eyes with clay/mud in order to be able to see.

A feature of ancient apocalyptic is that when the visionary ascends to Heaven and speaks with God face to face, he is taught things by God, usually the “secrets of Creation.” He is given a vision of all of God’s creations and taught the secret words of the creative power. The result is that the visionary is then endowed with power over creation. Compare Moses 6:34 and following verses. Note that this is similar to Moses’ experience.

For a brief commentary on the significance of the inclusion of the name Mahijah in Moses 6:40, see here.

I also note the significance of Enoch calling himself a “lad” in Moses 6:31.  I have often mentioned Andrei Orlov, my adviser for my MA program at Marquette University. Dr. Orlov is a renowned expert on the Enochic Literature (specifically 2 Enoch). The first time I met him, we began talking about Joseph Smith and the Enoch passages in the Pearl of Great Price, with which he was quite familiar. This conversation was quite unsolicited on my part. He told me that he that it was “very curious” that Joseph Smith had called Enoch a “lad” — a significant title for Enoch in the book of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch is “the Youth” — more than 60 years before 2 Enoch ever appeared in English. Very curious, indeed!

Finally, I refer you to a post that I wrote not too long ago regarding the sequence in Moses 7 where Enoch witnesses God weeping. This is a very moving passage (I used to share it often on my mission to show God’s compassion and love for his children). In the post I share a passage from an ancient Jewish text that is very similar to these lines in Moses 7. See here.

Again, there is sooo much more that could be said on these few chapters in the Book of Moses, but hopefully these few notes are helpful.

1. See discussion of Sethian line of priesthood in Andrei Orlov, “Melchizedek Legend of 2 (Slavonic)Enoch,” in Journal for the Study of Judaism, vol. xxxi, no. 1 (Boston: Brill, 2000). Genesis mentions nothing of his background (he is not listed in any genealogies), but other “non-biblical” sources include him in the line of the Biblical patriarchs, either as a descendent of Noah or of Noah’s brother, Nir (2 Enoch 71:32-33). In the Nag Hammadi texts, he is placed in the line “of Adam [Abel], Enoch, [Noah] you, Melchizedek, [the Priest] of God [Most High],” Birger A. Pearson (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, p. 63. In the Targumic and Rabbinic materials, Melchizedek is often specifically named as Shem, the Great High Priest, the eldest son of Noah. See Tg. Neof. on Gen. 14:18 in M. McNamara (tr.), Targum Neofiti 1:Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 1A; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 92; Tg. Ps.-J. in M. Maher (tr.), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 1B; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 58.
2. See arguments in Andrei Orlov, “The Heir of Righteousness and the King of Righteousness: The Priestly Noachic Polemics in 2 Enoch and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Journal of Theological Studies, NS, vol. 58, Pt 1, April 2007, 55-57.
3. Orlov, “On the Polemical Nature of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch,” 282-283.
4. Eckart Otto, “The Judean Legitimation of Royal Rulers in Its Ancient near Eastern Contexts,” in Psalms and Liturgy, ed. Dirk J. Human and Cas J.A. Vos, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 131-34.

This is the third installment of a multi-part interview between myself and Dr. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, author of the recently released In God’s Image and Likeness: Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses. For previous posts in this series, see Part I here and Part II here.

Please see the official website for the book for more details: http://www.imageandlikeness.net

Questions for Jeffrey M. Bradshaw on In God’s Image and Likeness (cont.)

[David] In the book, you give us the text of Moses 1-6 along with analysis and commentary. Is this text taken directly from our current version of the Pearl of Great Price or is it derived from other sources?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] I’ve taken the version from the published Pearl of Great Price as my base text, while making a point to discuss significant textual variations.

Two recent studies have been particularly helpful. With painstaking effort over a period of eight years, and with the generous cooperation of the Community of Christ, a facsimile transcription of all the original manuscripts of the JST was at last published in 2004 (S. H. Faulring, et al., Original Manuscripts). A detailed study of the text of the portions of the JST relating to the book of Moses appeared in 2005 (K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses). Taken together, these studies allow us to see the process and results of translation with greater clarity than ever before.

[David]In your introduction, you give some words of advice or caution to your readers when using the various extra-canonical (apocryphal, pseudepigraphic, midrashic, etc.) texts that are available to us and that you use in your book. How do you think readers should approach these texts and what caution should be used in weighing their possible authenticity, legitimacy, or level of “inspiration”?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] Such sources present a special problem because in so many cases the age and provenance of these writings are uncertain. Moreover, the motivations of the (frequently anonymous) authors, and the historical and prophetic basis of their compositions usually remain in doubt. Stephen E. Robinson, for one, has noted the difficulties in distinguishing between inspired literature (i.e., historical or revelatory writings akin to canonical scripture), inspired fiction (i.e., stories designed to teach doctrinal principles such as Elder Boyd K. Packer’s parable The Mediator), and outright “lying for the Lord” (i.e., pseudonymous forgeries that deceitfully present themselves as authoritative in order to promulgate self-serving interpretations). All that being said, it is always possible that documents of even very doubtful provenance may contain fragments of authentic accounts transmitted from ancient times.

Nickelsburg wisely phrased the careful stance of scholarly ambivalence that must be maintained: “One should not simply posit what is convenient with the claim that later texts reflected earlier tradition. At the same time, thoroughgoing skepticism is inconsonant with the facts as we know them and as new discoveries continue to reveal them: extant texts represent only a fragment of the written and oral tradition that once existed. Caution, honest scholarly tentativeness, and careful methodology remain the best approach to the data” (G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Judaism, pp. 25-26).

In my introduction, I freely admit that I deliberately erred on the side of inclusion in considering these texts for use in the commentary. This was done to make these documents available to a wider set of readers for discussion, and I’m hoping that these evaluations will lead to many improvements in future editions of the book.

[David] A related question: To what extent should we feel comfortable comparing some of these texts, e.g. The Apocalypse of Abraham, The Testament of Moses, 1 Enoch, or The Life of Adam and Eve, to the Moses (or Abraham) material revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith? At first look, these texts would seem to cover similar ground, but from your experience, is there much compatibility between them?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] LDS scholars have long noted many similarities between the revelations and translations of Joseph Smith and ancient Jewish and Christian documents. Most of the more difficult work needed to transform these “parallels” into “bridges” demonstrating how related ideas from widely-scattered cultures and diverse eras could have been shared and transmitted has yet to be done.

In assembling this volume, I have also been interested in ancient texts from outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. Note that the Lord pointedly told Nephi: “I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it” (2 Nephi 29:12). In light of this fact, it should not be at all surprising if genuinely revealed teachings, promulgated at one time but subsequently lost or distorted, sometimes appear to have survived in heterodox strands of religious traditions the world over. Many of these teachings have served, in the words of the First Presidency, to “enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals” (S. W. Kimball, et al., God’s Love). Nor, it seems, could the Lord’s purposes have been achieved in any other way. As Elder Orson F. Whitney once said: “God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous, for any one people” (O. F. Whitney, Discourse (April 1928), p. 59). Thus, in our search for truth, we must, as Charlesworth expressed, “be attuned critically to all possible sources of revelation,” including “the word from God that has been heard by the great thinkers, inspired poets, and musicians” (J. H. Charlesworth, Protestant View, p. 84).

[David] What are some of the dangers we must be aware of when comparing modern LDS Scripture to ancient documents?

I like what Gary Gillum writes about the dangers of the two extremes of those who either eschew such writings or else develop an unhealthy obsession with them (G. P. Gillum, Bibliography). While recognizing the ease with which any of us can be led astray when our enthusiasm outstrips our understanding, he also argues that “even as we should be prepared and open to personal revelation, so should we be ready and eager to learn from additional truths which may confirm our fundamental beliefs. Perhaps these apocryphal discoveries are mere preparations for more divine writings to be given us later.” Revealing the principle governing his own stance, he writes that “whatever I read as apocrypha, in the very general sense, must not lead me farther afield, but back to the divine word of God.”

[David] This question is purely to satisfy my own curiosity. You mention in an endnote that we do not have all of what Joseph Smith translated for the Book of Abraham. While what we have in the Pearl of Great Price can be read in about a half hour, what Joseph originally translated took about two hours to read. Do you know what happened to the rest of the manuscript Joseph produced?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] I’m also very curious about this question. I am hopeful that there may be additional portions of the book of Abraham that may come to light once the relevant volume from the Joseph Smith Papers project is published.

Post Author’s Note: Since conducting this interview, I have spoken to some of the individuals involved in the above project and it does appear that this is indeed the case.  We should have more of the Book of Abraham available to us soon.

To Be Continued…

What I do want to share with you is from something I’ve been reading (not necessarily Christmas-related, but not far off). Then I’d like to share some links to some good articles that are more Christmas-themed.

As part of my research for my dissertation, I’ve been looking at a book by British scholar Crispin Fletcher-Louis entitled All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Fletcher-Louis, who seems to have some connections to Margaret Barker, has done some great research here, and although his ideas are not accepted by all, he presents a lot of exciting and insightful material.

I just wanted to share a couple of excerpts from my “Christmas” reading. All the Glory of Adam attempts to make sense of the Qumran community’s concept of “divine humanity.” There is much language in the Dead Sea Scrolls that indicates that the community who produced (or at least used) those texts believed that humans could become either angelic or divine (I don’t believe there was much of a difference between angelic or divine, but there is language of humans both becoming angels and becoming gods).

Fletcher-Louis notes that in these texts:

…there seems to be a claim which is usually implicit, but…at other times explicit, that true humanity, as it is restored among the elect, is both angelomorphic and divine (All the Glory of Adam, p. 12, emphasis in original).

The author discusses at length the Qumran and other Second Temple literature that describe what he terms “angelomorphic humanity.” It is quite well established that in this period, at least some Jews (who felt that their belief was orthodox), believed that humans, especially kings, prophets, and priests, were considered to have an angelic status, at least in ritual/cultic settings. He notes, however, that humans are also often described as “gods.” He says:

More startling [than the angelomorphic language] are those statements to the effect that the transformed humanity are “gods”. This is a more persistent and widespread feature of the texts than would permit us to conclude such language is merely an accommodation to Hellenism in which some Jews on the periphery of “orthodoxy” indulged. Already in the biblical texts Moses is “as God [elohim, theos] to Pharaoh” (Exo. 7:1) and the king is hailed as (a) god in Psalm 45:6 (cf. Zech 12:8). Exodus is probably behind Sirach’s ascription of the [elohim] status to Moses in Sirach 45:2. In Jubilees Joseph is acclaimed “god, god, mighty one of God” and in Joseph and Aseneth Jacob is “a god [theos]” to Aseneth.

The existence of god language for humanity within Jewish texts is more remarkable than angel language because of the way in which in the Second Temple period angelology replaced the polytheism of the pre-exilic period. However, just as many biblical and post biblical texts continued to speak of many “gods” (elim, elohim, theoi) with the understanding that these were “angelic” beings on a distinctly lower level of reality than God himself, so it seems there remained the freedom to speak of human as “divine” in similar terms and in certain circumstances. In texts such as those gathered around Moses and Exodus 7:1 there is stressed the fact that Moses’ “divinity” is no independent of that of God himself but is strictly bestowed by the creator of all. This may offend traditional Jewish and Christian views of divinity as a strictly independent, uncreated reality, but it should be remembered that in the ancient world the begetting and creating of gods (theogony) was a much more acceptable notion then than it is now.

The presence of “god” language for humanity in texts as far apart as Sirach, Jubilees, Philo and the rabbis testifies to the degree to which such language was widely spread and accepted in late Second Temple Judaism. (pp. 85-86)

While all of these are very interesting and important statements, I was even more pleased to find that Fletcher-Louis locates the root of all these beliefs in the correct life setting: the Temple and its rituals. He states:

...the principal socio-religious life setting for a Jewish divine anthropology, particularly in its earlier formative stages of development, was the Jewish Temple, its sacred space and priesthood…(p. 5, emphasis in original).

In other words, the proper setting for and origin of this language of humans becoming angels and/or gods, is in the rituals and liturgy of the Temple of Jerusalem.  Very interesting…

So I guess that’s the message I wanted to leave you with this Christmas. As St. Athanasius once wrote (and as is written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church): “For the Son of God became man so that man could become God.” Just as there are many who believe that God came down to earth and became man, so there have also been many that believed that the true destiny and potential of mankind is to become like God.  That is why Christ came down to us — to provide a way for us to, following his example, become like his Father.

As I promised, some great Christmas themed reads:

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw has a great series of articles at Meridian Magazine:

Adam and Christ, Eve and Mary at Christmas Time

Temple Themes in Luke’s Account of the Angels and the Shepherds

Also, check out a similar post at www.templestudy.com, by Bryce Haymond:

Who Were the Shepherds in the Christmas Story?

I’m sure there are lots of others, and if you know of any good ones, please let me know! Above all, I wish you a Merry Christmas from bonnie (and currently snow-covered) Scotland!  May this New Year be full of abundant blessings and new wisdom from God!

Warmest wishes,

David Larsen

Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism – Sunday 4pm

April De Conick

Star Gates: What Were the Gnostics Doing?

The Peratics (perasai, Greek for “Transcendentalists”) say:

We alone have known that genesis is necessary and (we alone have known) have know the roads by which humans have entered into the cosmos. We have been instructed precisely so we alone can pass through and treverse over the perishable. Hip. Ref. 5:16.1

We generally think that Gnostics didn’t know astrology, that it wasn’t a scientific knowledge – W. Forester (in his collection of Gnostic texts) failed to translate the chapter on astrological statements – he evidently considered them not relevant to Gnosticism.

We must become acquainted with ancient cosmology (cosmic architecture) to understand what the Gnostics were doing.

Earth is the navel of the cosmos – in the middle of the earth is a pole (axis mundi) — the earth is stationary and the various  celestial spheres revolve around it.

The sublunar realm includes

• The Earth
• Tartarus
• The Skies
• The Firmament

The Heavens include:

• the seven planetary spheres
• one zodiacal sphere
• these were considered to be deities

The zodiac band crosses the horizon and is divided into twelve units–zodiacal signs. The stars wander below zodiacal band. Each zodiac sign was a “place” or “house”. Each of the planets rules over a particular sign.

Egyptian Decans (groups of stars) – had 36 divisions instead of 12 – each was a deity – 72 spirits for every 5 degrees of the zodiac for a total of 365 gods.

The Egyptian system was merged into the Greco-Roman system. There were seven main rulers whose houses have a number of assistants. These assistants became demons and the fallen angels. They needed to be regularly appeased with acts of magic.

The skies were populated by demonic archons for the Gnostics. In their view, the Jewish creator god (demiurge) was a powerful, but angry god.

A common Gnostic belief existed that there are paths that allow for a journey out of cosmos into heavens beyond – these stem from a mix of Egyptian, Greek, Jewish, Christian religions. The Gnostics claimed to know certain  greetings, prayers, and secret words that were necessary to pass through the “stargates” into the heavens. For example, they were required to know and give the correct names of all gods that they would have to pass by.

They knew of three journeys that one would have to undertake:

–1^st journey is through the sublunar realm and Hades, beginning at the soul’s release from the body

–2^nd jouney is through the several planetary spheres and the zodiac, beginning at the star or planet gate

–3^rd journey is through the transcosmic realm beginning at the star or planet gate

In the first journey, the individual would have to pass through waters of Tartarus before reaching the heavens.

One must pass the “twelve controlled pyramid” – the guardians of the zodiac. He/she goes through a  gate in the zodiac pyramid which Chronos and assistants guard.

Ou, Aoai, Ouo, Ouoab –  are the first four names of assistant guardians (the fifth name isn’t given).

–Soclam (= Egyptian Osiris) guards hours of the night

–Uno (Isis) guards hours of the day

Why did the Peratics write down the names of gods/demons? These were the deities that soul would initially meet after death. They have the charge of judging the dead on their journey to Hades – they control the fate of the soul after death and before re-embodiment.

The “hymn” of the guardian controls a chasm filled with water in the deepest depths of Tartarus

–Book of Suburbs ? –- the soul is escorted to a chasm – there are two chasms on the left and two on the right. The left go to prison, the right go to heaven. If you are allowed to take the chasm on the right, you journey four days until you reach a pillar of light, then go up the pillar to heaven. Those going down the chasm on the left end up drinking from the forgetful river.

Chronos is understood as a likeness of the Red Sea that one must cross before reaching heaven. The Gnostics had passwords, names, and seals necessary to cross the waters and enter the gate that opens up to Zodiac.

Book 4 of Pistis Sophia – the gates of hell open and release prisoners when certain signs of the zodiac align – souls enter the zodiac before being embodied again. These gates are located at intersection of milky way and the zodiac or at different zodiacal signs.

Sometimes the focus is on planetary gates – the sun and moon, etc. Sometimes the journey is described as an ascent through the sun and descent through the moon or vice versa. The descent through the several planets to the earth involves a series of changes from the  spiritual body to the physical.

On the way one has to get past Chronos and his five assistants and the five chasms. This involves offering prayers to persuade them to let you past.

The planetary spheres are likened to the “desert” of Israel. On the way, one meets fiery serpents who attack the individual. These are also symbolized as stars who want to return them to the world and to their body – the stars are like serpents. In order to pass by these unharmed, one must gaze to the top of the planetary spheres to the constellation “Draco the Serpent”, who is Christ. Draco is located at the roof of the cosmic dome – he started this pattern of ascent and descent. He gets power from the Father and passes it to humans.

The Father is above Draco and is the source of his powers. In some traditions, the Demiurge is the evil god who transfers heavenly powers to earth. Draco is also the river that flows out of Eden and flows to heaven.

Knowing the secrets of Draco causes rebirth and ability to travel to realm of the Father – one must go through Draco/Christ  –you are drawn up like a magnet through him.

Chronos must be crossed and the individual must pass through his gate into the Zodiac. The stars and planets must be overcome and then the individual must travel up the tail of Draco to his mouth and then be spit out into the heavens. Then he/she can travel to the realm of the Father, which is far above the heavens in his own realm.

After the presentation, in the discussion period, this question was asked by BYU professor John Hall:

John Hall – As I listened to your presentation, there is a correspondence on every point with the ancient Egyptian cult. Has ancient Egyptian religion been kept alive in Gnostic tradition?

April DeConick – Yes, I do believe so. The names of the deities are preserved.  Egyptian and Greek myths are both preserved in Gnosticism – its a synthesis of all these national religions.

(I take responsibility for the contents of these notes. They are but my own paraphrasing of what she said in her presentation, and are missing a good amount of the detail she put into it. Hopefully these notes help provide, in a small way, some of the great insights that she meant to pass on.)

In God’s Image and Likeness: Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses

A few words of background… I have had the pleasure of working with Jeff on a number of issues, especially concerning the similarities between the Book of Moses and ancient pseudepigraphal texts such as the Apocalypse of Abraham. He presented some of our findings (I must admit that he did most of the work!) at the FAIR conferences in both France and Germany earlier this year, and later at an Eborn Books event in August, under the title  ”The Apocalypse of Abraham: An Ancient Witness for the Book of Moses.” We are currently preparing a related article under the working title: “The Vision of Moses as a heavenly ascent: New light from the Apocalypse of Abraham.”

In all my many interactions with Jeff, I have found him to be extremely knowledgeable and informed on a vast array of topics, from LDS doctrine and history to ancient Jewish and Christian religious texts and quite literally everything in between! He is a constant and dependable source of insights — and I have found that when I have questions and problems in my own research, I can always go to Jeff to find some hidden treasure that helps unlock the mysteries. On a personal note, I have found Jeff to be a very kind individual, and while highly dedicated to his work, he is very generous with his time. He is both well-informed in biblical scholarship and profoundly committed to his faith. I definitely expect to see more great things to come from Jeff, just because that is his nature.

This new book, as I’ve come to know, has been the work of countless hours of research, deep thought, and, I’m sure, a good amount of prayer.  Although still working hard as a Senior Research Scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) in Pensacola, Florida, which has him travelling all over the world,  he has made time to produce an enormous work of well over a thousand pages of concise, relevant and highly significant findings on the first chapters of the Book of Moses (from the LDS Pearl of Great Price), including in his analysis prophetic insights, excerpts from ancient texts, current scientific perspectives, and up-to-date biblical scholarship relevant to this profound revelation. He looks at the stories of the Grand Councils in Heaven, the Creation, the Fall, the Plan of Salvation and other doctrines that are foundational to our faith and which are given especial clarity in the Book of Moses.  Dr. Bradshaw puts this all into perspective by taking into account the vast ancient literature provided by Jewish commentators, Islamic scholars, and early Christian Fathers, and adds to it his own expertise on these matters and his insights into the perennial controversies over science and religion.

This volume is amazingly comprehensive, covering an incredible array of doctrinal issues, and will prove to be an invaluable and irreplaceable resource on the Book of Moses and other related issues for the foreseeable future. I couldn’t recommend it more highly.

From the website dedicated to the book, http://www.imageandlikeness.net:

The central message of the book of Moses is not revealed in its stories of the Creation and the Fall, as essential as these accounts may be, but rather in its description of the foundations of human perfection. In God’s Image and Likeness is the most comprehensive commentary ever published on the beautiful and doctrinally-rich Joseph Smith Translation of the early chapters of Genesis.

The book has been printed and limited quantities will begin to appear in selected bookstores by Christmas 2009. It can currently be ordered directly from the publisher, Eborn Books, at Amazon.com (link). The retail price is $49.99.

It is with great gratitude and sincere pleasure that I share with you the first post of a multi-part conversation with Jeffrey Bradshaw regarding his thoughts on the Book of Moses and the upcoming release of his publication.

Questions for Jeff Bradshaw on In God’s Image and Likeness

[David] What were some of the reasons you decided to make the Book of Moses your subject? What did you hope to contribute with your volume that previous treatments have not covered?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] I have loved the book of Genesis since I was a child. I’ve tried to write the kind of book that I should have liked to have had at the beginning of my own study, if only it had been, in addition, written by someone with better credentials in the relevant fields of scholarship than I can claim. I wanted to make as many of the relevant resources—both from inside and outside the LDS tradition—available and accessible to amateurs like myself.

The beauty and richness of the book of Moses is incredible and intimidating. Not only do we have in these few pages the foundations of LDS doctrine about the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement, but also, from a literary perspective, we are looking at one of the most subtly-written prose accounts ever composed. Apart from the life of Christ, these stories of the beginning have been the subject of more commentary, art, and music than any other subject in the Bible, and parallel accounts of great interest have been found in religious traditions around the world. Many of the ancient documents have only come to light in recent decades. The basic questions raised by science are also found here, and cannot be ignored in any serious treatment of this book of scripture. I felt that all of these major sources and perspectives—the prophetic commentary, the traditions of world religions, the art, the scholarship, the science—needed to be adequately represented in the commentary.

Of very personal significance is the extent to which a careful study of the book of Moses has enriched my experience of temple worship. In return, insights received in the course of temple worship have added immeasurably to my appreciation and understanding of the book of Moses.

[David]At over 1000 pages long, a comprehensive commentary, hundreds of notes, an amazing array of colorful images and instructive diagrams, dozens of excurses and a long appendix, an incredible bibliography, and exhaustive (and very helpful) indices, this is a truly monumental and formidable piece of writing. May I ask how long you have worked on this project and what kind of time commitment went into its production? How do you feel now that it is finished and prepared for publication?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] The project came to be during a year-long stay in Toulouse, France. Our family’s move there came unexpectedly, on the heels of Hurricane Ivan which destroyed our home in Pensacola, Florida. The whole experience turned out to be a blessing in many ways.

Being in Europe allowed me to have a few hours of study and writing each morning before my colleagues in the USA woke up. In addition, my work requires quite a bit of travel. Because I could sometimes squeeze in a little extra time when I was traveling, I got used to taking an extra bag with seventy pounds of books along with me wherever I went. (Fortunately, the airlines were a bit more generous on baggage allowances at that time than they are now.)

Once the idea took hold, the book almost wrote itself. I’ve never had another writing project where the words and ideas came so easily. I started writing the overview of Moses 1 in September 2005, and by the end of 2006, a little over a year from when I began, I had a fairly complete draft in hand of all the commentary chapters and significant portions of the excursus, appendix, and annotated bibliography.

[David] What were some of the main obstacles that you encountered as you were working on this project?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] Publication turned out to be the most challenging part of the process. In the spring of 2006, I signed an agreement with an LDS publisher, and had expected that the book would appear sometime in 2007. Eventually, given continuing uncertainties about schedule, price, and production quality, I proposed that we part ways.

When I approached Bret Eborn about the project in January 2009, he was immediately enthusiastic. There was no question in his mind that this had to be a publication of the highest quality, including 1100 offset-printed pages in large 8 ½ x 11 format, a substantial color plates section, a durable hardcover binding, and a beautiful full-color dust jacket. Moreover, when we realized that the demanding production requirements and the relatively small size of the print run would normally entail a retail price of about $120, he came up with a creative solution to subsidize the printing costs so we could keep the price below $50. A handful of very generous benefactors purchased copies of a deluxe leather edition of the book that made this price reduction possible. I don’t know of any other LDS publisher besides Eborn who would have been able and willing to take on such a large and complex project on such an aggressive schedule.

In retrospect, the previous publication delays turned out to be a blessing, allowing my son Samuel and I to take on the responsibility ourselves for book design, typesetting, and indexing. I can’t imagine anyone else being willing to go through what we did in order to execute our vision for the look and feel of the volume. In addition, the delays allowed me to continue to tinker with the content of the manuscript itself up to the very last minute: adding new ideas and sources, correcting errors, and smoothing out awkward phrasing.

[David] What is the significance of the title In God’s Image and Likeness? What aspects of the Book of Moses do you hope to emphasize?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] A wonderful book by Gary A. Anderson, called The Genesis of Perfection, provided the spark of inspiration for the title. His premise is that the story of Adam and Eve “is not an account of sin alone but the beginning of a drama about becoming a being who fully reflects God’s very own image. Genesis is not only about the origins of sin; it is also about the foundations of human perfection. The work that God has begun in Creation He will bring to completion.… [E]arly Jewish and Christian readers [were] aware of this while most of their modern counterparts have not been” (p. 8).

In reading that passage, I realized that no group of Christians are more fully justified in believing such assertions than we are. No other body of contemporary Christians takes more seriously than we do the words of Christ when He commanded His followers to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect (see Matthew 5:48; 3 Nephi 12:48). By this we mean not only wholly like Him in character, but also, eventually, fully resembling Him in glorious resurrected bodily form.

In considering these ideas, it also became clear to me that the stories of the Creation and the Fall in Moses 1-4, as essential as they are, are but prologue to the account of the unfolding of a progressive series of covenants given in Moses 5-8. In the book of Moses, we read that through faithfulness to each of these covenants, including the final covenant of consecration, Enoch and his people became “of one heart and one mind” (Moses 7:18), and were taken up to walk in the presence of God. With similar intent, the book of Moses seems to have been expressly written to “call [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). Note Mercy Fielding Thompson’s recollection that the Prophet Joseph Smith specifically applied these words to the blessings of the temple endowment (“Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Juvenile Instructor, 1 July 1892, p. 400, cited in Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 414).

To be continued…

Please check back soon for more from Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw on this powerful and enlightening new book. Please see www.imageandlikeness.net for more information about the book and its author.

Daphna Arbel (read by Robin Griffith-Jones)

Moshe Idel and Religious Experience in the Hekhalot Literature

Moshe Idel’s research features an open methodology – a pluralistic/interdisciplinary approach

His work is  representative of a new scholarly view of Judaism – based on experiential orientation

The focus of his research principally covers Judaism of the 4^th to 9^th century – the Hekhalot period (a.k.a. merkabah mysticism)

Idel doesn’t subscribe to evolutionary development of religion. His focus is on the interplay of experiential orientations in different schools of Judaism.

Merkabah Mysticism presents a continuous circulation between divine and human – an open circuit between heaven and earth – the possibility, or reality, of  interaction through open channels between the worlds

Unio mystica

The participation of humans in the divine being is the subject of many of Idel’s studies. Gershom Scholem argues that humans are not able to experience union with God in merkabah mysticism. Idel challenges these conclusions – he warns that we should not marginalize unio mystica. There is a certain theological perspective that ignores possibility of union. However, 3 Enoch (a hekhalot text) describes the transformation of Enoch into Metatron – this should be understood as an example of unio mystica – union with Enoch and angel Metatron.

Idel has been criticized for using later texts and Neo-platonic views as evidence for unio mystica. He believes that study of unio mystica should focus on types of experience – forms of experiencing the divine. Enoch’s transformation is a form of unio mystica even if it is not specifically a union with God. Enoch becomes similar to God – his bodily transformation allows for access to the presence of God and some kind of connectivity to Him. Various forms function differently in different situations, but should be seen as types of the same motif.

Ascent to Heaven is usually referred to as an ascent of the soul,  but Idel argues that it should be seen as ascent of the body (albeit perhaps the spiritual body). The corporeal body remains in a special stance on earth, while the “spiritual body” ascends.  Both spiritual and corporeal are involved (this involves certain practices).

Idel also emphasizes the experiential aspect of magic. Rabbi Akivah obtains secret names in heaven that have magical uses. The magical and experiential are linked together. Practice allows adept to travel to heaven and magical aspect involves bringing down knowledge with magical power.

Rabbi Ishmael felt that he had entered a new dimension while pondering “secrets” of Torah.

Moshe Idel’s research helps establish the significance of experience in the Hekhalot literature.