Moses 6–7 and the Book of Giants: Remarkable Witnesses of Enoch’s Ministry

Abstract: The Book of Giants (BG), an Enoch text found in 1948 among the Dead Sea Scrolls, includes a priceless trove of stories about the ancient prophet and his contemporaries, including unique elements relevant to the Book of Moses Enoch account. Hugh Nibley was the first to discover in the BG a rare personal name that corresponds to the only named character in the Book of Moses besides Enoch himself, a finding that some non-Latter-day Saint Enoch scholars considered significant. Since Nibley’s passing, the growth of new scholarship on ancient Enoch texts has continued unabated. While Nibley’s pioneering research compared the names and roles of one character in Moses 6–7 and BG, scholars have now been able to examine the names and roles of nearly all of the prominent figures in the two books and analyze their respective accounts in more detail. Not only are the overall storylines of the two independent accounts more similar than could have imagined a few years ago, a series of recent studies have added substance to the claim that the specific resemblances of the Book of Giants to Moses 6–7—resemblances that are rare or absent elsewhere in Jewish tradition—are more numerous and significant than the resemblances of any other single ancient Enoch text—or, for that matter, to all of the most significant extant Enoch texts combined. Of particular note is new evidence in BG that relates to the Book of Moses account of Enoch’s gathering of Zion to divinely prepared cities and the ascent of his people to the presence of God.

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the Latter-day Saint community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

[Page 96]See Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Moses 6–7 and the Book of Giants: Remarkable Witnesses of Enoch’s Ministry,” in Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses: Inspired Origins, Temple Contexts, and Literary Qualities, ed. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, David R. Seely, John W. Welch and Scott Gordon (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central; Redding, CA: FAIR; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2021), 1041–256. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/ancient-threads-in-the-book-of-moses/.]

The Latter-day Saint story of Enoch has been called the “most remarkable religious document published in the nineteenth century.”[1] This is true for at least three reasons.

1. First, the account is highly original. For example, according to a preliminary linguistic analysis by Stanford Carmack, the language of the account is by and large “independent of Genesis language,”[2] with an initial authorship diagnostic strongly indicating that the text is not “pseudobiblical or biblical or Joseph Smith’s own pattern.”[3]

2. Second, it is audacious in its claims. The account was produced early in Joseph Smith’s ministry—in fact, in the same year as the publication of the Book of Mormon—as part of a divine commission to “retranslate” the Bible.[4] Like Doctrine and Covenants 76, it seems to contain many significant items that were removed “from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.”[5] Note that this statement allows for three options for the Enoch account in Moses 6–7: (1) it was removed from one of the books we now have in the Bible at some point in history; (2) it was written at some point but was later lost and was never connected with any of the books of the Bible; or (3) it was never written down until it was revealed to Joseph Smith.

3. Third, it was produced at record speed. Judging by the rapidity by which similar passages were translated, the account of Enoch found today in Moses 6–7 would appear to have occupied only a few days of the Prophet’s attention.[6] In view of the sizable revelations received on Enoch and other topics around that time, Kerry Muhlestein considers it “one of the greatest periods of revelation the Church has experienced, a true overflowing surge.”[7]

[Page 97]How Have Different Scholars Approached the Task of Explaining the Book of Moses Enoch Account?

There are a variety of different explanations for how such a novel, expansive, and coherent work purporting to be a true account of ancient historical figures could have been produced by a relatively unschooled translator in such a short amount of time. In the present study, our primary interest is in comparing Moses 6–7 with the Book of Giants (BG), an ancient source unknown in 1830, in support of arguments that the Prophet translated through a process that was dependent on divine revelation. Alternatively, some comparative studies seek to identify instances when Joseph Smith might have relied on texts known to him (whether from ancient or modern sources) as aids in the translation of Latter-day Saint scripture.[8]

Though it is not impossible that Joseph Smith drew inspiration “out of the best books” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118; 109:7, 14) in his Bible translation, I have outlined in detail elsewhere the challenges that scholars face in their efforts to argue that nineteenth-century influences, augmented by the imagination of Joseph Smith, were primarily responsible for the Enoch narrative in the Book of Moses.[9] For example, the evidence that the narrative of Moses 6–7 is derived largely from the Bible[10] or scholarly Bible commentaries[11] is scant and unconvincing at present. Evidence that Sidney Rigdon contributed significantly to Moses 7 is not persuasive and the first half of the acccount, Moses 6, was translated before he came on the scene.[12]

Most significantly, it would have been impossible for Joseph Smith in 1830 to have been aware of the most important resemblances to ancient Enoch literature in his translation. Other than the limited and typically loose parallels found in 1 Enoch (which was unlikely to have been available to Joseph Smith), the texts that would have been required for a modern author to derive significant parts of Moses 6–7 had neither been discovered by Western scholars nor translated into English.[13] Additionally, even if relevant Enoch traditions from Masonry or the hermetic tradition had been available to Joseph Smith by 1830, it stretches the imagination to assume that they would have provided the Prophet with the suite of specific and sometimes peculiar details that are shared by Moses 6–7 and pseudepigrapha like 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch—and especially the Book of Giants.

[Page 98]Toward a Principled Examination of Literary Affinities in the Book of Moses

In evaluating the efforts to attribute the three large revelatory chapters of the Book of Moses to extant textual sources, Colby Townsend rightly concluded that “a systematic and detailed analysis of other literary influences on Moses 1 or the major additions in Moses 6–8 has not yet been completed.” title=”14. Ben Tov (pseudonym of Colby Townsend), “Book of Enoch.””14 While not sharing Townsend’s optimism that the Book of Moses narratives of the heavenly ascent of Moses (Moses 1) and of the ministry of Enoch (Moses 6–7) can be explained primarily through direct “literary influences” on Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century, I think there is great potential in performing “a systematic and detailed analysis” of literary affinities with ancient works the Prophet could not have known. For instance, an initial approach undertaken in this spirit that provides a favorable comparison of Moses 1 with the Apocalypse of Abraham, a work of Jewish pseudepigrapha not available to Joseph Smith, appears elsewhere in this conference proceedings.[15] In the present paper, I take an analogous approach to the Enoch chapters in Moses 6–7—recognizing, of course, that much additional work remains.

Naturally, our expectations with respect to finding ancient threads in the Book of Moses must be qualified. Although Joseph Smith’s revisions and additions to the Bible sometimes contain stunning echoes of ancient sources, he understood that the primary intent of modern revelation is to give divine guidance to readers in our day, not to provide precise matches to texts from other times. Thus, it is not my claim that every word of these modern productions is necessarily rooted in ancient manuscripts. However, to believers it would be no surprise if long, revealed passages such as, most conspicuously, Moses 1, 6–7, were to provide evidence of having been drawn in significant measure from a common well of ancient textual or oral traditions.[16]

Rationale and Outline of the Present Study

The Book of Giants (BG), a fragmentary work discovered in Qumran in 1948, is one example of several ancient texts about Enoch unknown to Joseph Smith that exhibit remarkable affinities to the Enoch figure depicted in Latter-day Saint scripture. In section 1, I provide a brief overview of Hugh Nibley’s pioneering work comparing BG to Moses 6–7. I will also summarize a few of the subsequent discoveries by Latter-day Saint scholars who have built on Nibley’s pioneering research. These new discoveries by Latter-day Saint scholars were made possible by the increasing interest of Enoch scholars worldwide who have recognized [Page 99]BG as an important, and in many ways unique, window into ancient Enoch traditions.

Section 2 describes BG in more detail, showing why it has proven to be such a significant text for Enoch scholars and probing what has been called “conspicuous Mesopotamian influence” in its origins. Section 3 will provide specific background about BG that is necessary to understanding the rest of the study, dispelling common misconceptions about BG as a whole.

In the remaining sections, I will provide preliminary results of a deeper analysis that goes beyond the long-standing discovery of a pair of similar names in BG and the Book of Moses and the tantalizing but minimally explored listings of textual resemblances between the two texts that have been published previously. With respect to the similar names, section 4 will show why the BG names Enoch and Mahaway, cognates with the only two personal names mentioned in Moses 6–7, stand out from the other names mentioned in BG in ways that make them the foremost candidates for historical plausibility in an ancient Enochic setting.

From there, I will look at other similarities and differences between the texts. In section 5, I will compare the storylines of the Book of Moses Enoch account, BG, and other Enoch texts. The primary finding is that the broad storylines of Moses 6–7 and BG are remarkably similar. In addition, however, the editor(s) of BG seem to have wanted to add dramatic color to its narrative by inserting entertaining episodes about two giant “twins” into the account. Supporting the argument that these literary incidents are BG-specific additions is the fact that these characters and their stories are not only missing from the Book of Moses but also are found nowhere else in the ancient Enoch literature. Even more significant and surprising than these additions is the discovery that BG almost entirely leaves out the stories of sacred events that are found in Moses 6–7, despite the fact that each of these sacred events are touched on in one fashion of another in other ancient Enoch texts.

Section 6, a detailed analysis of thematic resemblances of BG to Moses 6–7, was inspired in part by an analogous study by the well-known Enoch scholar Loren T. Stuckenbruck.[17] This analysis revealed that the eighteen thematic elements common to BG and the Book of Moses provide support for plausible arguments for a common well of ancient traditions that significantly influenced both texts. These common thematic resemblances are not only notable in their frequency and density but sometimes also in their specificity. Of great significance [Page 100]is that the common elements in BG and the Book of Moses nearly always are ordered in corresponding sequence. In the conclusion of this chapter, I will argue that the results of this study substantiate the claim that the specific resemblances of BG to Moses 6–7—resemblances that are rare or absent elsewhere in Jewish tradition—are more numerous and significant than resemblances to any other single ancient Enoch text—or, for that matter, to all extant ancient Enoch texts combined.

1. Previous Discoveries and Subsequent Findings

Hugh Nibley’s pioneering work comparing BG to Moses 6–7

In 1976–77, Hugh Nibley dashed off one long, heavily footnoted article after another each month for a series about ancient Enoch manuscripts and Moses 6–7 that was running in the Church’s Ensign magazine. As he was finishing the last article in the series, he received—“just in time”[18]—an anxiously awaited volume describing fragments of Aramaic books of Enoch that were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.[19] Among other texts, the book, edited by non–Latter-day Saint scholars J. T. Milik and Matthew Black, contained the first English translation of BG[20]. So impatient was Nibley to study it that it it seems he may have borrowed a copy from the University of Utah while he waited for his own copy to arrive.[21]

Figure 1. a. Title page of the last article in the Ensign’s “A Strange Thing in the Land” series;[22] b. Title page of Milik and Black’s book that included the first English translation of the Book of Giants.[23]

[Page 101]As he worked quickly to meet his publication deadline, Nibley found many significant resemblances between BG and the Book of Moses. His best-known discovery is that of a remarkable match between a name in the Book of Moses and in BG. In the Book of Moses, the name appears as Mahijah or Mahujah and in English translations of BG it is usually given as Mahaway or Mahawai. Nibley found not only that the ancient form of these names were likely to have matched well but also that the roles of the corresponding characters were analogous.

Figure 2. The passage shown comes from Milik and Black’s translation of BG, 4Q530, fragment 2, column ii, lines 20–23. It tells of an incident when the wicked ʾOhyah, Hahyah, and their fellows send Mahawai to ask Enoch about their frightful dreams of pending destruction. This copy of the book is located in the Hugh Nibley Ancient Studies Room of the BYU Harold B. Lee Library. Note that Nibley circled the Aramaic version of the name Mahawai in pencil.[24]

In 2020, Matthew L. Bowen, Ryan Dahle, and I extended Nibley’s early analysis.[25] Our study confirmed and added new details and evidence to Nibley’s earlier findings while also addressing issues raised by Colby Townsend.[26] In brief, Townsend argued that the names were not as similar as Nibley had originally concluded. He reasoned that “Nibley relied too heavily on his English transcription of both names—MHWY—and failed to recognize that the H [in the Book of Moses version of the name and the H in the BG version of the name represented] two distinct letters” in their presumed Semitic originals.[27] However, in our later study we adduced relevant scholarship showing that despite a significant difference in one consonant in seemingly related texts (“Ḥ” [Bible] vs. “H” [BG]), there is currently no compelling reason why the BG name Mahaway (MHWY) could not have been related at some earlier point in its history both to the King James Bible name elements in Genesis 4:18, Mehuja-/Mehija- (MḤWY-/MḤYY-), and also to the [Page 102]only other names besides Enoch found in the Book of Moses: Mahujah (the English H corresponds equally well to MHWY or MḤWY) and Mahijah (MHYY or MḤYY).

Interest in Nibley’s discovery by non–Latter-day Saint scholars

Professor Matthew Black,[28] a collaborator on Milik’s English translation of BG, was also impressed with the similarity of the BG and Book of Moses names. Like Nibley, he seems to have seen this finding as evidence that Joseph Smith’s Enoch text was ancient—even though he didn’t believe that Joseph Smith translated it through a process that relied on divine revelation. Instead, upon meeting Latter-day Saint graduate student Gordon C. Thomasson (who was familiar with Nibley’s Enoch research), Black initially suggested that a copy of a text that drew on the some of the same Enoch traditions as BG must have made its way to Joseph Smith sometime before the translation of the Book of Moses.[29] Nibley said that during Professor Black’s visit to Brigham Young University (BYU) soon afterward, Black reiterated his view that Joseph Smith must have relied on an ancient source in his translation.[30]

Figure 3. a. Matthew Black (1908–94), date unknown[31]; b. Gordon C. Thomasson (1942–) in 1975.[32]

More recently, Salvatore Cirillo, drawing on the similar conclusions of Stuckenbruck, stated that he considered the names of the gibborim, notably including Mahaway, as “the most conspicuously independent content” in BG, being “unparalleled in other Jewish literature.”[33] [Page 103]Agreeing with the significance of Nibley’s finding, Cirillo concluded that “the name Mahawai in BG and the names Mahujah and Mahijah in the Book of Moses represent the strongest similarity between the Latter-day Saint revelations on Enoch and the pseudepigraphal books of Enoch (specifically BG).”[34] However, in contrast to Matthew Black’s hypothesis that Joseph Smith must have been given an ancient record from an esoteric group in Europe, Cirillo did not make any attempt to explain how a manuscript that was unknown to modern scholars until the mid-twentieth century could have influenced the account of Enoch in the Book of Moses, written in 1830.

After Nibley’s initial look at BG and the Book of Moses, Nibley moved on to other subjects. Though Nibley continued to refer to his earlier Enoch findings in his later life, he did not engage to any significant extent with the burgeoning literature on Enoch that was published in the decades that followed.

Building on the foundation of Nibley’s research

Since Nibley’s passing, the growth of new scholarship on ancient Enoch texts has continued unabated. Building on the important context provided by Jared Ludlow’s survey of the full corpus of ancient Enoch texts and their implications for the Book of Moses Enoch chapters,[35] the present chapter will focus specifically on BG. In addition to presenting recent research that confirms and deepens our understanding of passages originally discussed by Nibley, this paper will summarize new discoveries and analyses that further demonstrate the potential of BG as a fruitful source of study for students of Latter-day Saint scripture. Elsewhere I have published more extensive discussions of how ancient texts, including but not limited to BG, seem to confirm and complement the both the basic outline and specific details of the Enoch story in the Book of Moses.[36]

The present study, though still preliminary in some ways, aims to provide the most complete and in-depth comparative analysis of the Book of Moses to a single ancient Enoch text that has been undertaken to date:

- While Hugh Nibley’s pioneering research compared the names and roles of one character in Moses 6–7 and BG, the present study examines the names and roles of nearly all of the prominent figures in the two books.

- Whereas previous studies have touched on a few parallels in the overall storyline in the Book of Moses Enoch account that [Page 104]are found elsewhere in the ancient Enoch literature, the hope here is to reach a better understanding of the similarities and differences in the story elements across the entire storyline. Of particular interest are new arguments in support of the idea that Mahijah/Mahujah in the Book of Moses, like Mahaway in BG, encountered Enoch on two separate occasions.

- At a more detailed level, while earlier work has identified instances of close thematic resemblances or, in some cases, almost identical occurrences of rare terms and phrases, the aim here is not merely to identify such instances but also to explore in further detail each currently proposed candidate.

- Finally, for each thematic resemblance, this study will attempt to determine whether: 1. the theme is widespread in Second Temple Jewish traditions and the Bible; 2. generally confined to the ancient Enoch literature, or 3. specific to Moses 6–7 and BG. This result will tell us something about the evidential strength of resemblances by characterizing the degree to which the themes are widespread or rare outside the ancient Enoch literature.

One of the most significant examples of new discoveries relating to the Book of Moses Enoch story is the collection of BG elements that relate to the report in Moses 6–7 that Zion, the righteous city of Enoch, was “received . . . up into [God’s] own bosom” (Moses 7:69). Though scholars have been aware for some time of suggestions in a Mandaean Enoch fragment[37] and in late midrash[38] that a group of Enoch’s followers were taken up to heaven with him, until recently no ancient evidence had surfaced for the idea that Enoch’s followers had been led to establish a place of gathering—an earthly Zion—beforehand. Recently, however, it was noticed that a fragment of a Manichaean version of BG describes how the righteous who had been converted by Enoch’s preaching were separated from the wicked and gathered to divinely prepared cities in westward lying mountains.[39] This event recalls the statement of Moses 7:17 about the gathering of Enoch’s Zion, when his people “were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish.” Moreover, elements of the Manichaean Cosmology Painting (MCP), a visual representation that Enoch scholars have concluded contains depictions relevant to many events of BG, suggest that the inhabitants of those cities were ultimately taken up to dwell in in the presence of Deity.[40] This motif recalls the Book of Moses statement that the inhabitants of Zion were “received . . . up into [God’s] own bosom”(Moses 7:69). [Page 105]Further discussion of this and other ancient affinities between BG and Moses 6–7 will be discussed later, in sections 3–6 of this chapter.

Before entering into further discussion of resemblances of BG to Moses 6–7, additional discussion on the background on BG will be provided below.

Figure 4. a. Photograph of a fragment of a Qumran BG manuscript in Aramaic showing detail of 4Q530 (4QGiantsb ar), fragment 7b, column ii.[41] As an example of the difficulty in transcribing the fragments, the end of line 7 is outlined, showing where Milik and Black’s original transliteration LMḤWY resulted in their failure to recognize the name Mahaway in their English translation of the phrase.[42] By way of contrast, Émile Puech’s newer transliteration, LMHWY, allowed Cook to translate the Aramaic characters as “to Mahaway”;[43] b. Photograph of a Manichaean BG text fragment in Sogdian, showing detail of So20220/II/R/ and So20220/I/V/ [K20].[44] Fragments of the Manichaean BG have survived in six different languages.

2. Introduction to the Book of Giants

What is the Book of Giants?

The Book of Giants (BG) is a collection of fragments from an Enochic book discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) at Qumran in 1948, supplemented by “extant fragments of the Manichaean Book of Giants published by W. B. Henning[45] (and [later] by Werner Sundermann [and others][46]) and in a Jewish writing designated the Midrash of Shemḥazai and ‘Aza‘el.”[47] Significantly, it is not found as one of the books within the better-known Ethiopic compilation of 1 Enoch[48] and, as a whole, [Page 106]resembles little else in the Enoch tradition. Before the discovery of the more extensive set of fragments of BG at Qumran, scholars had been made aware of its existence through related material in Talmudic and medieval Jewish literature, in descriptions of the Manichaean canon,[49] in citations by hostile heresiologists, and in a small but significant collection of third- and fourth-century Manichaean fragments. For a variety of reasons, BG has proven to be of tremendous importance to Enoch scholarship.

Should BG be considered part of a “rewritten Bible”?

In brief, the answer is no. The consensus of modern Enoch scholars is that it is overly simplistic to conclude that texts such as BG were merely sectarian rewrites of Bible stories.

For one thing, it should be remembered that, as André Lemaire observes, “accepted texts” such as the books of the Bible as we think of them today simply did not exist at the time the Dead Sea Scrolls were copied.[50] For this and other reasons, current biblical scholarship is increasingly giving way to methods that require, as John Reeves and Annette Yoshiko Reed describe, “a shift away from the older scholarly obsession with ‘origins’ whereby the study of scriptures often focused on the recovery of hypothetical sources behind them.”[51] Instead, those who copied the Dead Sea Scrolls drew on “a rich reservoir or revered tales, ancestral folklore, and tribal traditions about the pre-Deluge era” that was much more extensive and ancient than the later edited, abridged, and harmonized books available in the Bible and collections of pseudepigrapha that have survived to the present day.[52] An adequate study of relationships among these texts should be focused more on “interdiscursivity” rather than mere “intertextuality”[53] (in the more simplistic sense that the latter term is sometimes used today).

Trying to make sense of the connections between the Aramaic BG, the Manichaean BG, and certain passages in medieval Jewish midrash, John C. Reeves argues that it is[54]

plausible to assume that these stories are . . . textual expressions of an early exegetical tradition circulating in learned groups during the Second Temple era. One version appeared in Aramaic at Qumran and was presumably the version later studied and adapted by Mani. Another version of the same tradition recurs in Hebrew in the Middle Ages. Still other versions (if not one of the two aforementioned [Page 107]ones) apparently influenced Islamic exegetes of the Qur’anic passage regarding the sins of Harut and Marut.[55]

Can BG be explained as a kind of “rewritten 1 Enoch”?

The skepticism of scholars such as Reeves, Reed, and Lemaire about characterizing works such as BG as part of a “rewritten Bible” further extends to doubts about the idea of BG being a “rewritten 1 Enoch,” in addition to the considerations raised above, it should be remembered that BG was “very popular at Qumran,” seemingly more popular than 1 Enoch itself.[56] Besides being the most popular Enoch book at Qumran, BG is arguably also the oldest extant Enoch manuscript found anywhere.[57] Thus, according to Enoch scholar George Nickelsburg, BG helps us to “reconstruct the literary shapes of the early stages of the Enochic tradition.”[58] For these and additional reasons, BG is a document that should “be taken seriously in its own right,”[59] rather than seen merely as an intriguingly anomalous yet on-the-whole insignificant afterclap of 1 Enoch.

In summary, caution should also be exercised in assuming any direct dependence at all of BG on 1 Enoch. Indeed, André Lemaire concludes that it is a bad idea to begin with to try and assimilate BG to 1 Enoch because “these two literary traditions are different and have had a different literary posterity.”[60] The fact that BG (discovered in 1948 and the source of many of the most significant resemblances to Moses 6–7) owes relatively little to the Bible and 1 Enoch (the sources most often cited by those who think Joseph Smith was inspired by sources and ideas available to him in the nineteenth century) also lends support to the argument that the Enoch account in the Book of Moses is not simply a rewritten or expanded version of the Bible or 1 Enoch.

BG’s reliance on independent Mesopotamian traditions

Having concluded that BG is not primarily dependent on the Bible and 1 Enoch, some scholars have argued that Daniel, 1 Enoch, and BG independently draw on some “common tradition(s)” that are older than any of the three texts.[61] In at least some cases, BG seems to have preserved such traditions “in an earlier form”[62] than the other two. Intriguingly, Joseph Angel has concluded from his review of the evidence that BG “preserves only the remains of a complex allegory, whose original referents cannot be recovered.”[63]

Both the antiquity and unique nature of certain elements of BG traditions can be better understood by looking “for the original of BG in [Page 108]an eastern diaspora”[64]—that is, ancient Mesopotamia. This conclusion is reinforced by more general observations of Dead Sea Scrolls scholars such as Ida Frölich that, “like the majority of Aramaic texts found in Qumran, the Enochic collection indicates a conspicuous Mesopotamian influence.”[65] Seth L. Sanders has written at length about how physical transmission of ideas from scribal cultures from Babylon to Judea took place historically, with the common use of Aramaic as the key modality of exchange.[66]

More specifically, the Mesopotamian names in BG, not found elsewhere in the pre-Christian Enoch traditions, include Gilgamesh, the hero of the ancient epic by that name. The Gilgamesh epic is reputed by some to be the second oldest religious text currently known, rooted in Sumerian precursors that are dated to about 2100 BCE.[67] Going beyond previous analyses, Matthew Goff has provided a reconstruction of the plot of BG, arguing that the text “creatively appropriates” not only names but also narrative “motifs” from the Gilgamesh epic.[68] That the scribes were very capable of such appropriation is consistent with arguments that they belonged to a sophisticated class of individuals. For example, Daniel A. Machiela has concluded that the Aramaic texts at Qumran “represent the literary achievement of a highly learned, well-trained Jewish scribal group (loosely conceived), which wrote in an adept, literary Aramaic marked by a few notable dialectical features.”[69] Of interest is the fact that in these Aramaic texts the God of Israel “is always called by more generic titles like God, Most High, or Lord of Eternity, and is never referred to by the Tetragrammaton.”[70] “As opposed to the sectarian Hebrew texts at Qumran, the Aramaic cluster was intended for a wide Israelite audience, in diverse geographic locations.”[71]

In short, the seeming origins for some of the Enoch traditions in BG in ancient Mesopotamia, the antiquity and popularity of BG at Qumran, and its divergences from 1 Enoch—the only substantive ancient Enoch text published in English by 1830—make it a comparative text of singular importance for those interested in the possibility of ancient threads in the Enoch chapters of the Book of Moses.

Now, some additional context about BG that will be helpful in appreciating the detailed comparative analysis that will follow.

[Page 109]3. Some Things to Know about BG

There are no “giants” in the Book of Giants

A first thing to know is that there are no “giants” in the Book of Giants. The word translated as “giants” is gibborim, better translated as “mighty heroes” or “warriors.”[72] As Frölich makes clear, “there is no sign that these beings had a mixed—human and animal—nature. The name gibborim [often mistakenly translated as “giants” in modern translations] refers to their state (armed, mighty men), not their stature which is described as gigantic in a single passage [in the ancient Enoch literature].[73] The term . . . does not involve the idea of a superhuman or gigantic stature. It was the Greek translation that introduced a term (gigantes)[74] involving the notion of superhuman stature.”[75]

This is important to understand because BG, like the Book of Moses, is mainly concerned with Enoch’s dealings with wicked people, the all-too-human gibborim. Both BG and the Book of Moses differ in this respect from 1 Enoch’s Book of the Watchers, which relates Enoch’s dealings with wicked superhumans, fallen angels with a fantastical physical form.

At some point, the terms gibborim and nephilim (the latter term originally used to refer to what seems to have been a remnant of a race of “giants”) were also equated in some contexts, leading to further confusion.[76] Consistent with this distinction between two different groups, the Book of Moses Enoch account specifically differentiates “giants” (nephilim?) from Enoch’s principal adversaries (gibborim?).[77] However, unlike BG (which sees the gibborim as the offspring of fallen angels called the Watchers[78]), the Book of Moses (like the writings of some prominent early Christian exegetes[79]) depicts Enoch’s adversaries as mere mortals. And rather than interpreting the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:4 as inhabitants of the divine realm, as is commonly done in the pseudepigraphic literature, the Book of Moses portrays them as the covenant posterity of Adam who have had that title bestowed on them by virtue of having received the fulness of the priesthood.[80]

[Page 110]

Figure 5. Fragmentary lion-hunting scene from Uruk, ca. 3200 BCE, on display at the Iraq Museum in Baghdad, Iraq. The scene shows “a bearded figure wearing a diadem that appears twice; one at the top killing a lion with a spear and once below killing lions with bow and arrow.”[81]

Stories of gibborim were critiques of Mesopotamian culture

A second thing to know is that BG contains a critique of Mesopotamian civilization, a parody of the near neighbors of the Israelites in the east. While Mesopotamian legends relate stories that tell of the mighty deeds of their great sages and cultural heroes, BG describes the gibborim as arrogant warriors obsessed with their hunting prowess and with human bloodshed.[82] According to Ronald Hendel, the primeval history in Genesis propounds a negative view of “the human propensity toward evil and violence,” specifically conveying “a cultural critique of Mesopotamia, whose kings were the dominant powers over Israel and Judah at the time of the crystallization of the traditions and texts in Genesis 1–11”:

According to the Hebrew Bible, history comes out of Mesopotamia, but it was a dubious and shameful history. . . . The ancient past in these stories offers implicit commentary on Mesopotamian civilization and empire in the present, colored by transgression, hubris, and a desire to rebel.[83]

If we examine what seem to be Jewish caricatures and parodies as critiques of Mesopotamian culture in BG within a broader context than [Page 111]those specifically provided by the Gilgamesh epic, possibilities for a bigger picture begin to come into better focus.[84] For example, previous in-depth studies of recurring appearances and echoes of various peoples that were called gibborim in the biblical era allow us to understand the general social and geographic settings of Enoch’s prediluvial mission in BG and the Book of Moses in more specificity.[85] For the present, abbreviated discussion and analysis of the Hebrew word gibbor itself provides a starting point to prime our intuitions. “Etymologically, with its doubled middle consonant,” writes Gregory Mobley, “gibbor is an intensive form of geber, ‘man.’ In this regard, as masculinity squared, gibbor roughly compares to the English compound ‘he-man.’”[86] And in what manly qualities was a gibbor expected to excel? Brian R. Doak summarizes a relevant aspect of his sociolinguistic analysis of the culture of the gibborim in biblical times as follows:

As human-like embodiments of that which is wild and untamed, the biblical [gibbor] takes on the role of “wild man,” “freak,” and “elite adversary” for heroic displays of fighting prowess.[87]

The biblical reference to Nimrod as the first gibbor[88] immediately brings to mind the earlier evocation of the “gibborim of old” in Genesis 6:4, and it is noteworthy that the Bible provides here a prototype of all gibborim in the figure of Nimrod. Though the text does not make it obvious that Nimrod is a “giant,” some lines of interpretation suggest that Nimrod was thought to be something greater than an ordinary human.[89] In his biblical role, Nimrod is presented to us as a proud archetype of Mesopotamian civilization that is later described and satirized in capsule fashion within the Genesis 11 story of the Tower of Babel.[90] From a geographic perspective, it does not seem to be a coincidence that the “land of righteousness” (Moses 6:41) of Adam, Seth, and Enoch is meant to be situated in the west, while both the land of Nimrod (which roughly equates to the land of Shinar, where the Tower of Babel was built) and the land of the wicked gibborim are said to be located eastward.[91] This picture is consistent with the symbolic geography of BG and Moses 6–7 that is discussed later in the chapter.

The echoes of Nimrod’s hubris in Jewish traditions about the gibborim extend to the gibborim’s similar refusal to accept God as their master. Nimrod, like the opponents of Enoch and Noah, is presented as the spiritual progenitor of those who sought to make a name for themselves[92] by building the Tower of Babel. In the gibborim culture [Page 112]portrayed in Genesis, as in the culture of “heroes” throughout much of secular history,

flesh is elevated above spirit, and the “name” of humanity is elevated above the “name” of God. In contrast to these heroes [stand Noah and Enoch], who [are] unique because [they have] found favor in the eyes of God.[93] [They do] not achieve a “name” through strength and power, but through [their] relationship with God.[94]

While these broad, tentative conclusions about the possible shared Mesopotamian background, geography, and attitudes about the gibborim culture of BG, Genesis 6 and 11, and Moses 6–7 are necessarily conjectural, we will soon see that they are not inconsistent with the descriptions of the cast of selected characters in BG and the Book of Moses that we will now describe in more detail below.

4. Comparison of Selected Names and Characters in BG and the Book of Moses

One of the unique features of BG is that, “in contrast to other known contemporary Jewish apocalyptic literature, [it] actually provides names for some of the [gibborim].”[95] Table 1 presents some of the most prominent members of the cast of characters in BG, grouped into rough categories that highlight their co-occurrences in other ancient pre-Christian texts/traditions and in the Book of Moses. Grouping the names in this fashion helps us gain insight into the rationale for why they may have been included in BG. In brief, I will argue that the redactor(s) of BG employed a strategy resembling the Victorian bridal custom of “something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue”[96] as they selected or invented named characters to enrich the version of the story they inherited. The result is a broad panoply of names—some more and some less historically plausible—that served to advance their literary aims. By process of elimination, a closer examination of these names will throw light on the question of which of them provide the most promising evidence of historically plausible elements within BG and Moses 6–7. I discuss these names and characters by category below. A more extensive discussion of a few of the prominent names in BG and the Book of Moses has been published elsewhere.[97]

[Page 113]Table 1. Prominent names in Book of Giants

and co-occurrences in other texts

Name

1 Enoch

Mesopotamian

Genesis

Moses 6–7

’Ohyah

Hahyah

Shemiḥazah

X

Baraq’el

X

Gilgamesh

X

Ḥobabish

Ḥumbaba[98]

Enoch

X

Enmeduranki?

X

X

Mahaway

maḫḫû?

Mehujael?

Mahijah/Mahujah?

’Ohyah and Hahyah

Meaning of the names. Enoch scholars have suggested that ʾOhyah (ʾWHYH) and Hahyah (HHYH) were intended as plays on the Hebrew verb “to be” (HYH) or, perhaps, on the Tetragrammaton, the Hebrew name of the Lord (YHWH).[99] The specific proposal that the names ʾOhyah and Hahyah were inserted in BG as wordplay is consistent with a long history of analogous patterns across many different cultures and traditions.[100] In these traditions, the two names relevant to the ones used in BG have always been presented as a pair[101]—indeed, very often as a pair of twins with rhyming names. When described as a single unit, as they so often are, they are variously labeled as “demonic twins,” “angels twain,” “two youths,” and so forth.[102]

Roles of the characters in BG. In BG, we are given a more complete portrait of ʾOhyah and Hahyah than for most of the other named characters in the text. Besides the probable origin of their names, their similar roles are distinctive within the account. For example, ʾOhyah and Hahyah are depicted as deceitful,[103] ineffectual quarrelers,[104] dreamers,[105] and worriers[106]—doppelgängers afflicted with nagging doppelträumes. Despite being a member of the group that commissioned Mahaway to inquire of Enoch, ʾOhyah rejects the answer Mahaway brings back out of hand.[107] In their appointed role, ʾOhyah and Hahyah seem almost to be sketched with the pen of a skilled caricaturist who has introduced a measure of comic relief that both pervades the larger narrative and persists in the very details of their Tweedledum- and Tweedledee-like [Page 114]names. Like Hergé’s Dupond and Dupont, part of the silliness of the two brothers is in the paradoxical fact that their “most singular quality is what is common to them,”[108] a feature that is most obvious in the tellings of their two complementary dreams.

Figure 6. Painting of the Uygur Manichaean-Buddhist mural of the three-trunked “Jewel Tree” from Bezeklik Thousand Buddha Caves, Cave no. 25 (no. 38 in the modern Chinese numbering system), Flaming Mountains, China, ninth–tenth century.[109] For many years, scholars mistakenly interpreted the tree as portraying an element of the dream of the gibborim in the Book of Giants, where the flourishing tree with three trunks was seen as representing the idea that only Noah and his three sons would escape the Flood.[110]

Co-occurrences in other texts. In contrast to other BG characters, no mention is made of ʾOhyah and Hahyah in other ancient literature of the pre-Christian era, suggesting the likelihood that they are ad hoc inventions of the BG author(s). Moreover, while story characters equivalent to ʾOhyah and Hahyah appear in derivative medieval Jewish[111] and Islamic[112] accounts of the two dreamers, characters with names relating to Mahaway, Gilgamesh, or Ḥumbaba go conspicuously unmentioned in these late accounts. This fact highlights the virtual inseparability of ʾOhyah and Hahyah, as well as their literary independence from Mahaway, Gilgamesh, and Ḥumbaba.

Summary conjecture. These two late-appearing names do not appear to stem from ancient Enoch traditions, but rather seem to have been invented and inserted in the story for literary purposes.

[Page 115]Shemiḥazah and Baraq’el

Meaning of the names. Michael Langlois suggests that Shemiḥazah’s name was associated with a name of God (perhaps adding support for Stuckenbruck’s proposal of a theophoric –yāh termination in the names of Shemiḥazah’s sons ʾOhyah and Hahyah[113]). Langlois interprets the name as “Shem sees” (i.e., “the Name sees),”[114] in which “the Name” refers to God. According to George Nickelsburg, the name “may be an ironic anticipation of the motif of God’s seeing the sins committed on earth. . . . In the very name that the angelic chieftain bears is the recognition that his sin will be found out.”[115] Thus Shemiḥazah’s name, like that of his two sons, appears to be an object of wordplay.[116]

Baraq’el means “lightning of God,”[117] referring to his role in 1 Enoch in teaching the mysteries of the signs of lightning flashes.[118]

Roles of the characters in BG. Both characters play minor roles in extant fragments of BG, and very little is said about them. Shemiḥazah is portrayed as a leader of Enoch’s adversaries: Enoch’s missive to the gibborim is addressed specifically to “Shemiḥazah and all [his] co[mpanions].”[119] As mentioned above, he is the father of ʾOhyah and Hahyah.[120] Baraq’el, on the other hand, is described as the father of Mahaway.[121]

Co-occurrences in other texts. In contrast to the small role given them in BG, these two characters are well represented in 1 Enoch.

Figure 7. Daniel Chester (1850–1931): The Sons of God Saw the Daughters of Men That They Were Fair, ca. 1923.[122]

There Baraq’el is said to be one of the twenty fallen Watchers, who are there listed by name.[123] Specifically, Baraq’el is said to be the ninth chief,[124] serving under the leader of the fallen Watchers, Shemiḥazah. Shemiḥazah and Baraq’el are said to have descended on Mount Hermon, [Page 116]where they “swore together and bound one another with a curse”[125] after they determined that they would “choose . . . wives from the daughters of men.”[126] Elsewhere in 1 Enoch, we learn the secrets that each of the heads of the Watchers revealed to humankind,[127] and we read of their responsibilities in the governing of the seven heavens.[128]

Summary conjecture. In contrast to the singular appearance of ʾOhyah and Hahyah, Shemiḥazah and Baraq’el are prominent in other early Enoch literature. Though these and other fallen Watchers play a relatively minor role in BG, their presence seems to give a tip of the hat to older, common Enoch traditions that seem to lie behind both BG and 1 Enoch. They seem best conceived as representative literary types rather than unique historical characters.

Gilgamesh and Ḥobabish

Meaning of the names. Gilgamesh was the name of a legendary king of Uruk in the land of Sumer. He “appears in the list of Sumerian kings” and would have “flourished about 2750 BC.”[129] The Epic of Gilgamesh has been aptly characterized as “fictional royal biography.”[130] In the epic, Gilgamesh is described a gigantic figure who is two-thirds divine and one-third human.[131]

Figure 8. a. Indus Valley civilization “Gilgamesh” seal showing a “Master of Animals” motif—a figure between two tigers (2500–1500 BCE);[132] b. Head of Ḥumbaba, second millennium BCE.[133]

Scholars have concluded that the name Ḥobabish is not of Hebrew origin. Rather, its first two syllables (Ḥobab) are related to the name of a second character from the Gilgamesh epic, Ḥumbaba. In the epic, Ḥumbaba is a gigantic monster with the face of a lion, a foe of humankind who guards the Cedar Forest. Wordplay on the name of Ḥobabish in BG [Page 117]suggests that he roared or howled with a “sound that is fitting for an animal.”[134]

Roles of the characters in BG. Scholarly consensus about a difficult passage in BG suggests that it is Gilgamesh who complains about his ignominious defeat at the hands of “all flesh,”[135] which suggests (for readers of the Book of Moses, at least) the victory of Enoch and his people against their adversaries.[136] Gilgamesh also responds to ʾOhyah’s mention of the latter’s frightening dream.[137] Later ʾOhyah mentions Gilgamesh when he recounts to others what the latter had said.[138]

Only one or possibly two fragments of BG refer to Ḥobabish. In the first, the context suggests a negative reaction from Ḥobabish when he hears what ʾOhyah said about his conversation with Gilgamesh.[139] If the second mention of Ḥobabish is properly restored from the fragment in which it seems to appear, it seems he was also involved in a plan to murder some of his fellows.[140]

Co-occurrences in other texts. As mentioned above, both figures are prominent in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Significantly, BG is the only early Enoch text to refer to them. Although both names have Mesopotamian roots and narrative motifs from the famous story are apparent in BG,[141] “it is less evident whether on this basis one can maintain that the Book of Giants is familiar with the Gilgamesh Epic itself.”[142]

Summary conjecture. Stuckenbruck, following Reeves, suggests that “the author(s) of the Book of Giants have . . . integrated the names of such ‘pagan actors’ from the Epic [of Gilgamesh] into the storyline in order to communicate ‘a bold polemical thrust against the revered traditions of a rival culture.’”[143] Matthew Goff differs from Stuckenbruck and Reeves, arguing that “the core goal of the composition is to portray the ante-diluvian giants as evil and recount their exploits and punishment, not to polemicize against the Gilgamesh epic, or [anyone or anything else]. The text creatively appropriates motifs from the epic and makes Gilgamesh a character in his own right.”[144] In either case, the inclusion of the names Gilgamesh and Ḥobabish would seem to advance the redactor(s)’ interests by reinforcing the reader’s association of the tale with the perceived hubris of the Mesopotamian hero culture.

Enoch and Mahaway

Meaning of the names. Our discussion of Enoch (Enmeduranki?) and Mahaway (maḫḫû? Mehujael? Mahijah?) will necessarily be more extensive than that of the previous sets of names. For an in-depth discussion of the BG name Mahaway and possible relationships to [Page 118]Mehujael in Genesis 6:4 and Mahijah/Mahujah in the Book of Moses, the reader is referred to a previously published article by the author, Matthew L. Bowen, and Ryan Dahle.[145] If, as argued eloquently by David Calabro, the names Mahijah and Mahujah were translated from a Greek source text for the Book of Moses written by early Christians, they “could have been rendered from their original Semitic forms, . . . just as the translators of the King James Bible used the forms “Abraham” and “Bethlehem” in the New Testament instead of the Greek forms “Abraam” and “Bethleem.”[146]

Elsewhere Bowen has written about the meaning of the name Enoch:

Significantly, Enoch (Henoch or Hanoch, Heb. ḥănôk) sounds identical to the Hebrew passive participle of the verbal root ḥnk, “train up” [or] “dedicate.”[147] Thus, for a Hebrew speaker, the name ḥănôk/Enoch would evoke “trained up” or “initiated”—bringing to mind not only the general role of a teacher, but also the idea of someone who was familiar with the temple and could train and initiate others as a hierophant. Before it became the name of the post-Mosaic Feast of Dedication, the Hebrew noun ḥănukkâ had reference to the “consecration” or “dedication” of the temple altar (Numbers 7:10–11, 84, 88), including the sacred dedication of the altar for Solomon’s temple.[148] Strengthening the connection of Enoch’s name to the temple, we note that in Egyptian, the ḥnk verbal root denotes to “present s[ome]one” with something, to “offer s[ome]thing” or, without a direct object, to “make an offering.”[149] The Egyptian nouns ḥnk and ḥnkt denote “offerings.”[150] In other words, it is a cultic term with reference to cultic offerings.[151]

It should also be mentioned that an Enoch-like figure is described in a tablet found at Nineveh, which can be dated before 1100 BCE.[152] It tells of how Enmeduranki of Sippar, the seventh king of Sumer (before ca. 2900 BCE) was received by the gods Šamaš and Adad. According to Andrei Orlov, Enoch

is depicted in several roles that reveal striking similarities to Enmeduranki. Just like his Mesopotamian counterpart, the patriarch is skilled in the art of divination, being able to receive and interpret mantic dreams. He is depicted as an elevated figure who is initiated into the heavenly secrets by celestial beings, including the angels and God himself.[153] He then brings this celestial knowledge back to earth and, similar [Page 119]to the king Enmeduranki, shares it with the people and with his son.[154]

Figure 9. Enoch ascends to heaven. British Library, MS Cotton Claudius B fol. 11v.[155]

The conjecture of a linkage between Enoch and traditions about Enmeduranki suggests the possibility of considerably more ancient roots for Enoch accounts than currently found in Jewish texts or hinted at in in the Gilgamesh epic.

In summary, whatever else one believes, it seems certain that Enoch was not invented out of whole cloth at Qumran.

With respect to the name Mahaway, I begin by observing that the vowels in the English transliteration of the Book of Giants name MHWY are largely a matter of conjecture at present, since no vowels appear in the Aramaic text. Compounding the difficulty for nonspecialists in recognizing similarities and differences in the spellings of ancient names is the fact that translators differ in their English transliteration. For example, the English letters j, y, and i are variously used to represent the Semitic letter yod. Thus, in English translations of the Book of Giants, we see several variants of the same name: Mahaway[156] (the most commonly used), Mahawai,[157] Mahway,[158] and Mahuy[159]—or Mahuj, with the y transliterated with a j, as is frequently done with other names containing a yod in the King James Bible.

[Page 120]In discussing Mahaway, we should also consider the seemingly related names Mahijah/Mahujah from the Book of Moses and Mehujael in Genesis 6:4. Regarding Mahijah and Mahujah, we have English versions of the names containing vowels, but it is impossible to tell from the English text alone whether the second consonant in the names would have been written anciently as the equivalent of an H (as in the Book of Giants) or an Ḥ (as in Genesis 4:18). In other words, if we assume an ancient equivalent of the English name Mahijah, it could have been written either as MHYY or MḤYY. Likewise, Mahujah could have been written as MHWY or MḤWY.

Figure 10. Fragment of the Qumran Book of Giants (4Q203) that was understood by Milik and Black to contain the first part of the personal name Mahaway (outlined by a rectangle in the upper left of the photograph).[160] BYU professor Hugh Nibley was the first to argue that Mahaway (MHWY) is related to Mahijah (MHYY or MḤYY)[161] and Mahujah (MHWY or MḤWY)[162] in the Book of Moses.[163]

With respect to the similar name Mehujael, twice mentioned in Genesis 4:18, the Hebrew text spells the archaic name differently in each instance. In other words, though the name is spelled the same way both times in English (Mehujael), in Hebrew it is spelled once as Mehujael (MḤWY-EL) and once as Mehijael (MḤYY-EL).[164] Notably, on one hand, the Book of Moses names resemble the two Hebrew versions of the name in Genesis 4:18 in that both a “u” and an “i” variant of the name exist. However, on the other hand, the Book of Moses names are both similar to the Book of Giants name in that they omit the “-EL” ending found in Genesis 4:18.

[Page 121]With regard to the meaning of Mahaway, Stuckenbruck has simply repeated the previous suggestion of Milik and Nickelsburg about ʾOhyah and Hahyah with a slight variation, concluding that, in the case of Mahaway (MHWY), “perhaps some derivation from the Aramaic verb ‘to be’ (HWY) in conjunction with a mem prefix is not impossible.”[165] The laconic nature of his conclusion, including both a “perhaps” and a “not impossible,” is noteworthy. Differing from his predecessors, Stuckenbruck cited the possibility of wordplay on the Tetragrammaton only in connection with ʾOhyah and Hahyah, not Mahujah.[166] The lack of evidence for wordplay leaves the reader bereft of a rationale for why the author of the Book of Giants would have invented the name Mahaway from scratch rather than adopting an already-known name from earlier traditions, as he did in the case of other characters such as Gilgamesh.

Why else might Stuckenbruck have been reluctant to commit himself to a derivation? Overwhelmingly, names in the ancient Near East and in ancient Israel follow rules of name formation. Though it is true that the name MHWY might putatively match a participial Aphel form of the Aramaic HWY (meaning “to create or cause to be”), there is a paucity of attested Aphel forms in the relevant literature. Thus, Stuckenbruck is even more diffident than Milik and Nickelsburg, suggesting that “the meaning of the name Mahaway . . . is impossible to decipher with any confidence,” speculatively offering only that “perhaps . . . the name includes a derivation from the Aramaic verb ‘to be’ [HWY] in conjunction with a mem prefix.”[167] Evidently, Stuckenbruck is not willing on the basis of available evidence to commit to a nominal or a (participial) verbal form.

As with the BG name Mahaway, the etymology of the biblical name Mehujael remains uncertain. As Richard Hess observes, “It is generally agreed that Mehujael is composed of two elements, the second of which is ʾl,’ ‘god;’ [sic] but the first element is generally disputed.”[168]

In attempting to shed further light on the meaning of Mehujael, it can be said with certainty that the name Mehujael is older, perhaps much older, than the biblical text of Genesis as we have it today. If one limits an investigation of Mehujael to possible West Semitic etymologies, “West Semitic mḥʾ, ‘to smite,’ and a participial form of ḥyh, ‘to live’” are the most viable options for the disputed first element.[169] However, limiting our search to West Semitic etymologies is an unreasonable requirement, since the ultimate origin of Mehujael and Mahaway seems at least as likely to be East Semitic as West Semitic. For example, although Ronald [Page 122]Hendel narrowly considers only Hebrew onomastics for the name Mehujael,[170] Nahum Sarna[171] and Richard Hess,[172] following Umberto Cassuto,[173] suggest that the name might be explained on the basis of the Akkadian maḫḫû, denoting “a certain class of priests and seers.”[174]

Further strengthening Cassuto’s argument for the derivation of the name is the agreement he finds in the word behind Mehujael (maḫḫû), the name of Mehujael’s son Methusael (a name that is “analogous not only in form but also in meaning”[175]), and the name of Mehujael’s grandson Lamech, which Cassuto sees as likely to have come from the Mesopotamian word lumakku, also signifying a certain class of priests.[176] Significantly, Hess reports that while the root lmk is unknown in West Semitic, it is found both in third millennium BCE personal names and in names from Mari in Old Babylon in the early second millennium BCE.[177]

That the name Mahijah is the only name preserved in Moses 6–7 besides Enoch the prophet is evidence of Mahijah’s importance to the story. Similarly, Loren Stuckenbruck underlines the importance of Mahaway to both the Qumran and Manichaean versions of the Book of Giants. He observes a notable pattern of preservation in Chinese Manichaean fragments of the Book of Giants, which includes names of other individuals besides Mahawai that are, for one reason or another, significantly altered. Especially given the potential for “instances in which onomastic changes [i.e., changes in characters’ names] may have been due to the change of the language media,” Stuckenbruck is impressed with the “straightforward correspondence between the name(s) Mahawai in the Manichaean texts and Mahaway in the Aramaic [Book of Giants], in which the character, acting in a mediary role, encounters Enoch ‘the scribe.’”[178]

In summary, Enoch and Mahaway seem to differ from the other names that have been considered previously not only because there is no known literary motivation for their appearance in BG but also because both names have a plausible ancient Mesopotamian prehistory.

Roles of the characters in BG. Regarding the figure of Enoch in BG, scholars have observed that in the Aramaic BG, as in 1 Enoch, the prophet is portrayed exclusively as a remote figure “dwelling . . . with the angels”[179] at “the ends of the earth, on which the heaven rests, and the gates of heaven open.”[180] He seems to communicate exclusively through Mahaway, the messenger of the gibborim. And, once Enoch’s presence has been “veiled” after his heavenly ascent,[181] even Mahaway is not in a position to see him in his transfigured state; they communicate only by [Page 123]voice.[182] Enoch, as befits one whose traditional role in heaven is scribal, writes missives of revelation and judgment that Mahaway brings back to the gibborim. But, asks Wilkens,[183] if it were true that Enoch could never communicate directly with the gibborim, what do we make of BG fragments that indicate he taught at least some of the gibborim directly?[184] This seeming inconsistency poses no problem for the Book of Moses, which includes an account of Enoch’s preaching mission to the gibborim before his heavenly ascent, as I will discuss in more detail below. For the present, I will simply suggest that Enoch’s role in both BG and the Book of Moses in reproving and preaching to the gibborim is undertaken at first from earth and then from heaven.

As to the role of Mahaway, note that his primary role seems to be that of a serious-minded, message-bringing mediator.[185] He seems to enjoy a unique relationship with Enoch, which seems to be one of the reasons why he is chosen by his peers as an envoy. More will be said about this below.

Co-occurrences in other texts. As seen in table 1, Enoch figures prominently not only in 1 Enoch, Genesis, and the Book of Moses but also in Mesopotamian texts, if one takes Enmeduranki traditions as being relevant.

With respect to the BG name Mahaway, there is currently no compelling reason why the Book of Giants name Mahaway (MHWY) could not have been related at some point in its history to the King James Bible name elements Mehuja- and Mehija- (MḤWY- and MḤYY-) and to the Book of Moses names Mahujah (MHWY/MḤWY) and Mahijah (MHYY/MḤYY). The rationale for this conclusion is more fully explained elsewhere.[186]

Provisional conclusion. As a literary figure, Mahaway is unique among all the characters of BG discussed above. Unlike ʾOhyah and Hahyah, there has been no strong argument to date for his name having been introduced into BG for the purpose of wordplay. In contrast to Shemiḥazah and Baraq’el, the appearance of Mahaway in the story could not have been motivated by a desire to link BG with currently known early Enoch traditions. Differing from Gilgamesh and Ḥobabish, the name is absent from the Gilgamesh epic and thus could not have been intended to provide Mesopotamian flavor to BG through well-pedigreed associations with that literature. All this helps us understand why the only two names mentioned both in the Book of Moses Enoch account (Enoch and Mahijah/Mahujah) and in BG (Enoch and Mahaway) stand out so distinctly from the other names.

[Page 124]Does the lack of a literary motive for the inclusion of Mahaway in BG make the alternative that the name was introduced, like Enoch, as part of a more ancient Enoch tradition more likely? When such a conjecture is added to the fact of Enoch’s possible connection to Enmeduranki and plausible origins of Mahaway as a name with ancient East Semitic roots, it becomes easier to lend credence to the suggestion that, of all the names mentioned in BG, Enoch and Mahaway may be the two most likely to share some basis in historical—rather than merely literary—traditions about Enoch. Of course, the ultimate basis for the acceptance of scripture lies in faith and divinely provided testimony, and the argument for the historicity of the scriptural characters can never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by an appeal to textual or archaeological evidence. However, evidential support for the antiquity of relevant names for Enoch and Mahaway/Mahijah/Mahujah in a milieu that is compatible with the scriptural setting and is otherwise consistent with ancient narrative motifs that parallel the scripture account creates additional space for rational belief in the material existence of ancient individuals that once stood behind both names.

In short, of all the prominent names in BG, Enoch and Mahijah/Mahaway, the only two names that appear in the Enoch story of the Book of Moses, also seem to be the most historically plausible.

Continuing with this line of argument, I will now show how storyline similarities and thematic resemblances to Moses 6–7 in BG draw on allusions to Mesopotamian culture and the distinctive name and role of Mahaway that I have already described to provide a somewhat faint but surprisingly coherent picture of shared narrative elements that seems to lie behind both Moses 6–7 and BG.

5. Comparing the Storyline of Moses 6–7 to BG and Other Enoch Texts

Table 2. Similarities and differences in major storyline elements

among BG, Moses 6–7, and other ancient Enoch literature

Simplified Outline

Major Storyline Elements

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

Other Enoch Texts

Introductory Events

History of the Sons of God/Watchers and Their Progeny

X

X

X

[Page 125]Call of Enoch

X

X

Violence and Secret Oaths/Mysteries

X

X

X

Dreams and Antics of ’Ohyah and Hahyah

X

First Visit to Enoch

Mahijah/Mahaway Encounters Enoch

X

X

Enoch’s Call to Repentance

X

X

Messianic Teachings of Enoch

X

X

Dreams and Quarreling of ’Ohyah and Hahyah; Mahaway Sent to Enoch

X

Second Visit to Enoch

Mahujah/Mahaway and Enoch in a Sacred Place

X

X

Enoch Clothed in Glory

X

X

Parting of the Ways

Wicked Defeated in Battle

X

X

Repentant Gathered

X

X

Concluding Events

Enoch’s Grand Vision

X

X

Enoch’s People Are Taken Up to Heaven

X

X

X

The table above summarizes the results of an investigation to understand which of the major storyline elements of the Book of Moses are included in BG and other ancient Enoch literature. Of course, elements absent in surviving Qumran and Manichaean fragments of BG may be present in nonextant fragments. For example, most scholars have concluded that BG originally contained an account of a first visit of Mahaway to Enoch, which would seem to correspond to the first visit of Mahijah to Enoch in the Book of Moses, even though a BG account of Mahaway’s first visit does not occur explicitly in the text. More on that subject in a later section below.

[Page 126]In the table, three types of storyline elements are distinguished: (1) those that are part of what we are calling the “narrative core,” shown in normal typeface; (2) those that contain material relating to sacred teachings, heavenly encounters, or rituals, the kinds of events that David Calabro has highlighted in his paper in this volume,[187] shown in bold; and (3) those that are unique to BG, appearing neither in Moses 6–7 nor anywhere else in the ancient Enoch literature, shown in italics.

Unexpected patterns in the table

The table exhibits some unexpected patterns:

- At least one fragment of every narrative storyline element of the Book of Moses is also present within BG (normal typeface). Notwithstanding significant differences in specifics, the basic storylines of both texts can be seen as sharing a similar focus and outcome. The BG account seems to begin with a brief reference to the Watchers that corresponds structurally to the genealogy of the righteous descendants of Adam who are called “sons of God” at the beginning of the Book of Moses Enoch account. But following this short introductory intrusion of the Watchers mythology into the BG story, there quickly follows—in sharp contrast to the Book of the Watchers in 1 Enoch—what Stuckenbruck calls a “most significant . . . shift of the spotlight from the disobedient angels”[188] to the gibborim, who remain the focus in the remainder of the BG account.[189] And as to the most significant outcome of the texts, the common concern of both BG and the Book of Moses Enoch account is ultimately the fate of the gibborim—proud self-styled human heroes—who either, on one hand, choose to reject Enoch’s message and are subsequently humbled by an ignominious defeat in battle or, on the other hand, choose to repent and eventually gather to a divinely prepared place from which they ultimately ascend to the divine presence.

- The sacred storyline elements in the Book of Moses are left out of BG, even though they are always present in some form elsewhere in the ancient Enoch literature (shown in boldface). The surviving fragments of BG, while preserving the same basic narrative core found in the Book of Moses, omit the most sacred and esoteric details of the account, including Enoch’s call; messianic prophecies in the preaching of Enoch; Enoch’s being clothed in glory; and the sweeping contents of his grand [Page 127]apocalyptic vision. The fact that variations on all these themes are prominent elsewhere in the ancient Enoch literature makes their virtual absence in BG a surprise, though there are precedents for the preparation and selective distribution of two versions of some Jewish and early Christian texts—one version for initiates that contains hierophantic teachings and the other for novices that leaves out such information.[190] A brief discussion of each of these sacred story elements is given below and are discussed in greater length elsewhere.[191]

- Enoch’s call. In reading the account of Enoch’s call, its Johannine imagery in Moses 6:26–27 comes to mind. However, we are told by Samuel Zinner, that this seemingly New Testament imagery originally “arose in an Enochic matrix,”[192] in other words, within literary traditions concerning the prophet Enoch. No less surprising in its relevance to the ancient Enoch literature is the unexpected co-occurrence of references to Enoch as a “lad” when he receives his prophetic commission in Moses 6:31 when seen in light of the prominence of “lad” as a title for the prophet in 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, and the Mandaean Ginza.[193] Additionally, the opening of Enoch’s eyes so he could see things “not visible to the natural eye” (Moses 6:36) is mentioned in 1 Enoch[194] and 2 Enoch.[195] Perhaps most remarkably, the fulfillment of the promise made to Enoch at his call that he would be able to “turn [waters] out of their course” (Moses 6:30), although appearing nowhere else in scripture, is described in the Ginza Enoch account.[196]

- Messianic titles and prophecies in the preaching of Enoch. The striking equivalents of each of the titles mentioned in Moses 6:57—”Only Begotten,” “Son of Man,” “Jesus Christ,” and “Righteous Judge”—are described in the pre-Christian Book of Similitudes in 1 Enoch[197] and related Jewish traditions. Elsewhere in S. Kent Brown and I describe these and other relevant affinities in the Second Temple Tradition to Moses 6–7.[198] In this context, it may be noteworthy that some aspects of the knowledge about the last days and the “Righteous One” revealed to Enoch in the Similitudes are explicitly mentioned as being among the “hidden things” not to be shared publicly or, in some cases, not be to be committed to writing at all.[199] (Were any of the other sacred storyline elements “missing” in BG also similarly considered?)

- [Page 128]Enoch’s being clothed in glory. The pseudepigraphic books of 2 and 3 Enoch purport to describe the process by which Enoch was “clothed upon with glory” (Moses 7:3) in more detail. As a prelude to Enoch’s introduction to the secrets of creation, both accounts describe a “two-step initiatory procedure” whereby “the patriarch was first initiated by angel(s) and after this by the Lord” Himself.[200] In 2 Enoch, God commanded his angels to “extract Enoch from (his) earthly clothing. And anoint him with my delightful oil, and put him into the clothes of my glory.”[201] Third Enoch tells us that after Enoch was changed, he resembled God so exactly that he was mistaken for Him.[202] As this process culminates, Enoch, both in ancient sources and modern scripture, receives “a right to [God’s] throne.”[203] As in other instances of sacred episodes, BG does not explicitly detail these events.

- Enoch’s grand apocalyptic vision. Compare Enoch’s grand vision in Moses 7 with the tour of heaven and vision of the future that are among the principal themes of 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, and 3 Enoch.[204] In contrast to BG, which seems to conflate Enoch’s temporary heavenly ascent during the visit of Mahaway with the event of his definitive translation to heaven, accounts in other Enoch texts make it clear that these were two separate events. In other words, while BG seems to end Enoch’s direct earthly ministry at the time of his initial ascent, other Enoch texts, consistent with the Book of Moses, have him continuing his earthly ministry afterward until the moment that he and his people rise together to the divine presence.

- The BG-unique themes notably include the dreams, antics, and quarreling of ’Ohyah and Hahyah (shown in italics). Earlier I argued that, of all the prominent names in BG, these two names are the ones that most look like they were invented out of whole cloth in BG.

Describing these patterns differently, one could summarize by saying that if you look at the vertical column for BG across all the storyline elements, you will notice that every entry is either in regular typeface or italics—none are in bold. In other words, BG contains something relating to every narrative core story element found in the Book of Moses while containing none of its sacred storyline elements, even though hints of each of the “missing” sacred elements are found in one form or anther elsewhere in the ancient Enoch literature. Indeed, [Page 129]the resemblances between Moses 6–7 and BG in the narrative core story elements are so striking that one is tempted to speculate that BG and the Book of Moses were rooted in some of the same ancient Enoch traditions but that somewhere along the line, the sacred stories now found only in the Book of Moses were either removed from the tradition inherited by the BG redactor(s) or, alternatively, were left out when BG was composed.

Other items of note

The synoptic outline makes obvious the primary bipartite division of the story of Enoch in the Book of Moses into an earth-focused mission followed by a heaven-focused commission. More specifically, while Moses 6 is primarily concerned with Enoch’s initial divine call to preach repentance and salvation to the wicked on earth, the major preoccupation of Moses 7 is Enoch’s subsequent heavenly commission as a new member of the divine council[205] and the preparation of his people to meet God face-to-face (see Moses 7:69). Analogous doubling of other themes in BG has been highlighted previously by Stuckenbruck.[206]

Finally, it should be observed that the overall tone of the BG account differs from that of Moses 6–7. Moses 6–7, though at times exploiting elements of humor and irony in its account, is generally sober in tone, is firmly rooted in the material world of humankind, and is illuminated by the apocalyptic visions of the prophet Enoch. BG, on the other hand, seems to be much more of a polemical parody on Mesopotamian gibborim culture, is occasionally tainted with the mythical elements of the Watchers, and, while missing the detail of the sacred accounts of Enoch’s call, teachings, and visions, adds the harrowing dreams of the inept, anxiety-ridden, and ultimately tragicomical characters ’Ohyah and Hahyah.

6. Detailed Analysis of Thematic Resemblances of BG to Moses 6–7

Elsewhere in the present volume, an extended discussion of approaches to address the potential pitfalls in comparative analysis has been provided.[207] The detailed analysis in the present chapter draws inspiration from Enoch scholar Loren Stuckenbruck’s study of possible influences of 1 Enoch on the New Testament book of Revelation.[208] In that study, he concluded from a discussion of a set of resemblances in both works “that the writer of [the later text] was either directly acquainted (through literary or oral transmission) with several of the major sections of [the earlier text] or at least had access to traditions that were influenced by these writings.”[209] [Page 130]Significantly, he argued for the likelihood of his conclusion, even when realizing that “at no point [could] it be demonstrated that the [later text] quotes from any passage in [the earlier text].”[210]

The primary question that motivated Stuckenbruck’s study is reasonably similar to our own, except that in our case we know that Joseph Smith could not have been acquainted with BG (since it was lost to modern scholarship until 1948), so any persuasive evidence of a literary association between the two texts would have to be interpreted as a demonstration that BG and the Book of Moses were independently influenced by similar ancient Enoch traditions that informed and antedated both of them.

In Stuckenbruck’s comparison and analysis, he provided a table for each potential resemblance. In each table there were three columns: one column describing the topic of interest common to the resemblance and the other two columns containing the seeming parallels as found in each of the two texts. Since the parallel texts were in different languages, their rendering was given in English. The table for each resemblance was followed by a brief discussion describing and analyzing the similarities and differences in the selected texts.[211]

In this section, I will do something similar for eighteen thematic resemblances of BG to Moses 6–7. By the term “thematic resemblances,” I mean instances in which reasonably similar topics of discussion occur in both texts, even when some elements and perspectives differ. The criterion of thematic similarity rather than identical vocabulary is appropriate because, like Stuckenbruck, I will be comparing two English translations. All but two of the seventeen thematic resemblances are supported by multiple sources within BG textual and visual depictions.

In the results section of the study that follows the presentation and analysis of each resemblance, we will not only consider the number of resemblances, their density, the degree of correlation in their order of appearance within the presumed BG storyline sequence (according to the current storyline sequencing conjectures of Stuckenbruck), and the range of their extent through nearly the entire storyline, but also, like Stuckenbruck, their specificity as another proxy measure of the strength of association between BG and the Latter-day Saint Enoch account. Thematic resemblances to Moses 6–7 that are exclusive to BG and the Book of Moses will be deemed stronger than ones that appear in other ancient Enoch literature, and resemblances for themes that are rare or absent outside the ancient Enoch literature will be seen as stronger than ones that also occur elsewhere within Second Temple texts and the Bible.

[Page 131]Description of the table of thematic resemblances

Eigtheen thematic resemblances are summarized in the table below. The resemblances have been sequenced with reference to the chapter-and-verse order in the Book of Moses in which they appear.[212] Specific citations of passages in Moses 6–7 and BG follow in the second and third columns.

Understanding the fourth and last column in the table requires additional explanation. By way of background, remember that a full grasp of the BG narrative is made difficult by the fact that the extant manuscripts are short and fragmentary. As a service to BG scholars, Stuckenbruck investigated the question of sequencing for the Qumran BG fragments in 1997.[213] In 2016, he updated his findings.[214] In the 2016 version of Stuckenbruck’s helpful, though necessarily tentative and speculative outline of the BG account, he assigned letters of the alphabet A–V to indicate his current conjectures about the relative sequencing of extant BG fragments. For BG themes with resemblances to passages in Moses 6–7, I have added letters in the fourth column of the table corresponding to his sequencing attempt. Because some events in BG have no correspondence with the Book of Moses, some of the letters are missing. And, likewise, because Stuckenbruck did not attempt to classify every theme and fragment from Qumran and Manichaean sources for BG within his sequencing scheme, not every entry in the last column has a corresponding letter associated with it.

The arrangement of the table below allows us to compare the relative sequencing of BG themes, according to Stuckenbruck’s tentative investigations, to the fully known sequencing of themes in the corresponding Book of Moses account. I will compare Moses 6–7 to Stuckenbruck’s themes and sequencing proposal in greater detail below.

Additional context for evaluating the thematic resemblances

Before discussing the table below in more detail, some additional for the comparisons should be taken into consideration:

- Fragmentary nature of BG. As previously mentioned, the extant text of BG is literally in tatters. We have no idea what significant elements of the story may have been omitted due to damage or loss of ancient manuscript witnesses.

- Double phenomena. According to Stuckenbruck, several indications in the text “allow us to infer that BG was structured around a series of double phenomena (dream visions, tablets, [Page 132]journeys) linked to the [gibborim], among whom are brothers ’Ohyah and Hahyah, and Mahaway, who travels to Enoch the second time in order to secure an interpretation for these dreams.”[215] This interesting feature of the narrative sometimes makes it difficult to be certain, when doubled events are mentioned, whether the manuscripts are referring to the first or second instance of similar happenings. For example, Jens Wilkens argues that some of the BG material that Stuckenbruck assigned to the second journey of Mahaway better fits with his first journey.[216] However, we will see later how the added witness of the Book of Moses may contribute to the resolution of this ambiguity.

Table 3. Thematic resemblances of BG to Moses 6–7

Thematic Resemblances

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

Narrative Outline

A. The Begetting of the Sons of God/Watchers, the Giants, and the Gibborim

6:22

(See also 7:15; 8:13–14; Genesis 6:4)

- 4Q531, frg. 1, l. 1–3

- Henning, text A, frg. i, 100

- Sundermann 20 (M 8280), Verso/I/, 1–4

A

B. Murders

6:28

(See also 6:15)

- 1Q23, frgs. 9 + 14 + 15, l. 2–5

- 4Q203 frg. 3, l. 2–4

- Henning, text A, frg. j

B

C. Oath-Inspired Violence

6:29

(See also 6:28; 6:15)

- 1Q23, frg. 17, l. 1–3

- Henning, text A, frg. i

- 1Q23, frgs. 9 + 14 + 15, l. 2

- Henning, text A, frg. j

B

D. A “Wild Man”

6:38

- (Compare 4Q531 22, 3–8)

(Compare K)

E. Mahijah/Mahaway’s First Journey to Meet Enoch

6:40

- 4Q530, frg. 7 II, l. 6–7

- 4Q530, frgs. 2 col. II + 6 + 7 col. I + 8–11 + 12(?), l. 22–23

H

F. Enoch/Mahaway Reads Record of Deeds

6:46–47

- 4Q203 frg. 7b II, l. 1–3

- 4Q203 frg. 8, l. 1–4

- Sundermann 1984, frg. L, 1r, II.1–10

I

G. Trembling and Weeping

6:47

- 4Q203 frg. 4, l. 6

- Henning, text E

I

[Page 133]H. Call to Repentance

6:52

- 4Q203 frg. 8, l. 14–15

- 4Q530 frg. 13, l. 1

- MCP, Kósa 2016, fig. 2c (kneeling “demons,” arguably repentant gibborim)

- Henning, text E

(Compare O)

I. Sexual Defilement

6:55

- 4Q203, frg. 8, l. 6–9

(Compare O)

J. Mahujah/Mahaway’s Second, Heavenly Journey to Meet Enoch

7:2

(Compare 7:2, OT1)

- 4Q530 frg. 7 II, l. 3–5

- MCP, Gulácsi 2015 (kneeling figure on mountaintop, arguably representing Mahujah/Mahaway)

- Henning, text A, frg. b (Mainz 317)

S

K. Enoch Clothed with Glory

7:2–4

- 4Q531 14, 1–4

—

L. Gibborim Defeated in Battle

7:13, 15–16

- 4Q531 frg. 22, l. 3–7

- 4Q531 frg. 7, l. 5–6

- Henning, text G

- Henning, text Q

- Henning, text A, frg. i

- MCP, Kósa 2016, fig. 2a (armored angels protecting a divine figure, arguably representing Enoch)

- Sundermann, M5900, 1551–1556, 1574–1581

K

M. The “Roar of Lions/Wild Beasts” Following Battle

7:13

- 4Q531 frg. 22, l. 8

- Henning, text A, frg. c

- Henning, text A, frg, k

K

N. Repentant Gather to Divinely Prepared Cities

7:16–18

- Henning, text G

- Henning, text S (Kephalaia, 45 [117])

—

[Page 134]O. Imprisonment of the Wicked

7:38–39

- Henning, text A, frg. l

- 4Q203 8, 2

- 4Q203 7b I, 5

- Henning, text T

- Henning, text P (Kephalaia, 38 [93])

- Henning, text S (Kephalaia, 45 [117])

N

P. Flood of Noah Anticipated in Vision/Dream

7:42–43

- 4Q530 frg. 7 II, l. 10

- (Compare 4Q530 frgs. 2 col. II + 6 + 7 Col. I + 8–11 + 12(?), l. 10–12)

T

Q. The Earth Cries Out against the Wicked

7:48

- 4Q203 frg. 8, l. 9–11

(Compare E)

R. Ascent of Enoch’s people to the bosom of God

7:69

- MCP, Gulácsi 2015 (small palaces in a divine realm adjacent to a divine palace)

—

- Deliberate or accidental changes and omissions in various versions and recensions of BG. As Stuckenbruck writes, readers should hold in mind “a two-fold awareness that the relationship between the Qumran fragments and the Manichaean Book of Giants, on the one hand, and the relationship among the Qumran materials themselves, on the other, may very well have been . . . complicated. . . . Not only does one have to reckon with the likelihood that over time parts of the Book of Giants were abbreviated, expanded, or conflated, but also that in places the order of the Vorlage was affected. Furthermore, it ought not to be assumed that each manuscript belonging to Qumran BG must have represented an identical recension.”[217] Moreover, it is natural that the Qumran and Manichaean recensions would have differed in at least some respects, perhaps in some cases with the Manichaean texts having been altered or paraphrased “in order to gloss over dissonances with the Manichaean doctrine.”[218] Surprisingly, however, in at least one instance it seems that an important, dissonant BG [Page 135]element was left standing by the Manichaeans, even though it contradicted core Manichaean doctrine.[219]

- Significant differences in provenance and pedigree. If indeed there is early, shared content that sits behind both BG and Moses 6–7, we must assume that the process of transmission was very different in each case. While BG went through many hands over centuries, likely in oral as well as in written forms, Latter-day Saints who see the Book of Moses Enoch account as containing traditions from antiquity are likely either to posit a much shorter and direct line of transmission between the Joseph Smith and ancient tradents of a Moses 6–7 Vorlage or, alternatively, to see the account as directly revealed to the Prophet with no prior written texts as sources.

Overall comparison of Moses 6–7 to Stuckenbruck’s proposal for principal themes and narrative outline sequencing

With these considerations as a backdrop, we are prepared to consider the contents of column 4 of the summary table. A first finding of great interest is the fact that—despite significant differences of pedigree and provenance between Moses 6–7 and BG, as well as the latter’s fragmentary nature and the likelihood of changes, abbreviations, expansions, and conflation discussed above—when we look specifically at the structure and text of portions of BG that are similar to the Book of Moses, we find a generous quantity of plausible resemblances, many of them unique in the ancient Enoch literature. The eighteen resemblances are spread across a large swath of the narrative of both accounts, touching to a greater or lesser degree on ten of the twenty-two letters identifying the individual elements in Stuckenbruck’s narrative sequence, while adding three additional points of resemblance to elements of BG that were not included in Stuckenbruck’s selective outline.

Consistent with my previous arguments that ’Ohyah and Hahyah are the characters in BG most likely to have been invented ad hoc for literary purposes, it is not surprising that the portions of Stuckenbruck’s narrative outline having to do with their activities are largely missing in the Book of Moses (F, G). Others are missing because Stuckenbruck’s schema mistakenly assumes that Enoch was already permanently situated in heaven at the beginning of the story (C, D, E), having not fully taken into account the relevant Manichaean fragments that witness his initial direct preaching mission on earth. In addition, it is not surprising that J, L, M, U, and V are missing from the Book of Moses, since they [Page 136]have to do with further entertaining intrigues among ’Ohyah, Hahyah, and the gibborim as well as the second set of dreams and the subsequent report of Mahaway. Significantly, it should be observed that none of the just-mentioned elements from BG that are lacking in the Book of Moses appear in any significant detail elsewhere within the ancient Enoch literature, lending credence that they have all been specially invented by the redactor(s) of BG or of the tradents of older traditions from which BG inherited.

While the number and quality of the resemblances between the Book of Moses Enoch account and BG will not be unexpected for those who are already familiar with previously published results of earlier comparisons, it was new and surprising to me to learn that the list of apparent affinities between Moses 6–7, ordered by chapter and verse, more often than not follow the same relative sequence posited by Stuckenbruck for BG. If our admittedly preliminary and tentative analysis holds up under continuing scrutiny, the similarity in sequence of shared narrative elements in the two texts of interest can be taken as further evidence of a common ancient tradition behind both.

The seeming exceptions in column 4 to Stuckenbruck’s alphabetic ordering of events (O [twice], S, E, K) can be accounted for by a different interpretation of the ordering of events. In some cases, this reordering can be supported by evidence from the Book of Moses, on basis of my personal assumption that it is the more reliable of the two witnesses. The two “O” exceptions can be accounted for under the assumption that they are a mistaken interpretation by Stuckenbruck when he takes certain events from Mahaway’s first journey as being from his second journey. Correcting his presumably faulty assignment of BG material to “O” (having to do with the reading of Enoch’s message and reactions to his call to repentance), the table moves these events to an earlier part of the narrative. Another difference (S) has to do with Stuckenbruck’s placement of the second journey of Mahaway earlier in the overall account than the Book of Moses. Apparently, BG conflates Enoch’s ascent in the presence of Mahaway in Moses 7:2–4 (S) with the account of Enoch’s grand vision in a later part of the same chapter, which included the story of the great flood (T). The motif of the earth crying out against the wicked (E) also occurs as part of Enoch’s grand vision in the Book of Moses account.

The fourth exception (K) occurs because the reference to a “wild man” occurs early in the Book of Moses account but appears in a later part of the BG story. Because the BG account is so incomplete, this is not necessarily an inconsistency between the two accounts. Rather, it [Page 137]seems possible, considering the frequent doubling of phenomena in BG discussed previously,[220] that the reference to a “wild man” later in the story may correspond to an earlier reference to the same rare term corresponding to the early position of the Book of Moses use of it. Such a doubling of the application of the term “wild man”—used the first time, sarcastically, to describe Enoch and applied the second time, pathetically, to describe Gilgamesh—becomes another instance of the literary irony that pervades the two texts.

Specific sources cited in the table of thematic resemblances

Full citations for the short references to BG works listed in column three of the table are listed below. These are the primary sources:

- Gulácsi 2015 [Manichaean Cosmology Painting]: Zsuzsanna Gulácsi. Mani’s Pictures: The Didactic Images of the Manichaeans from Sasanian Mesopotamia to Uygur Central Asia and Tang-Ming China. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 90. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

- Henning 1943 [Manichaean BG fragments]: W. B. Henning. “The Book of the Giants.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 11, no. 1 (1943): 52–74. http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/giants/giants.htm.

- Kósa 2016 [Manichaean Cosmology Painting]: Gábor Kósa. “The Book of Giants Tradition in the Chinese Manichaica,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 145–86. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

- Parry 2013 [Qumran BG fragments]: Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, vol. 1, Texts Concerned with Religious Law, Exegetical Texts and Parabiblical Texts. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

- Sundermann 1973 [Manichaean BG fragments]: Werner Sundermann. Mittelpersische und parthische kosmogonische und Parabeltexte der Manichäer. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 8. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973. https://www.scribd.com/document/396552610/Werner-Sundermann-Mittelpersische-und-parthische-kosmogonische-und-Parabeltexte-der-Manichaer-1973.

[Page 138]Other important sources, analyses, and commentaries listed in the summary table and the detailed tables for each thematic resemblance include the following:

- Angel 2016: Joseph L. Angel. “The Humbling of the Arrogant and the ‘Wild Man’ and ‘Tree Stump’ Traditions in the Book of Giants and Daniel 4,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 61–80. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

- Gardner 1995: Iain Gardner, ed. The Kephalaia of the Teacher: The Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in Translation with Commentary. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 37, edited by James M. Robinson and H. J. Klimkeit. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

- Martínez 1996: Florentino García Martínez, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

- Milik 1976: J. T. Milik and Matthew Black, eds. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. https://archive.org/details/MILIKEnochInAramaicQumranCave4.

- Reeves 1992: John C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 14. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992.

- Stuckenbruck 1997: Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Translation, and Commentary. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

- Stuckenbruck 2017: Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017.

- Sundermann 1984: Werner Sundermann. “Ein weiteres Fragment aus Manis Gigantenbuch,” in Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata. Acta Iranica 23, 491–505. Leiden: Brill, 1984.

- Wilkens 2016: Jens Wilkens. “Remarks on the Manichaean Book of Giants: Once Again on Mahaway’s Mission to Enoch,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. [Page 139]Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 213–29. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

Figure 11. a. Manichaean Cosmology Painting (MCP) containing motifs from BG; b. Visual syntax of the painting.[221]

In addition to these written sources, we will draw on details from the fourteenth–fifteenth century Manichaean Cosmology Painting (MCP), depicted on a hanging scroll as shown above. In the Manichaean tradition, such paintings were often created for didactic purposes. It was only recently discovered that from this painting significant portions of the BG account of Enoch can be illustrated, filling in gaps in our overall understanding of the story and defining the events and characters more concretely.[222]

With one exception (i.e., illustration of the imprisonment of “demons”), the details from MCP in figures later in the study are taken from the depiction of the eighth and fifth layers in the section named “eight layers of the earth.”[223] These layers, shown within the bottom third of the painting shown above, feature a symbolic representation of the four continents of the earth below a large treelike mountain—in [Page 140]Indian culture, this feature is identified as Mount Sumēru, the sacred center place. The name “Sumēru,” which literally means “good Mēru,” refers not only to a place in the symbolic geography of the story but also to an actual mountain located in the Himalayas.[224]

Figure 12. Detail of MCP, depicting the “eighth and fifth layers of the earth.”[225] Mount Sumēru, the treelike sacred center place, is surrounded by four continents and the great ocean.[226] Thirty-two palaces at the top of Sumēru surround a larger palace of Deity, pictured with an acolyte on either side. The four supplicants surrounding the throne may correspond to four figures who bring the judicial complaint of the earth or a plea for clemency of the repentant wicked before the heavenly judge.[227] The four archangels mentioned in BG, who (in the Manichaean conception) led the battles against the wicked[228] and gathered the repentant, are clothed in armor in front of a seated deity—likely Enoch[229]—among the smaller green mountains at the foot of Mount Sumēru.[230] In other parts of the painting (not shown) wicked “demons” are imprisoned.[231] In the upper right, two repentant figures kneel. In addition, a solitary figure—perhaps Mahujah/Mahaway—kneels while perched on a high mountaintop, seemingly evoking themes from Mahujah/Mahaway’s second journey to meet Enoch.

Each of the thematic resemblances will be examined in more detail, one by one, below.

[Page 141]A. The begetting of the sons of God / Watchers, the giants, and the gibborim

Table 4. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme A

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed (6:22)

And the giants of the land, also, stood afar off . . . (7:15)

And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God. And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose (8:13–14)

There were giants [= nephilim] in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men [= gibborim] which were of old, men of renown (Genesis 6:4)

1. the Watch]ers are defiled [

2. they begot] giants [= gibborim] and monsters [= nephilim] [

3. of the Watchers] they begot, and behold, as g[iants ? (Parry 2013, 4Q531, frg. 1, l. 1–3, p. 953; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 149–53; Reeves 1992, pp. 67–76)

. . . and ravished them. They chose beautiful [women], and demanded . . . them in marriage. Sordid . . . (Henning 1943, text A, frg. i, 100, p. 62; see Reeves 1992, pp. 75–76)

1. They [descended?] to earth because

2. of the beauty of the female beings

3. [li]ke assailants among

4. . . . they came down (?) from

(Sundermann 1973, 20 (M 8280), Verso/I/, 1–4, pp. 76–77; translated in Reeves 1992, p. 75)

The Bible, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Giants share a common concerns with the offspring of the sons of God (equated with the Watchers in BG), the gibborim (literally “mighty men,” often erroneously translated as “giants”), and the nephilim (literally “fallen ones,” usually translated as giants/monsters). All three accounts describe the parentage [Page 142]of one or more of these classes of individuals as mismatched couples of partly divine (or, at least, divinely commissioned) parentage whose progeny (in some of the ancient Enoch literature) becomes literally monstrous in their appearance and—in the Bible, the Book of Moses, and the ancient Enoch literature—figuratively monstrous in their evil deeds. These evil deeds lead to the inevitable consequences of a great flood in the days of Noah.

While most scholars agree on these general points, the interpretation of their specifics is mired in controversy. The description in Genesis 6:4 is tantalizingly brief and allusive, seemingly hinting at an larger, untold story.[232] The Book of Moses is closer to the ancient Enoch literature than to the Bible in its more expansive descriptions of the wickedness of these groups and of Enoch’s early interventions well prior to Noah’s ministry.

Importantly, the BG and Moses 6–7 accounts are more alike in other respects. While both the Book of Giants and the Book of Moses describe the nephilim and the gibborim as distinct groups, English Bible translations often equate them.[233] Also, as mentioned previously, both BG and Moses 6–7 are similar to each other and different from the Book of the Watchers in 1 Enoch in that their stories spotlight the human gibborim rather than a group of rebellious divine Watchers.

The Book of Moses motif of mismatched couples begins in earnest within the later story of Noah. The Enoch account in Moses 6–7 opens its description of the three groups by emphasizing the orderly and righteous posterity of Adam through Seth and down to Enoch (Moses 6:22). They are “sons of God,” and, like Adam, are not fallen angels but rather mortals who have received a fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood (Moses 6:67–68) and the charge to serve as “preachers of righteousness” (Moses 6:23). In these respects, the Book of Moses account is closer to Syriac Christian and Islamic traditions. In a fashion that is analogous to but not identical with the Book of Moses, these two traditions saw the “sons of God” as Sethites and the “daughters of men” as Cainites. For example, Ephrem the Syrian understood the events relatinig to the mismatched marriages as meaning that “those who lived on higher ground, who were called ‘the children [=sons] of God,’ left their own region and came down to take wives from the daughters of Cain down below.”[234] This subject is treated in greater detail elsewhere.[235]

In brief, BG and Moses 6–7 generally are more similar to each other than they are to the Bible and 1 Enoch. They differ in some ways, most importantly in that BG sees the “sons of God” as divine beings, whereas [Page 143]the Book of Moses, analogous to Syriac Christian and Islamic traditions, sees them as divinely commissioned individuals.

B. Murders

Table 5. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme B

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

. . . in their own abominations have they devised murder (6:28)

. . . wars and bloodshed; and a man’s hand was against his own brother, in administering death . . . seeking for power (6:15)

2. ]and they knew [

3. ] was great upon the earth[

4. ] and they killed man[y

5. ]a hundred giants, [a]ll who[ (Parry 2013, 1Q23, frgs. 9 + 14 + 15, l. 2–5, p. 939; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 58–59; Reeves 1992, pp. 74–76)

2. his companions [

3. Ḥobabish and [

4. and what will you give me for k[illing (Parry 2013, 4Q203, frg. 3, l. 2–4, p. 943; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 70–74, 124–26)

Thereupon the giants began to kill each other and [to abduct their wives]. The creatures, too, began to kill each other (Henning 1943, text A, frg. j, p. 60; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 50, 59, 72; Reeves 1992, p. 76)

The theme of widespread murder, introduced on an individual scale in the earlier biblical stories of Cain and Lamech, is given full sway in Moses 6–7 and BG. Although the love of bloodshed as a proof of manliness seems more than sufficient to motivate the wicked at the time of Enoch to great slaughter, Moses 6:15 makes additional incentives explicit—namely, an all-consuming quest for “power” and riches. This is [Page 144]the essence of the Mahan principle, what Hugh Nibley called “the great secret of converting life into property”[236]—“your life for my property.”[237] Why should a well-respected gibbor settle for the pleasure of murder alone if a financial bonus can be added to the deal? Hence, BG’s report of one of the gibborim repeating, “What will you give me for killing?”[238]—a close echo of Satan’s famous golden question, “Have you any money?”[239]

In short, both BG and the Book of Moses chronicle the perennial appeal and virtually inseparable relationship of power, ill-gotten riches, and murder.

C. Oath-inspired violence

The bloodshed described previously was accompanied by other forms of violence. The Book of Moses speaks of how “Satan had great dominion among men, and raged in their hearts”(Moses 6:15), and Stuckenbruck sees the truncated phrases of 1Q23 17, 1–3 (“and they entered,” “through their hands,” “and they began to”) as indicating a list describing the variety of their wicked acts.[240] The Henning fragment gives us to understand that this included subjecting various peoples to servitude.[241]

Of greatest significance in these descriptions from the Book of Moses and BG is their emphasis on the secret oaths behind the violence, a prominent theme in both texts that is absent from the Bible. Moses 6:28–29 refers with vivid imagery to the people having “sought their own counsels in the dark” and having also “foresworn themselves . . . by their oaths.” The mention of “secret works” and “administering death” in close proximity within Moses 6:15 parallels the description in BG: “They knew the se[crets[242] . . .] and they killed ma[ny . . .].”[243] Gestures associated with these oaths may be conjectured in the mention that one of the gibborim “[made an oath?] before the sun, one hand in the air, [while with] the other [performed deeds of wickedness?].”[244]

Elsewhere the Qumran manuscripts clarify these brief references by describing the spread of the “mystery of wickedness.”[245] Later Islamic tradition taught that the most important of these mysteria, wickedly taught by the Watchers to a woman who was their accomplice in sin,[246] was knowledge of the “Name of God,” by means of which the fallen angels were able to “ascend to Heaven.”[247]

[Page 145]Table 6. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme C

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

Wherefore, they have foresworn themselves, and, by their oaths, they have brought upon themselves death; and a hell I have prepared for them, if they repent not (6:29)

. . . have sought their own counsels in the dark (6:28)

And in those days Satan had great dominion among men, and raged in their hearts; and from thenceforth came wars and bloodshed; and a man’s hand was against his own brother, in administering death, because of secret works, seeking for power (6:15)

1. and they entered[ ] [

2. through their hands [

3. and they began to[ (Parry 2013, 1Q23, frg. 17, l. 1–3, p. 939; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 49–50)

all . . . carried off . . . severally they were subjected to tasks and services. And they . . . from each city . . . and were, ordered to serve the . . . The Mesenians [were directed] to prepare, the Khūzians to sweep [and] water, the Persians to . . . (Henning 1943, text A, frg. i, 103–10, p. 62; see Reeves 1992, pp. 75–76)

]and they knew m[ysteries (Parry 2013, 1Q23, frgs. 9 + 14 + 15, l. 2, p. 939. “Mysteries” or “secrets” is restored conjecturally to the text by some translators.)

The creatures, too, began to kill each other. Sām . . . before the sun, one hand in the air, the other (Henning 1943, text A, frg. j, p. 60; see Stuckenbruck 1997, p. 50; Reeves 1992, p. 76)

This interpretation is consistent with Nibley’s conclusion that traditions about these illicitly revealed “secrets” have their roots in the wicked practice of “divulging the pure ordinances of heaven to people unworthy to receive them, who then proceed . . . to exercise them in unrighteousness while proclaiming their own righteousness on the grounds of possessing them.”[248]

[Page 146]As discussed earlier, a tentative case can be made for the identification of the BG Mahujah with the biblical Mehuja-el, who was a descendant of Cain and the grandfather of the wicked Lamech,[249] by virtue of the similarity of their names. This case is only made stronger when we consider the additional material about Mehuja-el’s family line included in the Joseph Smith account. Note that in the Book of Moses, Mehuja-el’s grandson, like the other “sons of men” (Moses 5:52, 55), “entered into a covenant with Satan after the manner of Cain” (Moses 5:49). Similarly, drawing on the additional background provided in 1 Enoch,[250] we come to understand that a group of conspirators, here depicted as fallen sons of God, “all swore together and bound one another with a curse.” Elsewhere in 1 Enoch we learn additional details about that oath:

This is the number of Kasbe’el, the chief of the oath, which he showed to the holy ones when he was dwelling on high in glory, and its (or “his”) name (is) Beqa. This one told Michael that he should show him the secret name, so that they might mention it in the oath, so that those who showed the sons of men everything that was in secret might quake at the name and the oath.[251]

The passages in 1 Enoch are similar to a section of the Book of Moses that describes a “secret combination” that had been in operation “from the days of Cain” (Moses 5:51). As to the deadly nature of the oath, we read in the Book of Moses, “Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die,”[252] just as in 1 Enoch, when the conspirators “bound one another with a curse”[253] that would take effect if they broke their oath.

In 1 Enoch, the conspirators agreed on their course of action by saying, “Come, let us choose for ourselves wives from the daughters of men.”[254] Likewise, in the Book of Moses, Mehuja-el’s grandson became infamous because he “took unto himself . . . wives”[255] to whom he revealed the secrets of their wicked league (to the chagrin of his fellows).[256] In 1 Enoch, as in the Book of Moses,[257] we also read specifically of how “they all began to reveal mysteries to their wives and children.”[258]

In summary, BG, 1 Enoch, and the Book of Moses are in agreement in their emphasis on the secret oaths that stood behind the increasing violence, a prominent theme in the Enoch texts that, significantly, is absent from the Bible.

[Page 147]

Figure 13. Giorgio Schiavone (1436/7–1504), Samson Smiting a Philistine with the Jawbone of an Ass.[259] In the background lies a beast he has already slain.

D. A “wild man”

Table 7. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme D

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

And they came forth to hear him, upon the high places, saying unto the tent-keepers: Tarry ye here and keep the tents, while we go yonder to behold the seer, for he prophesieth, and there is a strange thing in the land; a wild man hath come among us (6:38; emphasis added)

3. [ I am] mighty, and by the mighty strength of my arm and my own great strength

4. [and I went up against a]ll flesh, and I made war against them; but I did not

5. [prevail, . . .

8. ] of the wild beast has come, and the wild man they call [me] (Parry 2013, 4Q531, frg. 22, l. 3–8, p. 959; emphasis added; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 161–67; Reeves 1992, pp. 118–22; Angel 2016, pp. 66–68)

The term “wild man” is uncommon and in both texts fairly pops out at the attentive reader. It is used only once elsewhere in scripture, as part of Jacob’s prophecy about how Ishmael would live to become everyone’s [Page 148]favorite enemy.[260] It is a translation of the literal Hebrew “wild-ass man,” calling to mind

the sturdy, fearless, and fleet-footed Syrian onager (Hebrew pere’), who inhabits the wilderness and is almost impossible to domesticate. Jeremiah describes the wild ass of the desert: “snuffing the wind in her eagerness, whose passions none can restrain.”[261] Hagar[, the mother of Ishmael,] . . . will produce a people free and undisciplined.[262]

Intriguingly, in light of the presumed Mesopotamian background of both Moses 6–7 and BG, the description of Ishmael as an “onager man” matches that of Enkidu as akkanu (“onager”) in the Gilgamesh epic. Enkidu is portrayed as an indomitable warrior whose prowess was proved in bloody battle: a “wild ass on the run, donkey of the uplands, panther of the wild”[263] who “slaughtered the Bull of Heaven” and “killed Humbaba.”[264]

How can the application of the term “wild man” to Enoch in the Book of Moses be explained? For reasons that are discussed at length elsewhere,[265] I am persuaded that Enoch did not fit the mold of a “wild man” in any sense that would have been intelligible to the gibborim, but rather was simply called one in mockery. A parallel to such rude humor can be found in Moses 8, in which a reversal of labels was used to please the partygoers in Noah’s day. As the drunken crowd of “sons of men”[266] who had spurned Noah’s preaching[267] and married his granddaughters[268] filled and refilled their wine cups, they laughingly called themselves the “sons of God.”[269] At the same time, after playfully exalting their own status, they sarcastically called their wives “daughters of men,”[270] deliberately deprecating the lineage of their wives as daughters of the sons of Noah. Significantly, these sons of Noah, the fathers of these wives, had been specifically characterized as “the sons of God.”[271] Though the labels vary, this tasteless and worn-out brand of humor persists in every generation.

However, by the time we approach the end of the story, we realize that Enoch’s initial self-characterization as being “but a lad” who is “slow in speech” has prepared us for the ironic turning of the tables that plays out on a larger stage in his final military victory (Moses 6:31). This may constitute one of the primary lessons of the account—namely, that Enoch conquered his foes through the “virtue of the word of God,”[272] in contrast to the gibborim, aspiring wild men who, like Korihor, “conquered according to [their] strength” (Alma 30:17).

[Page 149]Consistent with the moral of such a lesson, later biblical authors pointedly taught that “Israel’s future did not lie along”[273] the “way [of] all [their] warriors [gibborim],”[274] but rather in “turn[ing] back to the Lord with all [one’s] heart.”[275] Proverbs 24:25 averred that “a wise man is mightier than a strong one.”[276] Paraphrasing, we might understand this to mean that the “wise man” is more of a geber[277] than the gibbor—in other words, the “wise man” is more of a “man” than the “he man.” Similarly, the preacher of Ecclesiastes 9:16 concluded that “wisdom (ḥokmâ) is superior to [“manly”] heroism (gĕbûrâ).”[278] Perhaps the redactor{s) of BG intended to make a similar point.

In line with this conjecture, as the end of the BG account approaches, one of the wicked leaders of the gibborim, in all likelihoood Gilgamesh,[279] called himself “the wild man” as part of his admission of his humiliating defeat and resulting personal debasement by Enoch and his people.[280] Joseph Angel ably compares the humbling of the arrogant leader of the gibborim, muttering to himself in dismay after his defeat, to the principal theme of the story of Nebuchadnezzar, a prominent type of the “wild man” in the Old Testament. Angel perceptively recognizes that the characterization of both Nebuchadnezzar and Gilgamesh as “wild men both appear to be related to the Epic of Gilgamesh.”[281] In this dramatic turn of events, the would-be mighty wild man (in the proud tradition of the gibborim) is literally or figuratively transformed into a beastly wild man of Mesopotamian and biblical tragedy.[282]

The Book of Moses and the Book of Giants are two different works, published millennia apart, each with a unique past and its own story to tell. That said, whatever the exact meaning of the term “wild man” in these two accounts may be, the fact that this rare and peculiar description shows up in these already closely related stories about Enoch hints that they may each contain shards of a common, preexisting literary tradition. So far as can be determined at present, the single occurrence of the term “wild man” in the extant ancient Enoch literature is in the BG, and the only instance of it in the scripture translations of Joseph Smith is in the Enoch account in the Book of Moses. And, from a literary perspective, the conjecture of a paired usage of the term in BG that would contrast a mocking reference of “wild man” to a meek and mild adversary at the beginning of the story with a painful application of the term to the proud, defeated leader of the gibborim at the end of the story would constitute a poignant instance of poetic justice. From a literary perspective, the twofold occurrence of “wild man” might be explained [Page 150]as yet another instance of the pattern of “doublings” that Stuckenbruck has noticed in BG.[283]

In short, the fitting references to the term “wild man” in BG and in the Book of Moses, absent elsewhere in the Enoch literature and in modern Latter-day Saint scripture, constitute remarkable evidence of a shared ancient tradition.

E. Name and role of Mahijah/Mahaway revealed in his first, earthly journey to meet Enoch

Table 8. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme E

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

And there came a man unto him, whose name was Mahijah, and said unto him: Tell us plainly who thou art, and from whence thou comest? (6:40)

22. [and they delib]erated and said to him: ‘Go [to him for the ro]ad [of the place] is similar for you since

23. for the first [time] you have heard his voice (Parry 2013, 4Q530, frgs. 2 II + 6 + 7 I + 8–11 + 12(?), l. 22–23, p. 951; emphasis added; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 124–27; Reeves 1992, pp. 93–94)

6. and Enoch saw him and hailed him, . . . and Mahway replied to him: ‘I have been sent]

7. hither and thither a second time to Mahway [in order that you will explain to me/us the meaning of the two dreams which I/we hear] (Parry 2013, 4Q530, frg. 7 II, l. 6–7, p. 951; emphasis added; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 128–34; Reeves 1992, p. 105; Wilkens 2016, pp. 219–20, 224–25)

Previously, I described the remarkable nature of the resemblance that Nibley and other scholars saw between the Book of Moses name [Page 151]“Mahijah” and the BG name “Mahaway,” in addition, I discussed the possibility of a narrative affinity of Mahijah with the biblical name Mehujael that one of the descendants of the latter is mentioned in the Book of Moses in connection with the kinds of oaths described in BG. Going further, we will now see how the similarly named characters in BG and the Book of Moses resemble each other in their respective roles in each text.

We have already seen that the name Mahijah/Mahujah/Mahaway might be explained on the basis of the Akkadian maḫḫû, denoting “a certain class of priests and seers.”[284] And what was the role of these seers? Among other things, the royal archives of the Old Babylonian kingdom of Mari recount the comings and goings of maḫḫû as intermediaries and messengers, bearing words of warning from the gods for the king,[285] a role that evokes the role of Mahaway—“the messenger par excellence of the [gibborim] both in the [BG] Enochic tradition from Qumran and in Manichaeism.”[286] Hugh Nibley presciently observed that “this is exactly the role, and the only role,” that Mahijah plays in the Book of Moses.[287]

Incidentally, Enoch, like Mahijah/Mahaway, is also portrayed as a messenger. In BG, he is called “the apostle,”[288] a word of Greek derivation signifying one sent forth as a “delegate,” “envoy,” or “messenger.”[289] Thus the roles of Mahijah/Mahaway and Enoch are both complementary and contrastive—one is the messenger of the chiefs of the wicked, the other is the messenger of the Lord.

In the Book of Moses, Mahijah raises a direct question to Enoch during his earthly preaching mission to the gibborim: “Tell us plainly who thou art, and from whence thou comest?” (Moses 6:40). Complicating the existence of the Book of Moses account of a direct preaching mission by Enoch is the fact that an earthly mission by Enoch is not mentioned explicitly in the surviving fragments of BG from Qumran. Thus, Stuckenbruck concludes that Enoch was already permanently ensconced in heaven at the beginning of the BG story and for this reason could never have interacted with the gibborim at large.[290] However, contradicting Stuckenbruck’s view, incidents relating to Enoch’s direct preaching to a group of gibborim, presumably in connection with Mahijah/Mahaway’s first visit to Enoch, is accepted by at least one translator of the Qumran BG and is likewise explicitly described in the Manichaean BG fragments.[291] I will return to this subject below.

In the Book of Moses, the name of Enoch’s questioner, Mahijah, comes out of nowhere. Likewise, the BG gives us no direct information about Mahaway’s first journey to meet Enoch. However, BG does give [Page 152]us hints about why Mahaway was the one chosen to make a journey to Enoch the second time:

- Previous familiarity. One of the gibborim states that Mahaway already knew Enoch, for he had “heard his voice” previously, “the first time” he went there, and that because of his earlier visit the “road” would be “similar” to him when he went there again the next time.[292]

- Moral fitness. Wilkens concludes, based on a Manichaean BG fragment, that Mahaway “is not as corrupted as his fellows.”[293] This would provide a reasonable rationale for Mahaway as a mediator who is morally fit to speak with the prophet Enoch.

- Physical makeup. Another reason for the choosing of Mahaway as the envoy of the gibborim to Enoch may be that Mahaway differed in his physical makeup from those who selected him. Specifically, among Mahaway’s additional qualifications for making the long voyage to the eastern end of the earth[294] to question Enoch, is that he seems to be “the only giant with wings.”[295] In this respect and others, Mahaway resembles the winged angel Yahoel in the pseudepigraphic Apocalypse of Abraham[296], who played a similar mediating role for Abraham.

- Courage. Nibley gives his opinion that, in contrast to Mahaway, the gibborim were afraid of a meeting with Enoch. Nibley’s observation is consistent with the evidence mentioned earlier about the depiction of ʾOhyah and Hahyah as ineffectual worriers.[297] Nibley notes: “[The gibborim] are scared; they don’t know who Enoch is so they force Mahijah [= BG Mahaway] to go.”[298]

In conclusion, the posing of direct questions by Mahijah in the Book of Moses in a first visit that occurred during Enoch’s personal preaching mission is consistent both with the BG role of Mahaway as a messenger and with BG fragments describing how Enoch taught the gibborim face to face on earth before he ascended to heaven.

[Page 153]F. Enoch/Mahaway reads record of deeds

Table 9. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme F

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

For a book of remembrance we have written among us, according to the pattern given by the finger of God; and it is given in our own language.

And . . . Enoch spake forth the words of God (6:46–47)

1. to you [

2. the two tablets[

3. and the second until now has not been rea[d (Parry 2013, 4Q203, frg. 7b II, l. 1–3, p. 945; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 84–87)

1. [The] boo[k of ] . . .

3. A copy of the s[ec]ond tablet of the le[tter ]

4. in a do[cu]ment of the hand of Enoch, the scribe of interpretation . . . (Parry, 2013, 4Q203, frg. 8, l. 1–4, p. 945; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 87–93; Reeves 1992, pp. 109–11)

Bring there (?) what is written (upon?) these two stone tablets. . . . Now I have come and brought these two tablets that I might read aloud before the [gibborim] the one about the demons [i.e., the gibborim, in this context[299]]. . . . Read the handwriting which Enoch the wise [scribe?] (Sundermann 1984, frg. L, 1r, II.1–10, pp. 495–96; translated in Reeves 1992, pp. 109, 117. See Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 84–87.)

In Moses 6, we read of Enoch’s preaching to the people out of a “book of remembrance,”[300] in which both the words of God and the deeds of the people were recorded. The specific type of heavenly book referred to in [Page 154]the Book of Moses[301] is similar to one that appears frequently in related Old Testament passages and Jewish pseudepigrapha.[302] It resembles most closely what is sometimes called a Book of Deeds, a “heavenly accounting of people’s works, good or evil,” which “regulates entrance into eternal happiness.”[303] In correspondence to this depiction in the Book of Moses, BG describes a heavenly book in the form of “two stone tablets”[304] that is given by Enoch to Mahujah to stand as a witness of “their fallen state and betrayal of their ancient covenants.”[305] Both Stuckenbruck and Reeves plausibly suggest that in BG the speaker introducing the book in this case is apparently Mahawai, having returned from his second visit to Enoch with it,[306] though it is significant that in 1 Enoch, as in the Book of Moses, the corresponding speaker is Enoch himself.

Figure 14. Enoch as a preacher. Elijah and Enoch (detail), 17th century.[307]

In the Book of Moses, Enoch says that the book from which Enoch was reading was written “according to the pattern given by the finger of God” (Moses 6:46). This may allude to the idea that a similar record of the wickedness of the people was being kept in heaven.Note that the Book of Giants refers to the second tablet given to Mahujah by Enoch as being a “copy” (4Q203 frg. 8, l. 2).

In short, the idea of Enoch as a scribe and witness of the heavenly book of remembrance, as described in the Book of Moses, fits squarely into ancient Jewish teachings about Enoch, including those in BG and 1 Enoch.

[Page 155]G. Trembling and weeping after record is read

Table 10. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme G

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

And as Enoch spake forth the words of God, the people trembled, and could not stand in his presence (6:47)

they prostrated and wept bef[ore (Parry 2013, 4Q203, frg. 4, l. 6, p. 943; cf. Martínez 1996, p. 260: “they bowed down and wept in front of [Enoch].” See Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 74–76; Milik 1976, p. 312.)

[when] they saw the apostle [i.e., Enoch[308]] … those that were tyrants and criminals [i.e., the unrepentant faction of the gibborim], they were [worried] and much afraid (Henning 1943, text E, p. 66)

In the Book of Moses, Enoch’s reading of the book of remembrance caused the people to greatly fear: “And as Enoch spake forth the words of God, the people trembled, and could not stand in his presence” (Moses 6:47). The BG fragments shown in the table at right likewise attest to the state of worry and fear that followed Enoch’s message.

As mentioned previously, the idea that the gibborim ever met up with Enoch face-to-face is problematic to Stuckenbruck.[309] Thus, he refrains from making any conjectural reference to Enoch in his translation of 4Q203 frg. 4, l. 6, as shown in the table above.[310] However, Martínez, disagreeing with Stuckenbruck on that point, reads that BG passage in a way that is consistent with the Book of Moses, suggesting in his translation that the leaders of the mighty warriors “bowed down and wept in front of [Enoch].”[311] Milik[312] views the passage similarly. In additional support of his interpretation, he cites a Manichaean fragment of BG that says that “[when] they saw the apostle [i.e., Enoch[313]] … those that were tyrants and criminals . . . were [worried] and much afraid.”[314]

In further support of the idea that the context of fear, trembling, and prostration of the wicked (who were, in this instance, the Watchers rather than the gibborim) occurred in the context of Enoch’s personal rehearsal of their sins, see this parallel passage from 1 Enoch. It describes [Page 156]a reaction similar to both the Book of Moses and BG after Enoch finished his preaching:

Then I [i.e., Enoch] went and spoke to all of them together. And they were all afraid and trembling and fear seized them. And they asked that I write a memorandum of petition[315] for them, that they might have forgiveness, and that I recite the memorandum of petition for them in the presence of the Lord of heaven. For they were no longer able to speak or to lift their eyes to heaven out of shame for the deeds through which they had sinned and for which they had been condemned. . . . and they were sitting and weeping at Abel-Main,[316] . . . covering their faces.[317]

In summary, supporting evidence favors the similarity of the reaction of the gibborim in BG to Enoch’s preaching about their wicked deeds to the response of Enoch’s hearers in the Book of Moses.

H. Call to repentance

After describing the rampant wickedness among the gibborim, both the Qumran and the Book of Moses sermons of Enoch “end on a note of hope”[318]—a feature unique in the Enoch literature to these two accounts. In the Book of Moses account, Enoch draws attention to God’s invitation of repentance that had been given previously to Adam:

If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, . . . ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost . . . and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you. (Moses 6:52)

In BG, we are given to understand more specifically that the possibility of forgiveness through repentance is only available for the gibborim, not the Watchers.[319] Such a distinction would be consistent with 1 Enoch 12:5, when the Watchers are told that they are beyond the possibility of forgiveness—even if they should “lament and make petition forever, . . . they will have no mercy or peace.”[320] On the other hand, in BG and the Book of Moses, hope is provided to the wicked gibborim through repentance. BG relates the command of Enoch as follows: “Set loose what you hold captive . . . and pray” (4Q203, frg. 8, l. 14–15).[321] It seems that at least part of the group of hearers subsequently “[prostrat]ed” themselves (4Q530, frg. 13, l. 1).[322] While this repentant group was “very, very glad at seeing the apostle [i.e., Enoch[323]]” and “assembled before him,” we have already seen that Enoch’s message was not received uniformly [Page 157]by all: “those that were tyrants and criminals [i.e., the unrepentant faction] . . . were [worried] and much afraid” (Henning, text E).[324]

Table 11. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme H.

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, . . . ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you (6:52)

14. . . . So now, set loose what you hold captive [

15. and pray. (Parry 2013, 4Q203, frg. 8, l. 14–15, p. 947; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp 87–93; Reeves 1992, pp. 116–17)

1. and] they [prostrat]ed from [ (Parry 2013, 4Q530, frg. 13, l. 1, p. 947; see Stuckenbruck 1997, p. 139)

MCP depiction of kneeling “demons” (Kósa 2016, pp. 173–75; fig. 2c, p. 185)

[when] they saw the apostle [i.e., Enoch[325]], . . . before the apostle . . . those demons [i.e., the gibborim, in this context] that were [timid], were very, very glad at seeing the apostle. All of them assembled before him (Henning 1943, text E, p. 66; Reeves, 1992, p. 117)

Reeves conjectures that an additional difficult-to-reconstruct phrase in BG[326] might also be understood as an “allusion to a probationary period for the repentance of the [gibborim].”[327] The description of a period of repentance seems to echo a specific Jewish tradition that continues to modern times. In this regard, I note Geo Widengren’s description of the Jewish tradition that “on New Year’s Day, . . . the judgment is carried out when three kinds of tablets are presented, one for the righteous, one for sinners, and one for those occupying an intermediate position.”[328] Widengren explains that “people of an intermediate position are granted ten days of repentance between New Year’s Day and Yom Kippurim.”[329]

[Page 158]

Figure 15. Detail of Manichaean Cosmology Painting (MCP), showing “demons” (in this case likely representing a faction of repentant gibborim) kneeling on pitch-dark clouds with their hands clutched.

Thus, it appears that in both the Book of Moses and BG a “space [is] granted unto man in which he might repent” (Alma 12:24).

I. Sexual defilement

Table 12. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme I

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

[Enoch said:] And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good (6:55)

6. ‘Let it be known to you th[at ] [

7. your activity and (that) of [your] wive[s ]

8. those ([gibborim])[ and their ] son[s and] the [w]ives o[f ]

9. through your fornication on the earth (Parry 2013, 4Q203, frg. 8, l. 6–9, p. 945)

[Page 159]Among the declarations that the Book of Moses Enoch makes to his hearers from the book of remembrance is that their children “are conceived in sin” (Moses 6:55). Richard Draper, Kent Brown, and Michael Rhodes explain the appearance of this surprising phrase, seemingly inconsistent with the preceding verse, as follows:

This statement appears to be troublesome in light of an earlier passage declaring that “children are whole from the foundation of the world” (Moses 6:54). The act of conceiving between married parents is not itself sinful. Rather, it seems that because of the Fall, children come into a world saturated with sin. There is no escape. Therefore, “when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts.”[330]

When verses 54 and 55 are put together, it becomes apparent that the tragic state of the children of Enoch’s hearers is not due simply to their fallen nature, but rather to the depth of their parents’ willfully chosen corruption. As Nibley expressed it, “The wicked people of Enoch’s day . . . did indeed conceive their children in sin, since they were illegitimate offspring of a totally amoral society”[331]—in other words, they were conceived in a sinful world. The relevant passage in BG reads with a similar import:[332] “Let it be known to you th[at ] . . . your activity and (that) of [your] wive[s ] those (giants) [and their] son[s and] the [w]ives o[f ] through your fornication on the earth.”[333]

Figure 16. Angel of Revelation 14:6, carrying a scroll.[334] In similar fashion, Mahaway, bearing questions from the gibborim, “mounted up in the air like strong winds and flew with his hands like an eagle to the east of the earth and he passed above in the direction of the Paradise of Justice.”[335]

[Page 160]J. Mahujah/Mahaway’s second, heavenly journey to meet Enoch

In order to explore the career of Mahijah/Mahaway more extensively, it must be understood that in BG, Mahaway’s role as a messenger and go-between for the gibborim results in his taking two separate journeys, one earthly and one heavenly, to meet with the Enoch. But in the Book of Moses, it is typically assumed that Mahijah had only one encounter with Enoch, as recorded in Moses 6:40. Are there hints elsewhere in Moses 6–7 of a second journey of Mahijah corresponding to Mahaway’s second, heavenly journey in BG? The answer is yes—but before saying more, let’s look more at the BG account of the second journey of Mahaway in more detail (4Q530, frg. 7, col. ii, l. 3–5).

Table 13. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme J

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

As I was journeying, and stood upon the place Mahujah, and cried unto the Lord, there came a voice out of heaven, saying—Turn ye, and get ye upon the mount Simeon (7:2)

As I was journeying and stood in the place, Mahujah and I cried unto the Lord. There came a voice out of heaven, saying—Turn ye, and get ye upon the mount Simeon (7:2, OT1, p. 15)

6. ‘Let it be known to you th[at ] [

7. your activity and (that) of [your] wive[s ]

8. those ([gibborim])[ and their ] son[s and] the [w]ives o[f ]

9. through your fornication on the earth (Parry 2013, 4Q203, frg. 8, l. 6–9, p. 945)

3. . . . [ he (i.e., Mahaway) mounted up in the air]

As I was journeying and stood in the place, Mahujah and I cried unto the Lord. There came a voice out of heaven, saying—Turn ye, and get ye upon the mount Simeon (7:2, OT1, p. 15)

4. like strong winds, and flew with his hands like an ea[gle to the east of the earth and he passed above]

5. . . . in the direction of the Paradise of Justice] (Parry 2013, 4Q530, frg. 7, col. ii, l. 3–5, p. 951; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 128–34; Reeves 1992, pp. 103–4)

Kneeling figure of Mahujah/Mahaway (?) on mountaintop (MCP, Gulácsi 2015, pp. 470, 489)

[Page 161][Mahaway said:] “Fire was rising.[336] And furth[ermore I saw] that the sun was rising. [Its] palace wa[s] revolving without being carried over.[337] Then, from heaven above came a voice [of an archangel?[338]] It called me and said: “You, son of Virōgdād [i.e., Mahaway[339]], the order for you is exactly this: You [h]ave seen more than enough! Do not die prematurely now! Return quickly [from] here!” And then, besides this, I heard the voice of the apostle Enoch from the south. But I did no[t] see him in person. Then, very affectionately, he called out my name. . . . I shook (or: beat) my wings and quickly descended fr[o]m heaven.

. . . And again from above came a voice. It conferred the words of the apostle Enoch. It said: “I call you, o son of Virōgdā[d], I know [th]is: you are [l]ike some of them.[340] You are . . . (31–33) (Wilkens 2016, Mainz 317 fragment, pp. 227–28; Henning 1943, text A, frg. b, p. 65. See Wilkens 2016, 214–29; Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 132–34; Reeves 1992, p. 94)

From BG we learn that Mahaway had to mount up “in the air like strong winds” and “fly like an eagle” to the “east of the earth . . . in the direction of . . . Paradise”[341] in order to meet Enoch. Though in the symbolic geography of the ancient world a central, cosmic mountain typically represents the most sacred place on earth, its “east edge,”[342] the dawn horizon,[343] the location of the boundary where the round dome of heaven meets the square plane of earth[344] is not only where visions of God are often situated but also the “launching point” from which actual heavenly ascents sometimes occurred.[345]

Consistent with this view, in 1 Enoch, the prophet described his journey as taking him to “the ends of the earth, on which the heaven rests, and the gates of heaven open,”[346] and gave a brief account of its great beasts[347] and [Page 162]birds with beautiful voices.[348] Likewise, the description of Methuselah’s journey to the end of the earth in the Genesis Apocryphon,[349] where Enoch’s “dwelling is with the angels,”[350] “can be plausibly understood as [an allusion] to the [Garden of] Eden.”[351]

Couched within this symbolic geography, Mahaway’s second journey to visit Enoch in BG[352] “is clearly from the west to the east and back again.”[353] Among his other qualifications to make this voyage to the eastern end of the earth,[354] he seems to be “the only giant with wings.”[355] Just as Enoch, who flew east with the angels, used “this mode of transportation . . . to visit areas that normally humans cannot reach,”[356] so also

Figure 17. Camille Flammarion (1842–1925): Engraving, 1888. “The image depicts a man crawling under the edge of the sky, depicted as if it were a solid hemisphere, to look at the mysterious Empyrean beyond. The caption . . . translates to ‘A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven and earth meet.’”[357] In line with the idea that the Garden of Eden is at the eastern edge of the earth, note the prominent tree just behind the man.[358]

the flight of Mahaway should be understood in a similar way. [He] is able to reach Eden because he can fly over a desolate [Page 163]desert that would be, following this logic, impossible to cross on foot. This underscores the extraordinary and difficult nature of [his] voyage. Asking Mahaway to undertake such an arduous journey highlights how seriously [the gibborim] wanted an interpretation to the two visions of ’Ohyah and Hahyah.[359]

Salvatore Cirillo finds the parallel accounts of Mahaway’s journeys in BG and the Book of Moses impressive: “The emphasis that [Joseph] Smith places on Mahijah’s travel to Enoch is eerily similar to the account of Mahaway to Enoch in [BG].”[360]

In the Manichaean Cosmology Painting, a lone figure kneels repentantly on the top of the only other mountain shown in the scene. So far as I am aware, no BG scholar has attempted to identify this uniquely prominent figure, however it is hard to imagine a better candidate than Mahijah/Mahujah/Mahaway. But why would a repentant Mahijah/Mahujah/Mahaway be perched alone on a mountain top?

Figure 18. Detail of MCP depicting a solitary, repentant individual, possibly representing Mahaway kneeling atop a high mountain. The imagery recalls the OT1 text of Moses 7:2 where Mahujah and Enoch “cried unto the Lord” and heard the divine command: “Turn ye, and get ye upon the mount Simeon.”[361]

A clue to that possibility lies in Old Testament Manuscript 1 (OT1), the manuscript of the Book of Moses that was directly recorded from Joseph Smith’s dictation. In the OT1 version of Moses 7:2, the second and only other mention of Mahijah is found, though with a slightly different spelling: Mahujah. Importantly, while the canonized version of Moses 7:2 reads Mahujah as a place name, OT1 renders Mahujah as a personal [Page 164]name.[362] In other words, the original dictation seems to indicate that Enoch is “standing with” the figure Mahujah, “not standing on” the place Mahujah.[363]

With respect to the mention of “the place,” Kent Brown has elsewhere observed that in a biblical context, references to “the place” (Hebrew maqōm; Greek topos) may describe a special or sacred location. For example, in the New Testament the Garden of Gethsemane metaphorically becomes “the holy place” where Jesus enters to pray and to shed His blood.[364] Here, “the [holy] place” also became a place of prayer for Mahujah and Enoch when they “cried unto the Lord.” As Draper et al. emphasize,[365] it is the cry of the righteous that mobilizes the Lord to take action—whether it be in providing further knowledge and understanding, as we see here and again later throughout the grand vision of Enoch,[366] in taking action to correct injustices,[367] or in delivering His people from distress.[368] The initial words of God’s command “Turn ye” express something more than physical movement. Though the Hebrew term teshuvah literally denotes “return,” it can be understood by modern English speakers as signifying “repentance” or “conversion” in scriptural contexts. God turns to the petitioner when the petitioner turns to Him.[369]

Figure 19. Moses 7:2–3, Old Testament 1 Manuscript, Joseph Smith Translation.[370]

All this seems consistent with the idea that Mahaway may be the individual depicted in the MCP scene shown in figure 18. Significantly, the mountain on which the figure kneels is nearer to Mount Sumēru, in other words closer to the sacred center of the scene, than the other gibborim who kneel in the distant land across the river.

[Page 165]As to the similarly spelled name that appears at this point in the story—“Mahujah” instead of “Mahijah”—the question arises as to whether this is a scribal error or a deliberate change.[371] If taken as a deliberate and meaningful change, the sacred setting of the change, in close association with the mention of Enoch’s being “clothed upon with glory” (Moses 7:2) recalls the bestowal of new names upon Abram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah.[372] Simultaneously seeming both to highlight Enoch’s personal investment in the spiritual progress of Mahujah/Mahaway and the sacred symbolism of names in initiatory rites, BG obliquely relates the brief remembrance of Mahaway that Enoch “very affectionately . . . called out my name.”[373] BG scholar Jens Wilkens comments, “One is tempted to postulate an emotional relationship between [Mahaway] and Enoch.”[374]

Then, as Mahaway departed, Enoch spoke to him a last time: “I call you, o son of Virogdad, I know [th]is: you are like some of them.”[375] The sense of the warning seems to be “you are too much like some of them,” in other words, it seems that Mahujah/Mahaway, like the wicked faction of the gibborim,[376] ultimately would reject the invitation to repent and be exalted with Enoch.

If additional speculation can be tolerated, the ending of the BG story of Mahujah/Mahaway might be seen as a sort of parable that evokes the themes of Jesus’ encounter with the rich young ruler.[377] Like the rich young ruler, we might say in modern terms that Mahujah/Mahaway was offered the gift of eternal life if he would follow the path he had begun as a disciple of Enoch to its glorious end through complete obedience to the law of consecration, as was later strictly observed by Enoch’s people in Zion. Sadly—after Mahujah/Mahaway’s promising but brief encounter with Enoch in a sacred place where together they “cried unto the Lord,” a place where Mahujah/Mahaway had been called by name “very affectionately” and in sorrow warned at his departure—the account implies Mahujah/Mahaway not only lost his life but also, more tragically, perished spiritually.

We are not told directly whether Mahujah/Mahaway remained repentant or became recalcitrant when he died, but the BG description of his slaughter suggests that he remained too long in the “tents of [the] wicked” (Numbers 16:26) and for that reason, if for no other, he ultimately shared in their tragic demise. BG records these words as a lament for Mahaway’s violent death: “Slain, slain was that angel who was great, [that messenger whom they had[378]]. Dead were those who were joined with flesh.”[379]

[Page 166]K. Enoch clothed with glory

Table 14. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme K

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

There came a voice out of heaven, saying—Turn ye, and get ye upon the mount Simeon.

And it came to pass that I turned and went up on the mount; and as I stood upon the mount, I beheld the heavens open, and I was clothed upon with glory;

And I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face (7:2–4)

1. ] a thousand thousands [were serving ] him [

2. ] not alarmed at any king and [

3. great fear] seized me and I fell on my face; I hea[rd] his voice [

4. ] he dwelt [not] among human beings and he did not learn from them[ (Parry 2013, 4Q531, frg. 14, l. 1–4, p. 957; see Stuckenbruck 2013, pp. 154–56)

Though both Enoch and Mahujah were commanded to ascend (“Turn ye,” using a plural pronoun), it seems that only Enoch made an immediate response (“I turned and went up on the mount”). Moses 7:3 relates that as Enoch stood on the mount, the heavens opened and he was “clothed upon with glory.” 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch purport to describe the process by which Enoch was “clothed upon with glory” in more detail, as discussed previously.

In an uncanonized revelation on Enoch found in Joseph Smith’s Revelation Book 2,[380] Mount Simeon, where Enoch and Mahujah are called to go, is called the “Mountain of God,”[381] appearing to correspond symbolically to a sacred center like Mount Sumēru in the BG account. The name Simeon (Hebrew Shim’on) is generally taken to derive from the Hebrew shama’ (= “to hear”), as indicated in Genesis 29:33.[382] Remembering that Enoch preached “upon the hills and the high places,”[383] Nibley associates the term with the concepts of “an audition, a hearing, both attention, a place of preaching” or “conversation,” hence an “exchange of ideas.”[384] Thus, Simeon is a fitting name for a meeting place between Enoch and the Lord. Incidentally, there is a Mount Simeon (Jabal Sem’an) in Syria—also known as Mount Nebo. There Moses received a vision of the promised land.

[Page 167]

Figure 20. Franz Johansen (1938–), Resurrection. BYU sculpture garden.[385] In a vision of his own resurrection, President Lorenzo Snow, then an Apostle, experienced something similar to what is described in 2 Enoch and3 Enoch. He recounted: “I heard a voice calling me by name, saying: ‘He is worthy, he is worthy, take away his filthy garments.’ My clothes were then taken off piece by piece and a voice said: ‘Let him be clothed, let him be clothed.’”[386]

The brief summary of the prelude to Enoch’s transfiguration is augmented by the account in Revelation Book 2. As Enoch

gazed upon nature and the corruption of man, and mourned their sad fate, and wept and cried with a loud voice, and heaved forth his sighs, “Omnipotence, Omnipotence! O may I see thee!”

And with his finger he [i.e., God] touched his [i.e., Enoch’s] eyes and he saw heaven, he gazed on eternity and sang an angelic song and mingled his voice with the heavenly throng, “Hosanna! Hosanna!” The sound of the trump around the throne of God echoed and echoed again, and rang and reechoed until eternity was filled with his voice.

He saw, yea, he saw and he glorified God.[387]

[Page 168]Thus, among other things, we learn that Enoch “was not simply given the privilege of seeing God. Rather the glorious opportunity to see God came to Enoch because he asked to see God.”[388]

Figure 21. Gerard Hoet (1648–1733), God Took Enoch.[389] In a separate event that took place long before the long-term translation of Enoch and his people to the “bosom of God,” the Book of Moses recounts that Enoch was “clothed upon with glory” (Moses 7:3).

By taking the liberty to combine insights from both the BG and Book of Moses accounts, we seem to be able to see a glimpse of Enoch’s glory in heaven from Mahujah/Mahaway’s secondhand perspective: “A thousand thousands [were serving ] him. . . . Great fear] seized me and I fell on my face.”

After Enoch’s presence is “veiled” following his glorification,[390] Wilkens observes that “only Enoch’s voice is mentioned.”[391] In explanation of this state of affairs, Wilkens mentions a Uyghur fragment of BG in which a speaker says (likely Mahaway, referring to Enoch), “But I did not see him in person.”[392] From the combined textual evidence, it seems that we are meant to understand that [Page 169]the final scene of Mahaway’s second visit with Enoch “takes place in the sky”[393] in voice-to-voice rather than face-to-face fashion. In other words, it seems that at this point Mahaway can still speak with Enoch through the “veil” but is no longer permitted to see Enoch in his transfigured state in the divine realm. Thus, we read in 4Q531 14, 1–4, after Enoch passed out of view into the celestial world, Mahujah/Mahaway’s concluding report: “I hea[rd] his voice.”

BG scholars differ in their interpretation about what happened to Enoch after his glorification. While the English translation in Parry and Tov adds a conjectural “not” to be able to state that Enoch “dwelt [not] among human beings,”[394] Stuckenbruck accepts the literal reading that Enoch “dwelt among human beings.”[395] The “not” is assumed by scholars who are looking for consistency in this passage with their view that, in BG, Enoch did not minister directly to humankind. However, omitting the conjectural “not” leaves us with a reading that agrees with the Book of Moses account, in which Enoch continued to lead and teach his disciples personally after his initial glorification. The Book of Moses separately describes the eventual, more permanent translation of Enoch and his people at that time when “Zion fled” (Moses 7:69).

L. Gibborim defeated in battle

The Book of Moses briefly summarizes how the “enemies” of the “people of God” “came to battle against them,” crediting the victory of Enoch not to their superior numbers or weaponry but to the power of the “word of the Lord” that he spoke (Moses 7:13–15). Notably, Moses 7:15 contains the single mention in the Book of Moses Enoch account of a group of “giants” who “stood afar off.” The BG picture of the conflict agrees with the ignominious defeat of Enoch’s opponents. The profound disappointment of the speaker of 4Q531 frg. 22, l. 3–7, probably one of the gibborim,[396] is magnified by his overweening ambition to dominate and humiliate his foes. Reeves writes:

[Page 170]Table 15. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme L

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them . . .

And the giants of the land, also, stood afar off; and there went forth a curse upon all people that fought against God;

And from that time forth there were wars and bloodshed among them; but the Lord came and dwelt with his people, and they dwelt in righteousness (7:13, 15–16)

3 [ I am] mighty [literally “I am a gibbor”[397]], and by the mighty strength of my arm and my own great strength

4. [and I went up against a]ll flesh, and I made war against them; but I did not

5. [prevail, and I am not] able to stand firm against them, for my opponents

6. [are angels who] reside in [heav]en, and they dwell in the holy places. vacat And they were not

7. [defeated, for they] are stronger than I. (Parry 2013, 4Q531, frg. 22, l. 3–7, p. 959; see Stuckenbruck, pp. 161–67; Reeves 1992, pp. 118–21)

5. ] Did not all these depart through your sword[

6. much blood was shed, ] like great rivers on [the] e[arth[398] (Parry 2013, 4Q531, frg. 7, l. 5–6, p. 955; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 146–49)

And those two hundred demons[399] fought a hard battle with the [four angels], until [the angels used] fire, naptha, and brimstone (Henning 1943, text G, p. 69; see Reeves, pp. 122–23)

“The Righteous who were burnt in the fire, they endured. This multitude that were wiped out, four thousand. . . . Enoch also, the Sage, the transgressors being . . .” (Henning 1943, text Q, p. 72)

[Page 171]many . . . were killed, four hundred thousand Righteous . . . with fire, naphtha, and brimstone . . . And the angels veiled (or: covered, or: protected, or: moved out of sight) Enoch (Henning 1943, text A, frg. i, p. 61 [and 62n4]. See Stuckenbruck 1997, 19n82; Wilkens 2016, p. 225.)

MCP depiction of Enoch being protected by angels (Kósa 2016, pp. 162–63, 168–69; fig. 2a, p. 183)

“Then Atambīš two hundred . . . he seized . . . he cut off (?) before (?) . . . he smashed and he tossed [to] the four end[s] of the ea[rth]. . . . Slain, slain was that angel who was great, [that messenger whom they had[400]]. Dead were those who were joined with flesh, and defeated were those who were . . . (?) with . . . (?) were slain, those who . . . with one step (?) . . .” (Sundermann 1973, M5900 (22), lines 1551–56, 1574–81, pp. 77–78, as translated in Reeves 1992, p. 123. See Stuckenbruck 1997, 73n43; Wilkens 2016, p. 227)

The confident, even boasting character of the [statement] accords well with several testimonia contained in Jewish sources that stigmatize the “pride” or “arrogance” of the [gibborim]. 3 Maccabees 2:4 states: “Those who formerly practiced lawlessness, among whom were [gibborim] confident of (their) might and boldness.” . . . Note also Wisdom of Solomon 14:6: “For also in the beginning, while arrogant [gibborim] were dying.” . . . Josephus is also familiar with this motif: “. . . sons who were arrogant and contemptuous of all that was good, placing confidence in their strength.”[401]

[Page 172]Significantly, BG and the Book of Moses emphasize not only war but “bloodshed,” which a speaker in BG compares to horrible “great rivers on the earth.”[402]

Some of the BG fragments shown in the table above describe three specific motifs relating to the battle:[403]

- The idea that battles were waged (at least in part) against heavenly forces. In at least one place, “four angels”[404] are specifically mentioned—a reference to Raphael, Michael, Gabriel, and Istrael (also known as Sariel, Uriel, or Fanuel).[405] Kósa’s interpretation suggests that, “in contrast to the non-armored, other heavenly figures in the firmaments [of the MCP depiction], the four armored angels depicted in action constitute a special squad, charged with very difficult tasks.”[406]

Figure 22. Detail from the MCP.[407] The four archangels mentioned in BG, who (in the Manichaean conception) were in the forefront of the battles against the wicked[408] and helped gather the repentant gibborim, are standing, clothed in armor, in front of a seated deity that one scholar suggests may be Enoch.[409]

- The use of “fire, naphtha, and brimstone”[410] by these heavenly forces.

- The fact that although “the Righteous who were burnt in the fire, they endured”[411] and that Enoch was “veiled” or “moved out of sight” for his protection.[412] While neither the participation of heavenly forces in battles nor the use of fire, naphtha, and brimstone are mentioned in the Book of Moses, the general [Page 173]idea that Enoch and the righteous were protected is consistent with Moses 7:16.

Figure 23. Bas-relief showing Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, stabbing a wounded lion. North Palace, Nineveh, Mesopotamia, Iraq, ca. 645–635 BCE.

M. The “roar of lions/wild beasts” following battle

Table 16. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme M

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him (7:13; emphasis added)

6. . . . they were not

7. [defeated, for they] are stronger than I. vacat

8. ] of the wild beast has come, and the wild man they call [me.] (Parry 2013, 4Q531, frg. 22, l. 6–8, p. 959; see Stuckenbruck, pp. 161–67; Reeves 1992, pp. 118–21; emphasis added)

. . . hard . . . arrow . . . bow, he that . . . (Henning 1943, text A, frg. c, p. 60)

[Not the] . . . of the lion, but the . . . on his . . . (Henning 1943, text A, frg. k, p. 60)

[Page 174]The puzzling phrase “[ ] of the wild beast has come” immediately follows the description of the battle. The first portion of the phrase, indicated by brackets in Cook’s translation above, has proven difficult for other translators to reconstruct as well. Thus, for example, Loren Stuckenbruck renders it simply as two untranslated letters: “rh” (i.e., “rh of the beasts of the field is coming”[413]). However, Martínez and Milik, confident enough to make a conjecture, respectively understand the phrase as “the roar of the wild beasts has come”[414] and “the roaring of the wild beasts came.”[415] Lending credence to their reading, the Enoch account in the Book of Moses has a remarkably similar phrase: “The roar of the lions was heard.”[416] This phrase, placed in analogous post-battle settings in both texts, is one of the most striking and unexpected affinities between Joseph Smith’s Enoch story and the ancient Book of Giants.

Table 17. Comparison of English translations on “the roar of the wild beasts/lions”

Stuckenbruck Translation

Martínez Translation

Milik Translation

Moses 7:13

rh of the beasts of the field is coming

the roar of the wild beasts has come

the roaring of the wild beasts came

the roar of the lions was heard

Brian R. Doak’s sociolinguistic analysis reveals a convincing rationale for the author of the Book of Giants having placed these references together. Among other evidence, he cites an Old Testament example in which victory against an elite adversary (in this case, a giant) and a prestige animal (lion) were also deliberately juxtaposed.[417] Yet, while there was indeed a close connection in ancient times between a military victory and “the roar of wild beasts,” that association would likely have been just as unfamiliar to Joseph Smith as it is to general readers today.

In addition to the ironic reversal of the roles of Enoch and his wicked opponent as “wild men” (as discussed earlier), this example provides a similar turning of the tables in the subjugation of the wild beasts/lions to the God of the righteous Enoch, rather than to his wicked adversaries. The same God who “shut the lions’ mouths”[418] to save Daniel from harm opened the mouth of Enoch to destroy his enemies through the “power of [his] language.”[419]

[Page 175]N. Repentant are gathered to divinely prepared cities

Table 18. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme N

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

the Lord came and dwelt with his people, and they dwelt in righteousness.

The fear of the Lord was upon all nations, so great was the glory of the Lord, which was upon his people. And the Lord blessed the land, and they were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish.

And the Lord called his people Zion (7:16–18)

And the angels themselves descended from the heaven to the earth. … And they led one half of them eastwards, and the other half westwards, on the skirts of four huge mountains, towards the foot of the Sumēru mountain, into thirty-two towns which the Living Spirit had prepared for them in the beginning. And one calls (that place) Aryān-Waižān (Henning 1943, Text G, p. 69. See Reeves, pp. 122–123; Wilkens 2016, p. 220)

Before the children of the [gibborim] were born, they who had [no] knowledge of righteousness in them nor divinity, thirty-six cities were assigned and co[nstructed] for them wherein the children of [the (gibborim) would] live; they who would come to beget from each othe[r, they w]ho shall spend ten hundred years alive (Gardner 1995, 45 (117), p. 123; Henning 1943, text S, pp. 72–73. See Reeves, p. 124)

Earlier we described how the wicked gibborim sorrowed and trembled after Enoch read the record of their deeds out of the book of remembrance and tendered to them the possibility of repentance. Drawing jointly on the Manichaean and Qumran accounts, Matthew Goff conjectures that the Book of Giants follows a set of Jewish traditions where at least some of the nephilim and gibborim “are not killed in a flood but rather have long lives.”[420] However, we have already seen that there were both supporters and detractors of Enoch among the gibborim. [Page 176]For example, a Sogdian fragment of BG tells us that a righteous faction “‘are glad at seeing the apostle, who is obviously Enoch, and ‘assembled before him.’”[421] But those who are called “tyrants and criminals” are “afraid.”[422] In one of the most significant thematic resemblances of BG to the Book of Moses, we are told in both texts that the righteous were gathered to a place of safety. To fully understand the account of the gathering of Enoch’s people in BG, we first need to appreciate how it fits within the conception of a universe that is conceived as “hierocentric.”

Figure 24. Adapted from Michael P. Lyon (1952–), Sacred Topography of Eden and the Temple, 1994.[423] The outbound, downward journey of the Creation and the Fall at left is mirrored in the inbound, upward journey of the temple at right.

Hugh Nibley, following Eric Burrows, defined “the term ‘hierocentric’ as that which best describes those cults, states, and philosophies that were oriented about a point believed to be the exact center and pivot of the universe.”[424] Like the story of Enoch in BG and the Book of Moses, ancient visualizations and descriptions in scattered sources are sometimes constructed around a sacred center, though, of course, representations of this symbolic, pre-scientific approach to geography vary in significant details.[425]

Such sacred centers often coincide with the location of a “mountain or artificial mound and a lake or spring from which four streams flowed out to bring the life-giving waters to the four regions of the earth. The place was a green paradise, a carefully kept garden, a refuge from drought and heat.”[426] A version of this perspective is reflected biblically in the layout of the Garden of Eden and the temple,[427] as well as in the geography of later stories and prophecies of divinely directed scatterings and gatherings of Israel and other peoples.

[Page 177]Scholars have argued convincingly that the outbound, downward journey of the Creation and the Fall in Genesis is mirrored in the inbound, upward journey of the temple (figure 24).[428] The Garden of Eden can be seen as a natural “temple,” where Adam and Eve lived at first in God’s presence. Significantly, each major feature of Eden (e.g., the river, the cherubim, the Tree of Knowledge, the Tree of Life) corresponds to a similar symbol in the Israelite temple (e.g., the bronze laver, the cherubim, the veil,[429] the menorah[430]).

The corresponding course taken by the Israelite high priest through the temple can be seen as symbolizing the journey of the Fall of Adam and Eve in reverse. In other words, just as the route of Adam and Eve’s departure from Eden led them eastward past the cherubim with the flaming swords and out of the sacred garden into the mortal world, so in ancient times the high priest would return westward from the mortal world, past the consuming fire, the cleansing water, the woven images of cherubim on the temple veils, and, finally, back into the presence of God.[431] “Thus,” according to Parry, the high priest has returned “to the original point of creation, where he pours out the atoning blood of the sacrifice, reestablishing the covenant relationship with God.”[432]

An analogous conception is depicted in the frontispiece of an Armenian adaptation of the Treatise on the Work of the Six Days of Creation by Bartholomew of Bologna (d. 1333. See figure 25).[433] It shows Adam and Eve, seemingly within a cave-like structure, at the top and in the center of the paradisiacal creation. In that unique setting, they have direct access to the divine Presence above, while also being surrounded by a perimeter of angels beneath.

Figure 25. Adam and Eve at the top of the newly created paradise. Frontispiece, Treatise on the Work of the Six Days of Creation.[434]

[Page 178]A 12th-century Christian illustration also shows Adam and Eve at the top of a mountain (figure 26a).[435] However, the fig leaf aprons they wear witness that the scene represents their fallen state after their transgression but before they were clothed by God.[436] In contrast to the previous figure, they are now “lamenting their Fall on a brown, bare hill,”[437] having lost their access to the luxuriant trees of the Garden and the continual, protective presence of heavenly beings, including the Lord Himself. The diagram shown in figure 26b, annotated with relevant terminology for the benefit of Latter-day Saint readers, summarizes the symbology of the same three zones of sacredness depicted in figure 26a. In a central place at the top of the mountain, Adam and Eve sit within the most sacred of the three zones pictured. Tongues of flame adorn the upper part of the hill and the entrance to the cave,[438] suggesting both the glory of God within each of the two most sacred zones and the potential danger for those who approach the portals of entry unprepared. On the following page of the manuscript is “an image of the Garden of Eden, now empty, its door barred by three angels.”[439]

In the heart of the mountain, the middle zone of sacredness, an aged Adam and Eve, having been cast out of the Garden and clad in robes of animal skins made by God for their protection, confer within a “Cave of Treasures,” in some sources, the cave is symbolically equated to the Holy Place of the temple, where heaven and earth meet.[440] The “Cave of Treasures” was so named in Jewish and Christian tradition because it was conceived as a safeguard for gold, frankincense, and myrrh, retrieved by angels from the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve’s departure.[441] These three items, later withdrawn from the earth but thought by some Christians to have been returned to humankind when the Magi visited the Christ child, respectively symbolized kingship, priesthood, and the anointing oil that transformed kings and priests into “sons of God.”[442] The significance of the treasures becomes more clear with the understanding that the cave where Adam and Eve were made to dwell was a understood to be a proto-temple, a temporary replacement and consolation for their loss of Eden.[443]

Cain and Abel offer their respective grain and animal sacrifices on the other hills portrayed on either side of the principal peak at the center. At right, God is shown consuming the sacrifice of Abel while, at left, He rejects that of Cain. At the bottom of the mountain, the mortal world that corresponds symbolically to the “outer courtyard” of the temple, Cain has words with Abel, leads him out to the field, and, finally, murders him. Because of Cain’s grievous killing, we are told in scripture [Page 179]that he and his posterity were “shut out from the presence of the Lord” and cast further downward and outward to dwell “in the land of Nod [i.e., wandering], on the east of Eden.”[444] Following what became the standard tradition in the Syriac Church that saw the “sons of God” as Sethites and the “daughters of men” as Cainites,[445] Ephrem the Syrian wrote that, tragically, some of “those who lived on higher ground,[446] who were called ‘the children of God,’ left their own region and came down to take wives from the daughters of Cain down below.”[447]

Figure 26. a. Adam and Eve Outside Paradise, Cain and Abel, 12th century;[448] b. Top down view of three zones of sacredness in the Garden of Eden and the temple.

Moses 6:23 speaks of how “preachers of righteousness” who also symbolically descended from higher ground, initiated a missionary program aimed at wanderers who had deliberately forsaken God and dwelt below. Among these preachers was Jared, the father of Enoch,[449] the root of whose name probably means “to descend.”[450] And among those to whom they preached were the “giants” or nephilim,[451] a name that fittingly means “fallen ones.”

Circular maps with top-down perspectives on a hierocentric cosmos are common in some cultures. Though they vary widely in their details, many share general characteristics. Nakamura Hiroshi used the term mappaemundi to refer to such maps, that, in contrast to modern maps, were “used to convey a certain idea of space, and not preoccupied with topographical accuracy.”[452] A late Korean example of such a map is shown in figure 27, but maps that are at least superficially similar to this one go back thousands of years. However, despite some similarities, it should be mentioned that influence on circular Korean maps from Babylonian or medieval sources seems unlikely, since the earlier maps “had long been [Page 180]out of circulation when the circular world maps became so popular in Korea.”[453]

Figure 27. ‘Cheonhado’ map of the square earth and the round cosmos, Seoul, Korea, ca. 1800.[454] In the central area is an internal continent surrounded by an internal sea, which is in turn surrounded by an external continent and an external sea. The names of real places are shown exclusively within the internal continent, while the names that appear elsewhere describe mythological locations[455] “where immortals live.”[456]

In figure 27, an internal continent, corresponding to known earthly geography, is surrounded by an external continent where immortals (both good and evil) live, separated from earth by an internal sea. In such maps, movement away from the center of the internal continent is represented as being in an eastward direction that reflects increasing distance from access to the divine. For example, with respect to the structure of maps like this one, Mark E. Lewis notes “there is a progressive decline as one moves away from the center.”[457] Note the large medallion bearing the name of China that is shown near the middle of the map—just east of Mount K’un-lun, reflecting the idea of China as perhaps the most sacred place on earth outside of the sacred mountain itself. Mount K’un-lun, it was anciently revered as the sacred center of [Page 181]the universe where heaven and earth meet and from which four great rivers emanate[458]—recalling the four rivers of Eden.[459]

Though I am not suggesting that Cheonhado maps such as the one above and the Sogdian fragments of the Book of Giants have any necessary relationship, at least one scholar has argued for evidence of “weak and distant influence”[460] in the resemblance of the symbolic geography of Mount K’un-lun to that of Mount Sumēru. Of relevance for the present chapter is that Mount Sumēru—the sacred mountain of Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism—is mentioned in Manichaean fragments of the Book of Giants—and visually depicted in the Manichaean Cosmology Painting—as the place of resort for the gathered righteous, as we will discuss in more detail below.

When seen in the light of hierocentric maps of the world, certain details relating to the layout of sacred, symbolic geography in both ancient Enoch accounts and the Book of Moses take on greater meaning. Though the symbolic geography tells us little— or, more likely, nothing—about the physical geography of the story, knowing something about it helps unravel the significance of BG’s narrative of Enoch’s missionary journeys and the subsequent gathering and scattering of various peoples.

As mentioned previously, Jewish sources usually detail a decrease in sacredness as one moves eastward away from the center and an increase as one travels (or returns) toward it, often in a westward direction.[461] This direction of movement is analogous to the westward movement toward increasingly sacred compartments within Israelite temples. An understanding of the map helps us understand the nature of Enoch’s eastward missionary journey. For example, in answer to Mahijah’s question in Moses 6:41, Enoch replied:

I came out from the land of Cainan, the land of my fathers, a land of righteousness unto this day.

Thus, in line with the presumed hierocentric, symbolic geography of Enoch’s world, we are not surprised to read the significant detail in the Book of Moses account that his missionary journey took him away from the “sacred center”—in other words, he went out “from the land of Cainan,”[462] “a land of righteousness”[463] in the west, to the land of the wicked in the east, presumably not far from the western edge of “the sea east,”[464] where he is said to have received a vision. Significantly, 1 Enoch also records a vision that Enoch received “by the waters of Dan,”[465] arguably corresponding to the “sea east” mentioned in the Book of Moses.[466]

[Page 182] However, 1 Enoch also contains the account of an elaborate “journey round the world”[467] undertaken by Enoch that is lacking in the Book of Moses and BG. In BG we are only given the account of Mahaway’s long and apparently direct flight eastward to the end of the earth to meet Enoch at the mountain of the “Paradise of Justice,” distinct from the “mountain of God” which, in 1 Enoch, is located in the north and prominently features the Tree of Life.[468]

Figure 28. Representation of the world based on 1 Enoch. “In the conception of the universe in the book of [1 Enoch], the sun emerges from the six eastern gates, moves in the six months between the winter and summer solstices, and sets in the western gates. The seven great mountains are based on the ancient Babylonian conception of the universe.”[469] Although not shown here, the author of 1 Enoch 26 described Jerusalem and “Judaea, the center of the earth” as containing “a sacred mountain, the hill of the Temple,”[470] as would be expected. Milik observed that the map shows tension between competing concerns between the requirements of cartography and fidelity to the (sometimes conflicting) Enoch texts.[471]

With this general understanding of roughly analogous hierocentric circular maps with a mountain at the sacred center made at other times and places, we are ready to return to the account of the gathering of Enoch’s people in BG and the Book of Moses. In the general fashion of Indian cartography, produced under the influence of Manichaean disciples familiar with BG, the universe is depicted as “countless [Page 183]spherical separate worlds,” with “our earth [as] one of the concentric rings in a disc detached from a globe.”[472] At the center is Mount Sumēru, “from which flow all rivers.”

Figure 29. Detail of MCP.[473] Movement of the wicked and the righteous with respect to the high, treelike cliff at the center of the world, corresponding to the sacred Mount Sumēru. The cities that were established by the repentant gibborim were said to have been situated in earthly mountains that were westward of their point of origin. Note the mountains at the foot of Sumēru.

Book of Moses readers will recall that the righteous followers of Enoch were brought to a place of safety where “the Lord came and dwelt with his people. … And Enoch … built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even Zion.”[474] One interesting feature of the Manichaean BG fragments is that they tell us the direction that Enoch’s people traveled. Specifically, according to BG, four angels ultimately led the wicked to their eventual destruction in the east—away from the “sacred center”—while the righteous went westward to inhabit cities near the foot of the holy mountain, as shown by the annotations in the figure above.

Although the Manichaean version of these events highlights only the prominent role of the angels in leading the battles and gathering the righteous, we can safely presume that the role of Enoch was closely intertwined with that of the angels. For example, note that the protection of Enoch by these angels is mentioned elsewhere in the Manichaean BG text[475] and the angels and Enoch seem to be shown together visually within MCP as previously mentioned:[476]

And the angels themselves descended from the heaven to the earth. … And they led one half of them eastwards, and the [Page 184]other half westwards, on the skirts of four huge mountains, towards the foot of the Sumēru mountain, into thirty-two[477] towns which the Living Spirit had prepared for them in the beginning.

While there are indications in some Manichaean traditions suggesting that both the eastward and westward bound groups were wicked,[478] Matthew Goff sees it as more reasonable to view the westward bound group in BG as consisting of repentant gibborim, reminding readers that the area near Mount Sumēru is the sacred omphalos mundi[479] of Indian tradition”:[480]

No reason is given as to why the [gibborim] are placed in cities. The division of the [gibborim] along an east-west axis suggests two opposed fates for them—one half was killed and the other survived. This could be explained by positing that some of the [gibborim] repented and changed their ways while others did not.

In a further detail that parallels the Book of Moses, observe that BG describes the righteous dwelling “on the skirts of four huge mountains.”[481] Significantly, this imagery recalls Moses 7:17, which relates that the righteous “were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish.”

O. Imprisonment of the wicked

Table 19. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme O.

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.

And that which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment (7:38–39)

Enoch, the apostle, . . . [gave a message to the demons (i.e., Watchers, in this context) and their] children (i.e., gibborim): to you . . . not peace [The judgment on you is] that you shall be bound for the sins you have omitted. You shall see the destruction of your children. Ruling for a hundred and twenty [years] (Henning 1943, text A, frg. l, p. 61; see Stuckenbruck 1997, p. 63)

[Page 185]There is ]not peace for you[ (Parry 2013, 4Q203, frg. 8, l. 2, p. 943; see Stuckenbruck 1997, p. 63)

he has imprisoned us and overpowered yo[u (Parry 2013, 4Q203, frg. 7b I, l. 5, p. 945; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 83–84; Reeves 1992, pp. 126–27)

Then . . . and imprisoned the demons (i.e., Watchers, in this context) (Henning, text T, p. 73; Reeves 1992, pp. 123–24)

They bound the Watchers with an eternal chain, in the prison of the blackened ones (?). [Th]ey obliterated their children [i.e., the gibborim] from the earth (Gardner 1995, 38 (93); Henning 1943, text P, p. 72. See Reeves 1992, p. 124.)

Before the Watchers rebelled and came down from heaven, a prison was fashioned and constructed for them in the depths of the earth, below the mountains (Gardner 1995, 45 (117), p. 123; Henning 1943, text S, pp. 72–73)

The conclusion of the story of the rebellion of the Watchers in 1 Enoch tells of their terrible binding and eternal imprisonment:

Go, Michael, bind Shemihazah and the others with him, . . . bind them . . . in the valleys of the earth, until the day of their judgment. . . . Then they will be led away to the fiery abyss, and to the torture, and to the prison where they will be confined forever.[482]

[Page 186]

Figure 30. William Blake (1757–1827), The Primaeval Giants Sunk in the Soil 1824–1827.[483]

Blake’s drawing in figure 30 illustrates canto 31 of Dante’s Divine Comedy. After seeing what he mistakenly thinks is a ring of towers surrounding a central deep, Dante is told by Virgil about the Giants who are sunk to their waists in a well whose massive drop leads to Cocytus, a great frozen lake of the lowest region of hell. Their defiant rebellion, born of the same envy and pride that ruled the fallen angels who “rained down from heaven” in the beginning[484], was all the more terrible and destructive because of the coupling of their evil will with the brute force of their mighty stature. Now reduced to pale, mountainous shapes amid the chaos, they stand eternally unmoved by the sharp fires of lightning above and the rude blasts of icy storm winds swirling upward from below.

Both the Book of Moses and the Book of Giants contain a “prediction of utter destruction and the confining in prison that is to follow”[485] for the unrepentant wicked, a scenario that is similar in some ways to 1 Enoch. From the Book of Moses we read, “But behold, these . . . shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them” (Moses 7:38). Likewise, in BG we read the lament of a speaker who complains, “He has imprisoned us and overpowered yo[u.”[486]

[Page 187]

Figure 31. Detail of MCP, showing imprisoned “demons;”[487] here most likely depicting “Watchers” who are adjudged to have committed unpardonable sins.

That said, although the three texts are similar in a general way, there is an important difference between the outlook of 1 Enoch and that found in the Book of Moses and BG—namely, the possibility of repentance and salvation for those who have sinned.[488] Jed Woodworth summarizes:

What is the fate of those who perish in the flood? In [1 Enoch], there is one fate only: everlasting punishment. Those who are destroyed in the flood are beyond redemption. For God to be reconciled, sinners must suffer forever. Enoch has nothing to say because God has no merciful side to appeal to. In [the Book of Moses account], however, punishment has an end. The merciful side of God allows Enoch to speak and be heard. God and Enoch speak a common language: mercy. “Lift up your heart, and be glad; and look,” God says to Enoch after the flood.[489] There is hope for the wicked yet:[490]

I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them. And that which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment.

The Messiah figure in [1 Enoch 45–47] and in [the Book of Moses] function in different ways. In [the Book of Moses], the Chosen One will come to earth at the meridian of time to rescue the sinners of Enoch’s day. After the Messiah’s death and resurrection, “as many of the spirits as were in prison [Page 188]came forth, and stood on the right hand of God.”[491] The Messiah figure in [1 Enoch] does not come down to earth and is peripheral to the text; he presides over the “elect” around God’s throne[492] but does not rescue the sinners of Enoch’s day. “In the day of trouble evil shall [still] be heaped upon sinners,”[493] he tells Enoch [in that account].[494]

The use of the term “demons” in BG can be confusing because it applies to different groups at different times. For example, while the term “demons” denotes the gibborim in some places in BG,[495] within the passages on the right-hand side of table 19 above it clearly refers to the Watchers. In addition, though BG, like 1 Enoch, does not hold out the possibility of forgiveness for the Watchers (who apparently are adjudged to have committed unpardonable sins), we have already seen that BG elsewhere records Enoch’s hope that the gibborim will reform and escape the severe judgments that otherwise await them.[496] Similarly, in Moses 6:52, Enoch preaches that it is not too late for the gibborim to change their ways—his message is “that all men, everywhere, must repent.”[497] In brief, the outlooks of the Book of Moses and the Book of Giants toward the gibborim are similar to each other but different from 1 Enoch.

Unfortunately, as later events make clear, the initial sorrowing of what seems to have been many of the gibborim brought about only short-lived repentance for some of them. However, drawing on both the Qumran and Manichaean versions of the Book of Giants, Matthew Goff concludes that a faction of the gibborim may have repented more sincerely and permanently. He asks:

Why would God give the [gibborim] a vision about the Flood in the first place? Why give them the opportunity to know about the Flood before it happens? If God’s plan is to kill them, why bother? The dreams disclosed to Ohyah and Hahyah may signify that God, by making clear to the [gibborim] what the punishment for their crimes would be, gives them the opportunity to repent. This may be a variation of the tradition often associated with the 120 years of Genesis 6:3. And, even though there is no explicit evidence for this proposal in the Qumran BG, the Manichaean BG suggests that this narrative element could have been present in the Qumran text and that the prayers of the [gibborim], in striking contrast to those of the angels in [the 1 Enoch Book of] Watchers, could have been successful.[498]

[Page 189]Of course, Latter-day Saints know that repentance continues after this life. And those who accept the possibility of the preaching of the gospel to those beyond the grave—a group that includes not only Latter-day Saints[499] but also early Christians[500] and selected scholars from outside the Church[501]—frequently cite 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 4:5–6.

These verses are well known among Latter-day Saints. But it is not common knowledge among them that Peter is alluding to the unrepentant wicked who heard Enoch’s preaching when he refers to the “spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient.” Of course, the verses in Peter allude to a very long time frame, stretching from the time of Enoch’s preaching into Noah’s day (i.e., when “the ark was a preparing”), but what evidence we have points to a continuity of culture among the wicked throughout that entire period. Thus, Peter’s illustration is equally apt for the hearers of Enoch and the hearers of Noah.

The eminent Enoch scholar George Nickelsburg[502] does not doubt that Peter is “alluding to the tradition about the Watchers of 1 Enoch” and that in 1 Peter 3:19–20 Peter “attributes to Jesus a journey to the underworld that parallels Enoch’s interaction with the rebel Watchers,” while comparing “baptism with the purifying effects of the Flood.”[503] If Nickelsburg is correct, then Peter’s writings, like the Book of Moses, imply the hope that God’s mercy will be extended even to the wicked Watchers who rejected Enoch while they lived on earth, such that, through eventual repentance and the power of the Atonement, they might eventually “live according to God in the spirit” (1 Peter 4:6). Arguing on the basis of 1 Peter and Moses 7:37–38, Hugh Nibley gives hope of eventual deliverance for even the most depraved sinners of Enoch’s day:

Those in prison, chains, and darkness are only being kept there until the Judgment, which will liberate many, not only because of their repentance, but through the power of the Atonement. . . . It was specifically the spirits who were disobedient in Enoch’s day who were to enjoy the preaching of the Lord and the promise of deliverance in the meridian of times.[504]

In summary, while the mention of imprisonment is frequent throughout the ancient Enoch literature, the real hope of repentance preached by Enoch to the gibborim in the Book of Moses[505] and in BG is both a significant resemblance between these two texts and also another important difference with 1 Enoch.

[Page 190]P. Flood of Noah anticipated in vision/dream

Table 20. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme P

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

And Enoch also saw Noah, and his family; that the posterity of all the sons of Noah should be saved with a temporal salvation;

Wherefore Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and that the Lord smiled upon it, and held it in his own hand; but upon the residue of the wicked the floods came and swallowed them up (7:42–43)

[in order that we may k]now from you their interpretation. [vac Then Enoch explained to Mahway dreams] (Parry 2013, 4Q530, frg. 7 II, l. 10, p. 951; see Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 128–34; Reeves 1992, pp. 102–7)

10. [heaven came down. I watched until the di]rt was covered with all the water, and the fire burned all

11. [the trees of this orchard all around and it did not burn the tree and its shoots on] the earth, whil[e it was

12. [devastated with tongues of fire and water of the delug]e. . . .

15. . . . this [dr]eam you will give [to Eno]ch the noted scribe, and he will interpret for us (Parry 2013, 4Q530, frgs. 2 col. II + 6 + 7 col. I + 8–11 + 12(?), l. 10–12, 14, pp. 949, 951. See Stuckenbruck 1997, pp. 112–15; Reeves 1992, pp. 84–91)

In the Book of Moses, Enoch is shown the great flood in Noah’s day as part of his grand vision in chapter 7. The parallel with BG is clear enough, but it should also be noted that the corresponding dream in BG seems almost a parody of Enoch’s experience because Hahyah, one of the hapless twins in BG, receives his knowledge about the Flood in a nightmare rather than as part of a heavenly vision. In BG, this nightmare becomes the impetus for sending Mahaway on a second journey to ask Enoch to interpret the frightening dream.

[Page 191]

Figure 32. Boleslaw Parasion (1950–), Noah’s Ark.[506] 1 Enoch 67:2: “I will put my hand upon [the Ark] and protect it.”[507] Moses 7:43: “The Lord . . . held [the Ark] in his own hand.”

Q. The earth cries out against the wicked

Table 21. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme Q

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face? (7:48)

9. (the earth) has [risen up ag]ainst y[ou and is crying out]

10. and raising accusation against you [and ag]ainst the activity of your sons[

11. the corruption which you have committed on it (the earth) (Parry 2013, 4Q203, frg. 8, l. 9–11, p. 945)

[Page 192]Although the motif of a complaining earth is not found anywhere in the Bible, it does turn up in both 1 Enoch and BG[508]. In 1 Enoch we find the following:

- 1 Enoch 7:4–6; 8:4:[509] “And the giants began to kill men and to devour them. And they began to sin against the birds and beasts and creeping things and the fish, and to devour one another’s flesh. And they drank the blood. Then the earth brought accusation against the lawless ones. . . . (And) as men were perishing, the cry went up to heaven.”

- 1 Enoch 9:2, 10:[510] “And entering in, they said to one another, ‘The earth, devoid (of inhabitants), raises[511] the voice of their cries to the gates of heaven. . . . And now behold, the spirits of the souls of the men who have died make suit; and their groan has come up to the gates of heaven; and it does not cease to come forth from before the iniquities that have come upon the earth.”

- 1 Enoch 87:1:[512] “And again I saw them, and they began to gore one another and devour one another, and the earth began to cry out.”

In BG 4Q203, frg. 8, l. 9–11 we read:[513]

6. ‘Let it be known to you th[at ] [

7. your activity and (that) of [your] wive[s ]

8. those (giants) [and their] son[s and] the [w]ives o[f ]

9. through your fornication on the earth, and it (the earth) has [risen up ag]ainst y[ou

and is crying out]

10. and raising accusation against you [and ag]ainst the activity of your sons[

11. the corruption which you have committed on it (the earth) . . .

12. has reached Raphael. . . .

Consistent with other comparisons that have been made between the accounts of Enoch in the Book of Moses, BG, and 1 Enoch, Andrew Skinner finds that resemblances to BG are more compelling than those found in 1 Enoch. First, he notes that the nature of the wickedness in BG is described as “fornication,”[514] which corresponds semantically to the term “filthiness” used in the Book of Moses.[515] By way of contrast, the [Page 193]crimes of wickedness being complained of in 1 Enoch are murder and violence.

Second, Skinner notes that in both BG and “Moses 7 the earth itself complains of and decries the wickedness of the people, while the [first two] 1 Enoch texts emphasize the cries of men ascending to heaven”[516] by means of the earth.[517]

Skinner also notes that in BG and the Book of Moses, “the ultimate motivation behind the earth’s cry for redress against the intense wickedness on her surface” is a plea “for a cleansing of and sanctification from the pervasive wickedness by means of a heavenly personage and heavenly powers. In the Book of Moses the earth importunes,[518] ‘When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which has gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?’”[519] Likewise, in BG, the earth complains about how the wicked have corrupted it through licentiousness and anticipates a destruction that will cleanse it from wickedness.[520]

Once again, we find that BG and the Book of Moses are more similar to each other in their expression of this rare motif than either of them is to 1 Enoch.

Figure 33. Detail of MCP.[521] Ascent and transformation of BG’s thirty-two divinely prepared cities of earthly Zion to thirty-two palaces of heavenly Zion atop Mount Sumēru. The palaces surround a deity with two attendants in a thirty-third palace.

[Page 194]R. Ascent of Enoch’s people to the bosom of God

Table 22. Examples of resemblances for narrative theme R

Book of Moses

Book of Giants

And Enoch and all the people walked with God, and he dwelt in the midst of Zion; and it came to pass that Zion was not, for God received it up into his own bosom; and from thence went forth the saying, Zion is Fled (7:69; emphasis added)

Small palaces in the divine realm adjacent to the palace of Deity (MCP, Gulácsi 2015, p. 470. See Kósa 2016, pp. 171–172)

BG scholar Gåbor Kósa sees the thirty-two palaces, shown “on the ‘foliage’ [at the top] of the tree-like Mount Sumēru,”[522] as implying “a divine association; this is reinforced by the presence of three divine figures in front of the [much bigger] thirty-third palace, with the central figure seated on a lotus throne and the two acolytes standing on either side. All in all, this seems to indicate the purely divine nature of this Manichaean Mount Sumēru.”[523] In addition, Kósa sees the description of the mountain with its tree-like iconography as resonating with the description of the mountain of God and the Tree of Life in 1 Enoch 25:2–4:[524]

Then I answered him—I, Enoch—and said, “concerning all things I wish to know, but especially concerning this tree.”

And he answered me and said, “this high mountain that you saw, whose peak is like the throne of God, is the seat where the Great Holy One, the Lord of glory, the King of eternity, will sit, when he descends to visit the earth in goodness. And (as for) this fragrant tree, no flesh has the right to touch it until the great judgment, in which there will be vengeance on all and a consummation forever.

The scene also evokes the imagery of Nephi’s vision:

I was caught away … into an exceedingly high mountain …

And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw.

[Page 195]And the Spirit said unto me: Believest thou that thy father saw the tree of which he hath spoken? …

And I looked and beheld a tree; … and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty. …

And I … beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

Going further, though Kósa recognizes an obvious correspondence of some kind between the visual depiction of thirty-two palaces at the top of Mount Sumēru and the report in the BG text of “thirty-two towns” for the repentant gibborim at the base of Mount Sumēru he finds it difficult to reconcile the fact that the palaces shown at the top within MCP “are definitely not towns; [neither are they] at the foot of the mountains”[525] as is described in the text of BG.

In trying to unravel these anomalies, we should recall that the Book of Moses chronicles a transformation of the earthly Zion, symbolically located in the foothills of the “mountain of the Lord,” into a heavenly Zion, as shown in the annotated figure above. In this way, the redemptive descensus initiated by Jared and his brethren culminated in the glorious ascensus led by Enoch:[526]

And Enoch and all the people walked with God, and he dwelt in the midst of Zion; and it came to pass that Zion was not, for God received it up into his own bosom; and from thence went forth the saying, Zion is Fled.

[Page 196]

Figure 34. Original City of Zion Plat Drawing (detail), with twenty-four numbered temple sites located in the center, June 1833.[527]

Whether or not by sheer coincidence, the symbolic geography shared by the Manichaean BG fragments and MCP are mirrored in a general way in the itinerary of the gathering and the layout for Joseph Smith’s City of Zion in Missouri. This latter-day city is described in modern scripture in close connection with descriptions of Enoch’s ancient city.[528] As the righteous of Enoch’s day were remembered by BG as having been divinely led westward, so the early Saints were told by the Lord: “gather ye out from the eastern lands” and “go ye forth into the western countries” (Doctrine and Covenants 45:64, 66).

Moreover, in both cases the destination of the western movement of each group is identified as a unique hierocentric location: for Enoch’s people that location was Mount Sumēru in the middle of the world map, while for the early Saints that location was “Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem,”[529] a relatively central location on the North American continent. Significantly, the city of New Jerusalem envisioned [Page 197]by the Saints is expressly called in revelation, “the center place,”[530] or “center stake.”[531]

Finally, while the cosmology painting depicts Mount Sumēru with thirty-two or thirty-six palaces at its summit, the plat for the city of Zion prominently featured twenty-four numbered temple sites at its center. Thus, in the MCP depiction of BG, in the Book of Moses, and in the envisioned latter-day City of Zion, “God . . . dwelt in the midst,”[532] literally and symbolically central in the eyes of His people.

Where in all the ancient Enoch tradition do we find anything close to the story of the gathering of Enoch’s repentant converts to cities in the mountains to prepare as a people for an eventual ascension to the bosom of God? Only in BG and the Book of Moses.

Summary of Results

I began this essay with a review of Nibley’s pioneering research on resemblances of BG to the Book of Moses. In section 2, I argued that BG, apparently more popular than 1 Enoch among those who collected the Dead Sea Scrolls and arguably the oldest extant Enoch manuscript found anywhere, is particularly helpful to scholars seeking to “reconstruct the literary shapes of the early stages of the Enochic tradition.”[533] I cited scholarship concluding that BG, discovered in 1948, owes relatively little directly to the Bible and 1 Enoch, the sources most often cited by those who havbe argued that Moses 6–7 was primarily inspired by sources and ideas available to Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century.

I concur with scholars who have found that the antiquity and unique nature of certain elements of BG traditions can be better understood by looking “for the original of BG in an eastern diaspora”[534]—that is, ancient Mesopotamia. In section 3, I summarized in-depth studies of recurring appearances and echoes of various peoples that were called gibborim in the biblical era that may help us understand the general social setting and symbolic geography of Enoch’s prediluvian mission in BG and the Book of Moses.

In section 4, I described some of the most prominent members of the cast of characters in BG, grouped into rough categories that highlight co-occurrences of their names in other early texts and in the Book of Moses. A closer examination led to the conclusion that of all these names, the only two names mentioned both in the Book of Moses Enoch account (Enoch and Mahijah/Mahujah) and in BG (Enoch and Mahaway) are also the most plausible from a historical perspective.

[Page 198]Following the analysis of the names and roles of individuals mentioned in the two Enoch accounts, a simplified storyline of Moses 6–7 was compared with shared storyline elements in BG and other ancient Enoch texts. It was found that BG contains hints of every core narrative storyline element found in the Book of Moses while containing none of its sacred storyline elements, despite the fact that hints of each of the “missing” sacred stories can be found in one form or another elsewhere in the ancient Enoch literature. These striking and unexpected patterns of inclusion and omission prompted the suggestion that BG and the Book of Moses may have been rooted in some of the same ancient Enoch traditions but that somewhere along the line, the sacred stories now found only in the Book of Moses were either removed from the tradition inherited by the BG redactor(s) or, alternatively, were left out when BG was composed.

Our discussion of the eighteen thematic resemblances highlighted not only the interesting ways in which BG descriptions converged and diverged with the related Book of Moses account, but also the surprising degree to which they matched the presumed BG storyline sequence. Significantly, the set of resemblances of BG was not confined to a small fraction of the Moses 6–7 account, but instead range throughout the main storyline.

Now let’s continue to a summary of our comparative analysis to look for an answer to the following question: Is it reasonable to believe that the thematic resemblances of BG to the Book of Moses may not have come merely by chance? In the summary, we will not only consider the number and relative density of resemblances but also, like Stuckenbruck, their specificity as an additional indication of the strength of association between the two texts. Thematic resemblances to Moses 6–7 that are exclusive to BG and the Book of Moses will be deemed stronger than ones that co-occur in other ancient Enoch literature. Resemblances for themes that occur rarely or are absent outside the ancient Enoch literature will be seen as stronger than ones that appear elsewhere within passages of Second Temple texts or the Bible not specifically related to Enoch.

The two tables below provide a detailed summary of thematic resemblances of Enoch texts to Moses 6–7, classified by the type of resemblance. Table 23 displays resemblances found in the major ancient Enoch texts sampled, excluding BG, whereas table 24 shows resemblances found within BG.

[Page 199]Table 23. Thematic resemblances of Enoch texts to Moses 6–7, excluding BG, classified by type

Type of Thematic Resemblance

Occurrences

Selected Themes in Enoch Traditions, Excluding BG, That Also Appear Elsewhere in the Bible or Other Second Temple Texts

1. Johannine Language Arising from an Enochic Matrix and the Opening of His Eyes at His Call

2. Enoch Clothed in Glory

3. Enoch’s Apocalyptic Vision

4. Weeping for Sinful Humankind[535]

5. Shaking/Trembling of the Earth[536]

Themes in Enoch Texts, Excluding BG, That Are Rare or Absent Elsewhere

6. Turning Waters out of Their Course

7. Messianic Titles and Prophecies

8. Enoch’s People Taken Up to Heaven

9. Vision Near a Body of Water During a Journey[537]

10. Enoch to Receive a Throne of Glory[538]

Specific Terms in Enoch Traditions, Excluding BG, That Are Rare or Absent Elsewhere

11. “Lad” in Enoch’s Call

12. The Hand of the Lord to Be on Noah’s Ark[539]

Table 24. Thematic resemblances of BG to Moses 6–7, classified by type

Type of Thematic Resemblance

Occurrences

Selected Themes in BG That Also Appear Elsewhere in the Bible or Other Ancient Texts

1. B. Murders

2. G. Trembling and Weeping After Record is Read

3. H. Call to Repentance

4. I. Sexual Defilement

5. K. Enoch Clothed with Glory

[Page 200]Themes in BG That Are Found in Other Enoch Texts, But Are Rare or Absent Outside the Enoch Literature

6. A. The Begetting of the Sons of God/Watchers, the Giants, and the Gibborim

7. C. Oath-Inspired Violence

8. F. Enoch/Mahaway Reads Record of Deeds

9. O. Imprisonment of the Wicked

10. P. Flood of Noah Anticipated in Vision/Dream

11. Q. The Earth Cries Out against the Wicked

Themes in BG That Are Rare or Absent Outside of BG and Moses 6–7

12. J. Mahujah/Mahaway’s Heavenly Journey to Meet Enoch

13. L. Gibborim Defeated in Battle

14. N. Repentant Gathered to Divinely Prepared Cities

15. R. Ascent of Enoch’s People to the Bosom of God

Specific Terms in BG That Are Rare or Absent Outside of BG and Moses 6–7

16. D. A “Wild Man”

17. E. Mahijah/Mahaway

18. M. The “Roar of Lions/Wild Beasts” Following Battle

The first question addressed is: “How many of the proposed thematic resemblances in the sampled Enoch literature to the Book of Moses Enoch chapters are found in BG?” (see table 23: 1–12; table 24: 1–18; figure 35). Of course, results of this kind will always remain tentative because new resemblances can, in principle, always be found, and previously identified resemblances can always be disputed or reclassified.

However, considering the relative brevity of BG, the number of currently identified thematic resemblances to Moses 6–7 is remarkable. Although the combined fragments of the Qumran BG scarcely fill three pages in the English translation of Florentino García Martínez, the results [Page 201]indicate that this single text contains eighteen, fully three-fifths, of the thirty proposed thematic resemblances of the combined ancient Enoch literature to the Book of Moses Enoch account. These resemblances range from general themes in the storyline to specific occurrences of rare terms or phrases in appropriate contexts.[540]

Figure 35. Proportion of thematic resemblances of Moses 6–7 to ancient Enoch texts in BG vs. other Enoch sources.

To get a better handle on the density of thematic resemblances to Moses 6–7 within the brief, extant fragments of BG, a comparison to the size of 1 Enoch may be useful. Because 1 Enoch is so much longer than BG, any claim that 1 Enoch is more related to Moses 6–7 than BG would need to demonstrate, according to our best current estimate,[541] roughly eight to fifty times the number of thematic resemblances in 1 Enoch than can be found in BG. However, in actuality, the parallels in 1 Enoch not only fall far short of that magnitude[542] but also, as we have described in several of the detailed analyses of thematic resemblances discussed previously, are also generally looser and less relevant than those in BG. This difference is even more evident if one excludes the 1 Enoch Book of Parables, where some of the most important and singular resemblances to Messianic titles and prophecies occur.[543] Note also that a good proportion of the resemblances between BG and the Book of Moses [Page 202]are also unique, while many of the resemblances in 1 Enoch are also found in BG.

Of course, these rough calculations to estimate relative density are overly conservative, since they do not include other sizable works such as 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, and the Mandaean Enoch literature, which also were, along with 1 Enoch, among the other Enoch texts that contributed a significant proportion of the twelve resemblances to the Book of Moses not found in BG.

Besides the fact that the BG resemblances are high in relative density, the sequence of their occurrence is remarkably similar to the Book of Moses, especially when explanations for the exceptions are considered.

Of course, some of the thematic resemblances of Moses 6–7 to ancient Enoch texts are stronger and more specific than others. Using Stuckenbruck’s study as a model for our approach, I have separated selected motifs in Moses 6–7 that are not unknown elsewhere in the Bible or other Second Temple texts from those that are found exclusively or nearly exclusively in the sampled ancient literature on Enoch. Again, the results were impressive. Of the thirty resemblances identified, twenty (fully two-thirds) were to themes or terms/phrases that are rare or absent outside of the Enoch literature (see table 23: 6–10; table 24: 6–18; figure 36). Thus it seems that the Book of Moses is not merely hitting on themes in the Enoch literature that are just as likely to be found elsewhere in biblical and Second Temple texts. Instead, Moses 6–7 seems to be well tuned to many specifically Enoch-related motifs.

These items are especially notable because they are not isolated instances, but rather occur in most cases as part of a “uniquely shared combination of ideas or motifs.”[544] Like Stuckenbruck, I separated items that exhibit a more general, “conceptual level of commonly held motifs”[545] (see table 22: 6–10; table 23: 6–15) from those that stood out because they shared significant but relatively rare or specific “terms or closely comparable phrases”[546] (table 23: 11–12; table 24: 16–18). Importantly, five of the twenty resemblances that are rare or absent outside of the ancient Enoch literature share significant, rare or specific terms or closely comparable phrases with Moses 6–7.

[Page 203]

Figure 36. Number of resemblances to Moses 6–7 that are found in the Bible or other ancient texts of Jewish origin vs. exclusively or nearly exclusively in Enoch texts alone.

We have already seen that Moses 6–7 contains more thematic resemblances to BG than to all the other ancient Enoch literature combined (table 24: 1–18 vs. table 23: 1–12; figure 35). Not surprisingly in light of this previous finding, we see here that, compared to other Enoch texts, BG also contains most of the resemblances (thirteen out of twenty) that are rare or absent outside the Enoch literature (table 24: 6–18 vs. table 23: 6–12; figure 37). Going further, we wonder how many of these resemblances are unique to BG? The answer is that fully seven of BG’s eighteen resemblances, more than one-third, are found only in BG, and nowhere else (table 24: 12–18; figure 37).

In summary, these results allow us to say that although the Book of Moses seems to be related in a uniquely close fashion to the themes of BG, it is also broad enough in scope that it also matches several important singularly Enochic themes in every other major ancient Enoch text. Saying it differently, the fact that not only BG but also nearly all the major Enoch texts from antiquity contain resemblances to Moses 6–7 helps make the case that the Book of Moses Enoch account contains themes rooted in a broad, common inheritance from ancient Enochic traditions stronger than if the account were only related to BG alone.

[Page 204]

Figure 37. Number of resemblances to Moses 6–7 that are found only in BG.

We note that Stuckenbruck’s analysis, like this one, relied largely on English comparanda and in a situation where “at no point [could] it be demonstrated that the [later text] quotes from any passage in [the earlier text].”[547] If Stuckenbruck’s study was sufficient to demonstrate “that the writer of Revelation was either directly acquainted (through literary or oral transmission) with several of the major sections of 1 Enoch or at least had access to traditions that were influenced by these writings,”[548] it does not seem unreasonable to conclude from the results presented here that an Enoch book that was buried in the rubble until 1948 and an Enoch book that was independently translated in 1830 may be related in some way, despite admittedly important differences in provenance, perspective, and contents.

One additional observation: Though in this paper I have focused on the possibility of ancient Mesopotamian precedents for Moses 6–7, David Calabro has provided well-reasoned arguments that the direct connection between antiquity and the Book of Moses need go no further back than the late first or early second century CE, perhaps serving at that time as part of an early Christian baptismal liturgy, with hints of influence from earlier traditions appearing only indirectly as part of Joseph Smith’s translation. As Calabro writes,

[Page 205]Just as Joseph Smith restored the text in modern times, [an] early Christian text may also have been a restoration of a much earlier text, although reformulated in language appropriate to the times.[549] This earlier text may also have been used in a ritual context, possibly in the consecration of priests and/or the coronation of kings.[550]

In line wth Calabro’s conjecture about the uses of an earlier text within a ritual context, I have argued for the possibility that the Book of Moses, in an earlier form, could be conceived as a temple text for ritual use in royal investiture, analogous to temple rites restored by the Prophet Joseph Smith and containing a specific sequence of stories illustrating the keeping and breaking of associated covenants.[551]

It is my hope that all scholars interested in the nature and origins of the Book of Moses will include such evidence of literary affinities of Moses 6–7 to the ancient Enoch literature in tandem with any complementary arguments they make for nineteenth-century literary influences on the production of this work of modern scripture.

Concluding Thoughts

Hugh Nibley introduced the term “the expanding gospel”[552] to refer not only to the phenomenon of an open-ended canon due to continuing revelation but also to the astonishing recovery of fragments of inspired religious teachings from ancient times. Even if many conclude that these tattered fragments of admittedly mixed, uncertain, and checkered provenance may contain little of enduring religious value, Nibley argued that they could sometimes serve, despite their imperfections, as valuable witnesses of truths known anciently. By way of analogy, he wrote:

If one makes a sketch of a mountain, what is it? A few lines on a piece of paper. But there is a solid reality behind this poor composition; even if the tattered scrip is picked up later in a street in Tokyo or a gutter in Madrid, it still attests to the artist’s experience of the mountain as a reality. If the sketch should be copied by others who have never seen the original mountain, it still bears witness to its reality. So it is with the apocryphal writings: most of them are pretty poor stuff, and all of them are copies of copies. But when we compare them we cannot escape the impression that they have some real model behind them, more faithfully represented in some than in others. All we ever get on this earth, Paul reminds us, [Page 206]is a distorted reflection of things as they really are.[553] Since we are dealing with derivative evidence only, we are not only justified but required to listen to all the witnesses, no matter how shoddy some of them may be.[554]

In closing, I confess my love for the Book of Moses. It is a joy and a privilege to live in a day when it is widely available, putting us in a position where we can sound the depths of its inspiring stories and eternal verities to our heart’s content. Just as prophets have spoken of God’s hand in the advances of new technology we see in our day,[555] I believe that He is equally willing to help us in the discovery and elucidation of ancient documents that strengthen our witness and increase our understanding of Restoration scripture. I believe that many new discoveries relating to ancient scripture are yet to be made and that the Lord expects us to actively seek them out, since Latter-day Saints hold as core beliefs many of the essential keys to understanding and applying them vigorously in their fulness. Hugh Nibley wrote that discoveries in ancient digs and ancient texts, tangible artifacts that sometimes provide striking witnesses of the fact that truths restored in our day were also known in former times, are a “reminder to the Saints that they are still expected to do their homework and may claim no special revelation or convenient handout as long as they ignore the vast treasure-house of materials that God has placed within their reach.”[556] May we all resolve to search and understand with greater diligence “the vast treasure-house of materials that God has placed within [our] reach.”

Acknowledgments

Appreciation to Matthew L. Bowen, David Calabro, Ryan Dahle, Jared Ludlow, Kerry Muhlestein, David R. Seely, John W. Welch, and Stephen T. Whitlock for their contributions to this paper. I am also grateful to Colby Townsend and Thomas Wayment for cordial conversations relating to this article. Responsibility for the arguments and conclusions of this paper remain my own.

Discussion

Jo Ann H. Seely:

Thank you so much for a thorough and comprehensive view of your topic, including some fascinating and beautiful images. If we have time, I’ll ask you a little bit about that, too. But my first question is: There is such a vast and growing corpus of scholarly publication and information [Page 207]on the ancient books of Enoch and the Pearl of Great Price. Where might a Latter-day Saint, who is not familiar with the scholarly literature but is interested in learning more go for some beginning resources?

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw:

Well, I’d recommend starting in the same place where I started when I first began doing serious research on the Book of Moses; that is with the wonderful commentary on the Pearl of Great Price written by Richard Draper, Kent Brown, and Michael Rhodes.[557] I found all kinds of interesting things there, including some things I used in today’s presentation. I think that’s the place to start. After that, there’s plenty of things that will take you deeper into the text. We’ve now put all the research resources we could find on the Book of Moses into a online bibliography, so that might be another good starting point.[558]

Jo Ann:

That’s great. Okay. This is just a general question. Why is the study of all of this context and background to the scripture so important? Isn’t it more important just to read the scriptures themselves and figure out what their personal application is for our lives? Why do we need all this background?

Jeff:

That’s a great question. Obviously if scripture study isn’t helping us in our quest to become Saints, we are on the wrong track. We might compare, in a very broad fashion, the blessings of scripture study to those we receive in doing temple work. We go to the temple to receive our certain blessings there—essential ordinances we can receive in no other way—and also to help others on the other side of the veil to receive the same blessings. Those blessings are conditional, based on our being faithful in the covenants we make until the end of our mortal lives and beyond. But if our only thought in participating in the temple ordinances was to go through the motions, as it were, if part of the reason we need to go there was not the fact that we also need specialized instruction and learning that we can get only by performing and reflecting on the ordinances we receive there, all the words accompanying the ordinances could simply be omitted and we could perform each ordinance much more quickly. In a roughly analogous way, if everything we needed to learn from the scriptures could be contained in a list of commandments accompanied by the admonition to love God and our neighbor, the Lord could have [Page 208]easily condensed our four volumes of canonized scripture into a short pamphlet-sized tract.

But I think the Lord gave us a treasure house of lifelong learning in our scriptures. And I think that He expects us to spend serious time digging those treasures out. Not just the essential behioral foundation of Christian ethics and the basic doctrines we can read in five minutes within the Articles of Faith, but also “wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures” (Doctrine and Covenants 89:19) that won’t be accessible to us through casual glances at the words in isolation. Of course, many of these “hidden treasures” are given to us through revelation, spurred as part of our prayerful study when accompanied by doing our best to apply what we have already learned. But, as President Nelson often teaches us in words (and by example): “The Lord loves effort, and effort brings rewards.”[559] When we start to get a feel for the background and context of scripture, when we know something about the ancient languages, when we know something about why things are expressed in the way that we are, a whole world of understanding opens up to us. I think helps us not only to better understand the scriptures, but also to better understand how God works in the world. None of us has the right to excuse ourselves by saying: “I’m just not a gospel scholar.” Each of us can start where we’re at and go from there. And the Lord will love and reward our small efforts with unimaginable joy.

Jo Ann:

That’s certainly true. When our perspective is widened, we learn so much. We’re often surprised at what we learn.

What do you make of the fact that the Joseph Smith Translation consists mostly of additions to the text and rarely deletions or subtractions?

Jeff:

Well, I think we can find the answer in the Book of Mormon for that. Nephi was told that in our day the Lord would make known “other books” that would “make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away” (1 Nephi 13:39–40). In most cases the most precious things that we learn from the Book of Moses are, as you said, part of additions that have been made to the Bible. Of course, we don’t know enough to say whether these additions were ever part of some kind of proto-Genesis, whether they were recorded elsewhere, or whether they were written down for the first time when Joseph Smith translated [Page 209]them. But, in any case, we’re very blessed to have so much wonderful truth available to us, once lost to the world but now restored in our day.

Jo Ann:

Okay. Here’s another question about all of your work. You’ve done so much detailed work in your study of the Pearl of Great Price. What do you think are the three most important things that the members of the church might not realize or be aware of about the Book of Moses or the Pearl Great Price in general?

Jeff:

Well, first of all, in my opinion, the Book of Moses is absolutely foundational to our understanding of Latter-day Saint doctrine and teachings about the plan of salvation and the doctrine of Christ. I think that’s underappreciated. Secondly, I’d say in connection with that that the Book of Moses is absolutely foundational, to our understanding of the priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, not just the initial stories about the Creation and the Fall of Adam and Eve, but also the continuous thread of temple teachings that runs through the rest Book of Moses to Enoch and the law of consecration that was observed by his people in Zion. I also wish that these teachings were better appreciated. To learn more about that, listen to Elder and Sister Hafen’s talk from the September 2020 “Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses” conference.[560] It was wonderful!

Jo Ann:

Yes, it was outstanding.

Jeff

The third thing, how should I say it? The Book of Moses is just so incredibly beautiful. We heard Brother Bushman quote some non-Latter-day Saint scholars on that very thing last night. I feel so edified when I read it. I’m sure not everybody feels the same way I do about the Book of Moses—different people are touched by different books of scripture—but each time I read the Book of Moses I walk away filled with light and joy. Ever since I was a young boy, I’ve experienced deep feeling of beauty and uplift from the reading it.

[Page 210]Jo Ann:

That’s wonderful. Well, we’re just about out of time, but I’m going to sneak in this one little quick question. In so many of your scholarly publications, you have astonishing images that accompany your texts. I just want to know if there’s a secret that you have to finding these. How do you go about that?

Jeff:

No particular secret I can think of. I used to find a lot of these wonderful drawings in old books but now the old books are getting harder to find. Sadly, when I do find them I open them up and learn that they are discards from universities and theological schools. Sadly, few people are reading old books anymore, which is something C. S. Lewis found so distressing and frightening even many decades ago when he wrote about it.[561]

So I rely increasingly on Google, like everybody else, because I have no other choice. And, fortunately, many wonderful images are out there and so easily accessible now, even though so many more may never be put online and are now almost impossible to find in print.

But the most powerful form of advanced search is what comes to you through the Spirit. Sometimes you really feel the gift of inspiration, things pop into your mind, you’re led to things, you run into things and something tells you “this is important”—even before you’ve had a chance to look at it. When I first ran across the Manichaean Cosmology Painting, I didn’t fully understand its importance to the Book of Moses account of Enoch. But then by chance I ran into a second publication about it, and when I realized what we had in front of us now, my eyes fairly popped out of my head. As I studied the painting and the related texts, more and more ideas started flowing into my mind—and they didn’t come from me. Who would have believed that somewhere out there we had an image of Enoch with what seems to be a depiction of Zion having ascended to the presence of God just a few inches away from where he was standing? And to think that at last we have what seems to be a portrait of Mahujah/Mahaway himself kneeling on a mountain top! These are characters I’ve been aching to know more about for many years. I don’t attribute those things to advanced search technology, nor to mere chance.

[Page 211]Bibliography

4QEnGiantsa ar (4Q203), plate 906, fragment 7b, column II, B-295417. Full-spectrum color image of recto taken March 2012 by Shai Halevi. The photograph is mislabeled as being of fragment 6; it is actually of fragment 7b, column II. Israel Antiquities Authority. “Plate 906, Frag 6.” Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library (accessed March 4, 2020). https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295417.

4QGiantsb ar (4Q530), plate 437, fragment 1 [fragment 7], B-363379. Infrared image taken January 2013 by Shai Halevi. The photograph is mislabeled as being of fragment 1; it is actually of fragment 7. Israel Antiquities Authority. “Plate 437, Frag 1.” Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library (accessed March 2, 2020). https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-363379.

Abegg, Martin, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. New York: Harper, 1999.

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

[Page 212]Addams, R. Jean. “The Past and the Duture of the Temple Lot in Jackson County, Missouri,” in The Temple: Past, Present, and Future. Proceedings of the Fifth Interpreter Foundation Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, 7 November 2020, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Temple on Mount Zion 6, 31–96. Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn, 2021. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-past-and-future-of-the-temple-lot-in-independence-jackson-county-missouri/ (accessed May 19, 2021).

Albeck, Chanoch, ed. Midrash Bereshit Rabbati. Jerusalem: Mekitze Nirdamim, 1940.

Alexander, P. “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 1:223–315. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/ (accessed June 15, 2021).

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

Alighieri, Dante. La Divina commedia di Dante Alighieri, illustrata da G. Doré e dichiarata con note tratte dai migliori commenti per cura di Eugenio Camerini. Milan, Italy: Società editrici Sonzogno, 1900. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102743751 (accessed December 4, 2020).

al-Kisa’i, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah. Tales of the Prophets (Qisas al-anbiya’). Translated by Wheeler M. Thackston Jr. Great Books of the Islamic World. Chicago: KAZI Publications, 1997.

Allan, Sarah. The Shape of the Turtle: Myth, Art, and Cosmos in Early China. SUNY Series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture, ed. David L. Hall and Roger T. Ames. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991.

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

Alter, Robert, ed. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary. 3 vols. New York: W. W. Norton, 2019.

Andersen, F. I. “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 1:91–221. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.

Anderson, Gary A., and Michael Stone, eds. A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve 2nd ed. Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism [Page 213]and Its Literature, edited John C. Reeves. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.

Angel, Joseph L. “The Humbling of the Arrogant and the ‘Wild Man’ and ‘Tree Stump’ Traditions in the Book of Giants and Daniel 4,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 61–80. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

———. “Reading the Book of Giants in Literary and Historical Context.” Dead Sea Discoveries 21 (2014): 313–46.

Annus, Amar. “On the Origin of Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions.” Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha 19, no. 4 (May 2010): 277–320. https://thenightcourser.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/watchers-1.pdf (accessed June 15, 2021).

Attridge, Harold W., Wayne A. Meeks, Jouette M. Bassler, Werner E. Lemke, Susan Niditch, and Eileen M. Schuller, eds. The HarperCollins Study Bible, Fully Revised and Updated, Including the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books with Concordance. Revised ed. New York: HarperOne, 2006.

Bandstra, Barry L. Genesis 1–11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text. Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008.

Barker, Margaret. Christmas: The Original Story. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2008.

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

———. The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 1987.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Bauman, Richard. “Commentary: Indirect Indexicality, Identity, Performance: Dialogic Observations.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15, no. 1 (2005): 145–50.

Bautch, Kelley Coblentz. “Peter and the Patriarchs: A Confluence of Traditions?” In With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic, and Mysticism, edited [Page 214]by Daphna V. Arbel and Andrei A. Orlov, 13–27. Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages 2, edited by John R. Levison. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011.

Baynes, Leslie. The Heavenly Book Motif in Judeo-Christian Apocalypses, 200 BCE–200 CE. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 152. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Beale, Gregory K. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. New Studies in Biblical Theology 1, edited by Donald A. Carson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Bednar, David A. “To Sweep the Earth as with a Flood.” Brigham Young University Education Week devotional, Provo, Utah, August 19, 2014. https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/to-sweep-the-earth-as-with-a-flood?lang=eng (accessed June 15, 2021).

Beecher, Maureen Ursenbach. “The Iowa Journal of Lorenzo Snow.” BYU Studies 24, no. 3 (1984): 261–73.

Ben Tov, Yakov (pseudonym of Colby Townsend). “The Book of Enoch, the Book of Moses, and the Question of Availability.” Faith-Promoting Rumor (blog), September 24, 2017. https://faithpromotingrumor.com/2017/09/24/the-book-of-enoch-the-book-of-moses-and-the-question-of-availability/. Note that this blog post has since been removed without explanation but was not disavowed by the author and was originally archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20181217192041/https://faithpromotingrumor.com/2017/09/24/the-book-of-enoch-thebook-of-moses-and-the-question-of-availability/ (accessed November 22, 2018). The archive.org version has been removed, but the original article can now be found at https://archive.interpreterfoundation.org/Ben-Tov-Availability-of-1-Enoch-Cirillo-error-The-Book-of-Enoch-the-Book-of-Moses-and-the-Question-of-Availability-FAITH-PROMOTING-RUMOR.pdf (accessed June 2, 2021).

Bennett, Byard. “Iuxta unum latus erat terra tenebrarum: The Division of Primordial Space in Anti-Manichaean Writers’ Descriptions of the Manichaean Cosmology,” in The Light and the Darkness: Studies in Manichaeism and Its World, edited by Paul Mirecki and Jason David BeDuhn, 68–78. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 50, edited by Stephen Emmel. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

[Page 215]Birrell, Anne. Chinese Mythology: An Introduction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Black, Jeremy, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, eds. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden, Germany: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 2000. https://books.google.com/books?id=-qIuVCsRb98C (accessed June 15, 2021).

Blair, Judit M. De-Demonising the Old Testament: An Investigation of Azazel, Lilith, Deber, Qeteb and Reshef in the Hebrew Bible. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2, vol. 37. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.

Bledsoe, Amanda M. Davis. “Throne Theophanies, Dream Visions, and Righteous Seers: Daniel, the Book of Giants, and 1 Enoch Reconsidered,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 81–96. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

Bowen, Matthew L. E-mail message to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, March 18, 2020.

Box, G. H. 1918. The Apocalypse of Abraham. Translations of Early Documents, Series 1: Palestinian Jewish Texts (Pre-Rabbinic). London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919. https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/box.pdf. (accessed July 10, 2020).

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. “Book of Moses Textual Criticism 3: Was the Book of Moses Simply an Unplanned Afterthought to Moses 1?” Interpreter Foundation Blog, September 10, 2020. https://www.interpreterfoundation.org/blog-book-of-moses-textual-criticism-3was-the-book-of-moses-simply-an-unplanned-afterthought-to-moses-1 (accessed June 15, 2021).

———. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/download/140123IGIL12014ReadingS (accessed June 15, 2021).

———. Enoch and the Gathering of Zion: The Witness of Ancient Texts for Modern Scripture. Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central; Salt Lake City: Eborn, 2021.

———. “The Ezekiel Mural at Dura Europos: A Tangible Witness of Ancient Jewish Mysteries?” BYU Studies Quarterly 49, no. 1 (2010): 4–49. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol49/iss1/2/ (accessed June 15, 2021).

[Page 216]———. The First Days and the Last Days: A Verse-By-Verse Commentary on the Book of Moses and JS—Matthew in Light of the Temple. Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn, 2021.

———. “The LDS Book of Enoch as the Culminating Story of a Temple Text.” BYU Studies Quarterly 53, no. 1 (2014): 39–73. https://byustudies.byu.edu/?post_type=article&p=8201; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjUToZa-e8U (accessed June 15, 2021). Updated and expanded as “The Book of Moses as a Temple Text,” in this proceedings.

———. Temple Themes in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. Updated ed. Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/details/151128TempleThemesInTheOathAndCovenantOfThePriesthood2014Update; https://archive.org/details/140910TemasDelTemploEnElJuramentoYElConvenioDelSacerdocio2014UpdateSReading (accessed June 15, 2021).

———. The Tree of Knowledge as the Veil of the Sanctuary,” in Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament, edited by David Rolph Seely, Jeffrey R. Chadwick, and Matthew J. Grey. The 42nd Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (26 October, 2013), 49-65. Provo UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013. https://rsc.byu.edu/ascending-mountain-lord/tree-knowledge-veil-sanctuary; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfIs9YKYrZE (accessed June 15, 2021).

———. “Truth and Beauty in the Book of Moses,” in The Temple: Symbols, Sermons, and Settings. Proceedings of the Fourth Interpreter Foundation Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, 10 November 2018, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Temple on Mount Zion 5, 2021. Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn, 2021, in press.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and Ryan Dahle. “Could Joseph Smith Have Drawn On Ancient Manuscripts When He Translated the Story of Enoch? Recent Updates on a Persistent Question,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 33 (2019): 305–73. https://interpreterfoundation.org/could-joseph-smith-have-drawn-on-ancient-manuscripts-when-he-translated-the-story-of-enoch-recent-updates-on-a-persistent-question/ [Page 217](accessed June 15, 2021).

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and Brenden Fullmer. “What Did Enoch Scholar Matthew Black Say To Hugh Nibley about the Book of Moses Enoch Account?,” 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaQM5IVFvWQ (accessed June 3, 2021).

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and Ronan James Head. “The Investiture Panel at Mari and Rituals of Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East.” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 4 (2012): 1–42. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sba/vol4/iss1/1/ (accessed June 15, 2021).

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and David J. Larsen. Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel. In God’s Image and Likeness 2. Salt Lake City: Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/download/131203ImageAndLikeness2ReadingS (accessed June 15, 2021).

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., David J. Larsen, and Stephen T. Whitlock. “Moses 1 and the Apocalypse of Abraham: Twin Sons of Different Mothers?” in this proceedings.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., Jacob A. Rennaker, and David J. Larsen. “Revisiting the Forgotten Voices of Weeping in Moses 7: A Comparison with Ancient Texts,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 2 (2012): 41–71. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/revisiting-the-forgotten-voices-of-weeping-in-moses-7-a-comparison-with-ancient-texts/ (accessed June 2, 2021).

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., Shirley S. Ricks, and Stephen T. Whitlock, eds. Hugh Nibley Observed. Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn, 2021.

Brown, S. Kent. The Testimony of Luke. Brigham Young University New Testament Commentary. Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2015.

Brown, S. Kent, and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. “Man and Son of Man: Probing Theology and Christology in the Book of Moses and in Jewish and Christian Tradition,” in this proceedings.

Brueggemann, Walter. “The Costly Loss of Lament.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36 (1986): 57–71. Reprinted in The Psalms: The Life of Faith, edited by Patrick D. Miller, 98–111. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/CostlyLossofLament_WBrueggemann.pdf (accessed June 15, 2021).

Bruno, Cheryl L. “Congruence and Concatenation in Jewish Mystical Literature, American Freemasonry, and Mormon Enoch Writings.” Journal of Religion and Society 16 (2014): 1–19.

[Page 218]Buckley, Jorunn Jacobsen. The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People. American Academy of Religion: The Religions Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Budge, E. A. Wallis, ed. The Book of the Cave of Treasures. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1927. Reprint, New York City: Cosimo Classics, 2005. Reprint version has the same pagination as the original.

Burne, Charlotte Sophia, and Georgina F. Jackson. Shropshire Folk-Lore: A Sheaf of Gleanings, Part III. London: Trübner, 1886. https://archive.org/details/shropshirefolkl01jackgoog (accessed June 3, 2021).

Burrows, Eric. “Some Cosmological Patterns in Babylonian Religion,” in The Labrynth: Further Studies in the Relation between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World, edited by Samuel Henry Hooke, 43–70. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1935. https://archive.org/details/labyrinthfurther0000hook/ (accessed June 6, 2021).

Calabro, David. E-mail message to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, January 24, 2018.

———. E-mail message to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, May 18, 2020.

———. “An Early Christian Context for the Book of Moses,” in this proceedings.

Cameron, Ron, and Arthur J. Dewey, eds. The Cologne Mani Codex (P. Colon. inv. nr. 4780): “Concerning the Origin of His Body.” Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 15. Early Christian Literature 3. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979.

Caquot, André. “Les prodromes du déluge: Légendes araméenes du Qoumrân.” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses 83, no. 1 (2003): 41–59. https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/rhpr_0035–2403_2003_num_83_1_1011.pdf (accessed June 15, 2021).

Carmack, Stanford. “The Importance of Book of Moses English for Determining Authorship,” in this proceedings.

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

Charlesworth, James H. “Odes of Solomon,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 2:725–71. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.

Cirillo, Salvatore. “Joseph Smith, Mormonism, and Enochic Tradition.” Master’s thesis, Durham University, 2010. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/236/ (accessed June 3, 2021).

[Page 219]Clark, E. Douglas. The Blessings of Abraham: Becoming a Zion People. American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2005.

Collins, John J. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Dant, Doris R. “Polish Religious Folk Art: Gospel Echoes from a Disparate Clime.” BYU Studies 37, no. 2 (1997–98): 88–112.

Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.

———. II Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2011.

Dawood, N. J., trans. The Koran. London: Penguin Books, 1997.

Day, John. “The Enochs of Genesis 4 and 5 and the Emergence of the Apocalyptic Enoch Tradition,” in Sybyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy, edited by Joel Baden, Hindy Najman, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, 1:293–313. Leiden: Brill, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004324749_019.

Doak, Brian R. “The Giant in a Thousand Years: Tracing Narratives of Gigantism in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 13–32. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

Dorofeeva-Lichtmann, Vera. “‘Inversed Cosmographs’ in Late East Asian Cartography and the Atlas Production,” in East-West Encounter in the Science of Heaven and Earth. Proceedings of the International Conference on Traditional Sciences in Asia 2017, edited by Tokimasa Takeda and Bill M. Mak, 144–74. Kyoto, Japan: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2019. http://www.myoldmaps.com/late-medieval-maps-1300/293-inversed_cosmographs_in.pdf (accessed May 27, 2021).

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

Drawnel, Henryk. “The Mesopotamian Background of the Enochic Giants and Evil Spirits.” Dead Sea Discoveries 21 (2014): 14–38.

Drower, E. S., ed. The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1959. http://www.gnosis.org/library/ginzarba.htm (accessed September 11, 2007).

[Page 220]Eastmond, Antony. “Narratives of the Fall: Structure and Meaning in the Genesis Frieze at Hagia Sophia, Trebizond,” in Symposium on Aesthetics and Presentation in Byzantine Literature, Art and Music. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 53, 219-36. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1999. https://doi.org/10.2307/1291802 (accessed October 22, 2008).

Edson, E., and E. Savage-Smith. Medieval Views of the Cosmos. Oxford, England: The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, 2004.

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

Elliott, J. K. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ephrem the Syrian. “The Hymns on Paradise,” in Hymns on Paradise, translated and edited by Sebastian Brock, 77–195. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990.

Esplin, Scott C. “Wondering at His Words: Peter’s Influence on the Knowledge of Salvation for the Dead,” in The Ministry of Peter, the Chief Apostle, edited by Frank F. Judd Jr., Eric D. Huntsman, and Shon D. Hopkin, 297–315. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2014.

Etheridge, J. W., ed. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee. 2 vols. 1865. Reprint, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2005. http://www.targum.info/pj/psjon.htm (accessed June 3, 2021).

Faulkner, Raymond O. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. 1962. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 1991. https://community.dur.ac.uk/penelope.wilson/Hieroglyphs/Faulkner-A-Concise-Dictionary-of-Middle-Egyptian-1991.pdf (accessed June 3, 2021).

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

Fitzmyer, Joseph A., ed. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary. 3rd ed. Biblica et Orientalia 18B. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2004.

[Page 221]Flake, Kathleen. “‘Not to Be Riten’: The Mormon Temple Rite as Oral Canon.” Journal of Ritual Studies 9, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 1–21. https://mormonstudies.as.virginia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Jrn-Ritual-Studies-Temple-as-Oral-Canon.pdf (accessed June 3, 2021).

Freedman, David Noel. Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Frölich, Ida. “Giants and Demons,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 97–114. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

Gardner, Iain, ed. The Kephalaia of the Teacher: The Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in Translation with Commentary. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 37, edited by James M. Robinson and H. J. Klimkeit. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

George, Andrew, trans. The Epic of Gilgamesh. London: Penguin Group, 2003.

Ginzberg, Louis, ed. The Legends of the Jews. Translated by Henrietta Szold and Paul Radin. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–38. Reprint, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Page references are to the 1998 volumes.

Givens, Terryl L., and Fiona Givens. The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life. Salt Lake City: Ensign Peak, 2012.

Goff, Matthew. “Gilgamesh the Giant: The Qumran Book of Giants’ Appropriation of Gilgamesh Motifs.” Dead Sea Discoveries 16, no. 2 (2009): 221–53.

———. “The Sons of the Watchers in the Book of Watchers and the Qumran Book of Giants,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 115–27. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

———. “Where’s Enoch? The Mythic Geography of the Qumran Book of Giants,” in Sybyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy, edited by Joel Baden, Hindy Najman, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, 1:472–88. Leiden: Brill, 2016. https://religion.fsu.edu/sites/g/files/upcbnu446/files/media/files/faculty/misc/Goff.Where%27s%20Enoch.Sibyls_%20Scriptures_%20and%20Scrolls%20%28JJC%20FS%29.pdf (accessed June 3, 2021).

[Page 222]Graham, Lloyd D. “Mythogeography and Hydromythology in the Initial Sections of Sumerian and Egyptian King-Lists.” Direct Release to Academia.edu, 2019. https://www.academia.edu/40832066/Mythogeography_and_hydromythology_in_the_initial_sections_of_Sumerian_and_Egyptian_king_lists (accessed June 3, 2021).

Grossman, Jonathan. “Who Are the Sons of God? A New Suggestion.” Biblica 99, no. 1 (January 2018): 1–18. https://www.academia.edu/40515229/_Who_are_the_Sons_of_God_A_New_Suggestion_ (accessed June 3, 2021).

Gulácsi, Zsuzsanna. Mani’s Pictures: The Didactic Images of the Manichaeans from Sasanian Mesopotamia to Uygur Central Asia and Tang-Ming China. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 90. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Hafen, Bruce C., and Marie K. Hafen. “Adam, Eve, the Book of Moses, and the Temple: The Story of Teceiving Christ’s Atonement,” in this proceedings.

Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger, eds. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1996–2002.

Halloran, J. A. Sumerian Lexicon: A Dictionary Guide to the Ancient Sumerian Language. Los Angeles, CA: Logogram Publishing, 2006. https://www.sumerian.org/sumerlex.htm (accessed June 3, 2021).

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

Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel. The Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005.

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

Heimpel, Wolfgang. Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003.

Hendel, Ronald S. “Genesis,” in The HarperCollins Study Bible, Fully Revised and Updated, Including the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books with Concordance, edited by Harold W. Attridge, Wayne A. Meeks, Jouette M. Bassler, Werner E. Lemke, Susan Niditch, and Eileen M. Schuller. Revised ed. New York: HarperOne, 2006.

Hendel, Ronald S. “Genesis 1–11 and Its Mesopotamian Problem,” in Cultural Borrowings and Ethnic Appropriations in Antiquity, edited by Erich S. Gruen, 23–36. Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2005.

[Page 223]———. “The Nephilim Were on the Earth: Genesis 6:1–4 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” in The Fall of the Angels, edited by C. Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 11–34. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

———. “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 13–26.

———. The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Henning, W. B. “The Book of the Giants.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 11, no. 1 (1943): 52–74. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/book-of-the-giants/F09AF3F19C427A250B9D562F82640944 (accessed June 3, 2021).

Henze, Matthias. “Additions to Daniel: Bel and the Dragon,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, 2:135–39. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013.

Hess, Richard S. Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1–11. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Holzapfel, Richard Neitzel, and David Rolph Seely. My Father’s House: Temple Worship and Symbolism in the New Testament. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1994.

Jackson, Kent P. “Some Notes of Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40 (2020): 15–60.

Jellinek, Adolph, ed. Bet ha-Midrasch. Sammlung kleiner midraschim und vermischter Abhandlungen aus der ältern jüdischen Literatur. Vol. 4. Leipzig, Germany: C. W. Vollrath, 1857.

Jensen, Robin Scott, Robert J. Woodford, and Steven C. Harper, eds. Manuscript Revelation Books. Facsimile Edition. First volume of the Revelations and Translations series of The Joseph Smith Papers, edited by Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman. Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2009.

Jones, Joy D. “An especially noble calling.” Ensign 50, April 2020. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/04/14jones?lang=eng. (accessed April 3, 2021).

Kawashima, Robert S. “Sources and Redaction,” in Reading Genesis: Ten Methods, edited by Ronald S. Hendel, 47–70. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

[Page 224]Kee, Howard C. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 1:775–828. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.

Kimball, Spencer W. The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982.

Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim. Manichaean Art and Calligraphy. Icono-graphy of Religions 20. Institute of Religious Iconography, State University Groningen. Leiden: Brill, 1982.

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000.

Kósa, Gábor. “The Book of Giants Tradition in the Chinese Manichaica,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 145–86. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, ed. Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

———. “Peacocks under the Jewel Tree: New Hypotheses on the Manichaean Painting of Bezeklik (Cave 38).” Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology 4 (2009): 135–48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285171957_Peacocks_under_the_Jewel_Tree_New_Hypotheses_on_the_Manichaean_Painting_of_Bezeklik_Cave_38 (accessed June 3, 2021).

Kugel, James L. The Bible as It Was. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997.

———. “Jubilees,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel and Lawrence H. Schiffman. 3 vols. 1:272–465. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013.

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

LaCocque, André. The Captivity of Innocence: Babel and the Yahwist. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2010.

———. Onslaught against Innocence: Cain, Abel, and the Yahwist. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2008.

Lambert, Wilfred G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960. Reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. http://books.google.com/books?id=vYuRDcieF2EC&dq. (accessed June 3, 2021). Page references are to the 1996 edition.

[Page 225]Langkjer, Erik. “From 1 Enoch to Mandaean religion.” Academia .edu. https://www.academia.edu/8438522/From_1.Enoch_to_Mandaean_Religion (accessed September 7, 2019).

Langlois, Michael. “Shemihazah et compagnie(s). Onomastique des anges déchus dans les manuscrits araméens deu Livre d’Hénoch,” in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Con-ference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June–2 July 2008, edited by Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, 145–80. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 94, edited by Florentino García Martínez, Peter W. Flint, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 2010. https://michaellanglois.org/medias/langlois-2010-shemihazah-et-compagnies-in-aramaica-qumranica-145–180.pdf (accessed June 3, 2021).

Larsen, David J. “Enoch and the City of Zion: Can an Entire Community Ascend to Heaven?” BYU Studies Quarterly 53, no. 1 (2014): 25–37.

Laurence, Richard, trans. The Book of Enoch the Prophet: Translated from an Ethiopic Manuscript in the Bodleian Library [. . .]. 1821. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, 1883. http://archive.org/details/bookofenochproph00laur (accessed June 3, 2021).

Lemaire, André. “Nabonide et Gilgamesh: L’araméen en Mésopotamie et à Qoumrân,” in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June–2 July 2008, edited by Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, 125–44. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 94, edited by Florentino García Martínez, Peter W. Flint, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 2010. http://www.digitorient.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/LemaireAramaicQumranica.pdf (accessed June 3, 2021).

Lesses, Rebecca. “‘They Revealed Secrets to Their Wives’: The Transmission of Magical Knowledge in 1 Enoch,” in With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic, and Mysticism, edited by Daphna V. Arbel and Andrei A. Orlov, 196–222. Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, edited by John R. Levison. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011.

Lewis, C. S. 1939. “Learning in War-Time,” in C. S. Lewis: Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces, edited by Lesley Walmsley, 47–63. London: HarperCollins, 2000.

———. “On the Reading of Old Books,” on God in the Dock, edited by Walter Hooper, 200–207. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, [Page 226]1970. http://www.pacificaoc.org/wp-content/uploads/On-the-Reading-of-Old-Books.pdf (accessed August 8, 2017).

Lewis, Mark Edward. The Construction of Space in Early China. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006.

Lidzbarski, Mark, ed. Ginza: Der Schatz oder das Grosse Buch der Mandäer. Quellen der Religionsgeschichte, der Reihenfolge des Erscheinens 13:4. Göttingen and Leipzig, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, J. C. Hinrichs’sche, 1925. https://ia802305.us.archive.org/7/items/MN41563ucmf_2/MN41563ucmf_2.pdf (accessed September 7, 2019).

Lindsay, Jeff and Noel B. Reynolds. “‘Strong Like unto Moses’: The Case for Ancient Roots in the Book of Moses Based on Book of Mormon Usage of Related Content Apparently from the Brass Plates,” in this proceedings.

Loewe, Michael. Ways to Paradise: The Chinese Quest for Immortality. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1979.

Ludlow, Jared W. Abraham Meets Death: Narrative Humor in the “Testament of Abraham.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 41. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.

———. “Abraham’s Vision of the Heavens,” in Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, edited by John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid. Studies in the Book of Abraham 3, 57–73. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2005. https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/abrahams-vision-heavens (accessed June 3, 2021).

———. “‘Enoch Walked with God, and He Was Not’: Where Did Enoch Go after Genesis?” in this proceedings.

Lundquist, John M. “What Is Reality?” In By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks. 2 vols. 1:428-38. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1990.

Machiela, Daniel A. The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon [1QapGen]: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 79. Leiden: Brill, 2009. https://books.google.com/books?id=7O4oKMuLeaQC (accessed June 3, 2021).

———. “Situating the Aramaic texts from Qumran: Reconsidering Their Language and Socio-historical Settings,” in Apocalyptic Thinking in Early Judaism: Engaging with John Collins’ ‘The Apocalyptic Imagination,’” edited by Sidnie White Crawford and Cecilia Wassén, [Page 227]88–109. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 182, edited by René Bloch and Karina Martin Hogan. Leiden: Brill, 2018.

Major, John S. Heaven and Earth in Early Han Thought: Chapters Three, Four, and Five of the Huainanzi. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.

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

“Marriage superstitions, and the Miseries of a Bride Elect, Part 1.” The St. James’ Magazine 28 (7, New Series) (1871): 549– 54. https://books.google.com/books?id=nbwRAAAAYAAJ. (accessed June 3, 2021).

Martínez, Florentino García. “The Book of Giants (1Q23),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, edited by Florentino García Martínez, 260. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

———. “The Book of Giants (4Q203),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, edited by Florentino García Martínez, 260–61. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

———. “The Book of Giants (4Q530),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, edited by Florentino García Martínez, 261–62. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

———. “The Book of Giants (4Q531),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, edited by Florentino García Martínez, 262. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

———, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

———. “Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen ar),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, edited by Florentino García Martínez, 230–37. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

Martyr, Justin. ca. 150–157. “The Second Apology of Justin for the Christinas. Addressed to the Roman Senate,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (The Writings of the Fathers Down to AD 325), edited by [Page 228]Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. 1:188–93. Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Company, 1885. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.

Matt, Daniel C., ed. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition. Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004.

McKane, William. “Matthew Black: 1908–1994,” in 1995 Lectures and Memoirs, 283–94. Proceedings of the British Academy 90. London: British Academy, 1996. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publishing/memoirs/pba-90/black-matthew-1908-1994/ (accessed June 3, 2021).

Migne, Jacques P. “Livre d’Adam,” in Dictionnaire des Apocryphes, ou, Collection de tous les livres Apocryphes relatifs a l’Ancien et au Nouveau Testament, pour la plupart, traduits en français, pour la première fois, sur les textes originaux, enrichie de préfaces, dissertations critiques, notes historiques, bibliographiques, géographiques et théologiques, edited by Jacques P. Migne, 1:1–290. Troisième et Dernière Encyclopédie Théologique 23. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1856. http://books.google.com/books?id=daUAAAAAMAAJ (accessed June 3, 2021).

Mika’el, Bakhayla. “The Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth.” Ca. 1400. In The Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth and Other Works of Bakhayla Mika’el (Zosimas), edited by E. A. Wallis Budge, 1–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934. Reprint, Berwick, ME: Ibis Press, 2004. Page references in the 1934 edition are idential to the 2004 edition.

Milik, J. T., and Matthew Black, eds. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. https://archive.org/details/MILIKEnochInAramaicQumranCave4 (accessed June 3, 2021).

Mitchell, Stephen. Gilgamesh: A New English Version. New York: Free Press, 2004.

Mitton, George L. “The Book of Mormon as a Resurrected Book and a Type of Christ,” in Remembrance and Return: Essays in Honor of Louis C. Midgley, edited by Ted Vaggalis and Daniel C. Peterson, 121–46. Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn, 2020.

Mobley, Gregory. “The Wild Man in the Bible and the Ancient Near East.” Journal of Biblical Literature 116, no. 2 (1997): 217–33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3266221.

———. The Empty Men: The Heroic Tradition of Ancient Israel. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 2005.

[Page 229]Mopsik, Charles, ed. Le Livre Hébreu d’Hénoch ou Livre des Palais. Les Dix Paroles. Lagrasse, France: Éditions Verdier, 1989.

Morano, Enrico. “Il Libro dei Giganti di Mani,” in Il mito e la dottrina. Testi manichei dell’Asia centrale e della Cina, 81–107. Vol. 3 of Il manicheismo, edited by Gherardo Gnoli. Milan: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla / Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 2008. https://1lib.us/book/1236609/604020?id=1236609 (accessed June 3, 2021).

———. “Some New Sogdian Fragments Related to Mani’s Book of Giants and the Problem of the Influence of Jewish Enochic Literature,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 187–98. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

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

Mozgovine, Cyrille. De Abdallah à Zorrino: Dictionnaire des Noms Propres de Tintin. Tournai, Belgium: Casterman, Bibliothèque de Moulinsart, 1992.

Muhlestein, Kerry. “The Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Moses: An Outpouring of Revelations and the Beginning of Joseph Smith’s ‘New Translation’ of the Bible,” in this proceedings.

Muir, Lynette R. The Biblical Drama of Medieval Europe. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Nelson, Russell M. Teachings of Russell M. Nelson. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018.

Nes, Solrunn. The Uncreated Light: An Iconographical Study of the Transfiguration in the Eastern Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.

Newington, Samantha. “Greek Titans and Biblical Giants,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 33–40. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 37C. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

[Page 230]Nibley, Hugh W. Abraham in Egypt. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 14. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000.

———. An Approach to the Book of Mormon. 1957. 3rd ed. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 6. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1988.

———. “The Babylonian Background,” in Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites, edited by John W. Welch, Darrell L. Matthews, and Stephen R. Callister, 350–79. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 5. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1988.

———. “But What Kind of Work?” in Approaching Zion, edited by Don E. Norton, 252–89. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 9. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989.

———. “Churches in the Wilderness,” in The Prophetic Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch, 289–327. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 8. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989.

———. “Churches in the Wilderness,” in Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless, edited by Truman G. Madsen, 155–212. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1978.

———. “Deny Not the Gifts of God,” in Approaching Zion, edited by Don E. Norton, 118–48. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 9. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989.

———. “Educating the Saints.” 1970. In Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints, edited by Don E. Norton and Shirley S. Ricks, 306–45. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 13. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994.

———. Enoch the Prophet. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 2. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1986.

———. “The Expanding Gospel,” 1965. In Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, edited by Don E. Norton, 177–211. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 12. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992.

[Page 231]———. “Gifts,” in Approaching Zion, edited by Don E. Norton, 85–117. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 9, Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989.

———. Hugh Nibley on the Book of Enoch. Excerpted from a FARMS videocassette entitled “The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Era Dawns.” The videocassette contains material recorded in connection with a National Interfaith Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, November 20, 1992, in the Kresge Auditorium of Stanford University. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tTuzRQ6bcI&t=18 (accessed June 3, 2021).

———. “An Intellectual Autobiography: Some High and Low Points,” in Hugh Nibley Observed, edited by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Shirley S. Ricks, and Stephen T. Whitlock, 37–54. Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn, 2021.

———. 1951. “The Hierocentric State,” in The Ancient State, edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 10, 99–147. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991.

———. “The Law of Consecration” in Approaching Zion, edited by Don E. Norton, 422–86. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 9. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989.

———. The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. 2nd ed. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 16. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005.

Nibley, Hugh W. “A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price.” Improvement Era, 1968–1970. Reprint, Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990.

———. “Return to the Temple,” in Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, edited by Don E. Norton, 42–90. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 12. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992.

———. “A Strange Thing in the Land: The Return of the Book of Enoch, Part 13.” Ensign, August 1977, 64–65. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1977/08/a-strange-thing-in-the-land-the-return-of-the-book-of-enoch-part-13?lang=eng (accessed June 3, 2021).

———. Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2004.

[Page 232]———. The World and the Prophets. Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 3. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987.

Nickelsburg, George W. E., ed. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.

———. “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, vol. 2, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by Michael E. Stone, 89–156. Leiden: Brill, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004275119_004 (accessed June 3, 2021).

———. “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee.” Journal of Biblical Literature 100, no. 4 (December 1981): 575–600.

———. “The Nature and Function of Revelation in 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and Some Qumranic Documents,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Esther G. Chazon, Michael Stone, and Avital Pinnick, 91–119. Leiden: Brill, 1998. http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/2nd/papers/Nickelsburg97.html (accessed June 3, 2021).

Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam, eds. 1 Enoch: A New Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.

———, eds. 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

Noah, Mordecai M., ed. The Book of Jasher. Translated by Moses Samuel. Salt Lake City: Joseph Hyrum Parry, 1887. Reprint, New York: Cosimo Classics, 2005. Page numbers in the 2005 edition are identical to those in the 1887 edition.

Odeberg, Hugo. 3 Enoch, or The Hebrew Book of Enoch. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1926.

Oh, Sang-Hak. “Circular World Maps of the Joseon Dynasty: Their Characteristics and Worldview.” Korea Journal 48, no. 1 (2008): 8–45. https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3460 (accessed June 3, 2021).

Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. 1964. Revised ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.

Orlov, Andrei A. The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 107. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

[Page 233]———. “‘The Learned Savant Who Guards the Secrets of the Great Gods’: Evolution of the Roles and Titles of the Seventh Antediluvian Hero in Mesopotamian and Enochic Traditions (Part II: Enochic Traditions).” Scrinium 2, no. 1 (2006): 165–213. https://brill.com/view/journals/scri/2/1/article-p165_11.xml?lang=en (accessed June 3, 2021).

Parry, Donald W. “Garden of Eden: Prototype Sanctuary,” in Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, 126–51. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.

Parry, Donald W. Personal communication to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, March 2, 2020.

Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, vol. 1, Texts Concerned with Religious Law, Exegetical Texts and Parabiblical Texts. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2013. All page references herein are to the 2013 edition.

Parry, Jay A., and Donald W. Parry. “The temple in heaven: Its description and significance,” in Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, 515-32. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.

Paulsen, David L. “The Redemption of the Dead: A Latter-day Saint Perspective on the Fate of the Unevangelized,” in Salvation in Christ: Comparative Christian Views, edited by Roger R. Keller and Robert L. Millet, 263–97. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2005.

Paulsen, David L., Roger D. Cook, and Kendel J. Christensen. “The Harrowing of Hell: Salvation for the Dead in Early Christianity.” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 19, no. 1 (2010): 56–77. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol19/iss1/7 (accessed June 3, 2021).

Penner, Ken M. “Did the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael Use the Book of Giants?” In Sacra Scriptura: How “Non-canonical” Texts Functioned in Early Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by James H. Charlesworth and Lee M. McDonald, 15–45. London: T&T Clark, 2014. https://www.academia.edu/4024730/Did_the_Midrash_of_Shemihazai_and_Azael_use_the_Book_of_Giants (accessed June 3, 2021).

Petersen, Anders Klostergaard. “The Notion of Demon: Open Questions to a Diffuse Concept,” in Die Dämonen. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Litteratur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early [Page 234]Christian Literature in Context of their Environment), edited by A. A. Lange, H. Lichetenberger and K. F. D. Römheld, 23-41. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Philonenko, Marc. “Une citation manichéenne du livre d’Hénoch.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 52, no. 3 (1972): 337–40. https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/rhpr_0035–2403_1972_num_52_3_4112.pdf (accessed June 3, 2021).

Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Price, Randall. Rose Guide to the Temple. Torrance, CA: Rose Publishing, 2012.

Reade, Julian Edgeworth. “The Assyrian Royal Hunt,” in I Am Ashurbanipal: King of the World, King of Assyria, edited by Gareth Brereton. London: Thames & Hudson, 2019.

Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Demons, Angels, and Writing in Ancient Judaism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

———. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Reeves, John C. Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the “Book of Giants” Traditions. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 14. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992.

———. Heralds of That Good Realm: Syro-Mesopotamian Gnosis and Jewish Traditions. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 41, edited by James M. Robinson and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

———. “Midrash of Shemhazai and Azael.” University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Accessed May 13, 2020. https://pages.uncc.edu/john-reeve/course-materials/rels-2104-hebrew-scripturesold-testament/bereshit-rabbati-on-shemhazai-azael/ (accessed June 3, 2021).

———. “Some Parascriptural Dimensions of the ‘Tale of Harut wa-Marut.’” Journal of the American Oriental Society 135, no. 4 (October–December 2015): 817–42. https://www.academia.edu/4681769/Some_Parascriptural_Dimensions_of_the_Muslim_Tale_of_Harut_wa_Marut_) (accessed June 3, 2021).

[Page 235]Reeves, John C., and Annette Yoshiko Reed. Sources from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Enoch from Antiquity to the Middle Ages 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

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

Rich, Tracey R. “Days of Awe,” in Judaism 101. http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday3.htm (accessed March 31, 2020).

Rowland, Christopher, and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones. The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 12. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

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

Russell, James R. “Hārūt and Mārūt: The Armenian Zoroastrian Demonic Twins in the Qur’ān Who Invented Fiction,” in Commentationes Iranicae: Sbornik statei k 90-letiyu V.A. Livshitsa, edited by S. Tokhtasev and P. Luria, 469–80. St. Petersburg: Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Nestor-Historia, 2013. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34881481 (accessed June 3, 2021).

Sanders, E. P. “Testament of Abraham,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 1:871–902. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.

Sanders, John. “Those Who Have Never Heard: A Survey of Major Positions,” in Salvation in Christ: Comparative Christian Views, edited by Roger R. Keller and Robert L. Millet, 299–325. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2005.

———, ed. What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Sanders, Seth L. From Adapa to Enoch: Scribal Culture and Religious Vision in Judea and Babylon. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 167. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

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

[Page 236]Savedow, Steve, ed. Sepher Rezial Hemelach: The Book of the Angel Rezial. Boston, MA: WeiserBooks, 2000.

Seely, David Rolph, and Jo Ann H. Seely. “The Crown of Creation,” in Temple Insights: Proceedings of the Interpreter Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference ‘The Temple on Mount Zion,’ 22 September 2012, edited by William J. Hamblin and David Rolph Seely. Temple on Mount Zion Series 2, 11-23. Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn, 2014.

Shiner, Whitney. Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.

Shoulson, Mark, comp. The Torah: Jewish and Samaritan Versions Compared. La Vergne, TN: Lightning Source, 2008.

Silverstein, Michael. “Axes of Evals: Token versus Type Inter-discursivity.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15, no. 1 (2005): 6–22.

Skinner, Andrew C. “Joseph Smith Vindicated Again: Enoch, Moses 7:48, and Apocryphal Sources,” in Reason, Revelation, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and Stephen D. Ricks, 365–81. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=14&article=1066&context=mi&type=additional (accessed June 3, 2021).

Smith, Joseph, Jr. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 2nd ed., edited by B. H. Roberts. 7 vols. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978.

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

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

Smoot, Stephen O. “‘I Am a Son of God’: Moses’ Prophetic Call and Ascent into the Divine Council,” in this proceedings.

Snell, David. “New Find in Dead Sea Scrolls Reveals Joseph Smith Scored Another ‘Lucky Guess.’” Third Hour (blog). June 16, 2020. thirdhour.org/blog/faith/scripture/dead-sea-scrolls-joseph-smith-book-of-remembrance/ (accessed June 3, 2021).

Stone, Michael E. “Enoch and the Fall of the Angels.” Dead Sea Discoveries 22, no. 3 (2015): 342–57. https://brill.com/view/journals/dsd/22/3/article-p342_7.xml (accessed June 3, 2021).

[Page 237]———. Secret Groups in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. https://www.scribd.com/document/390527947/Secret-Groups-in-Ancient-Judaism-M-Stone (accessed June 3, 2021).

Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and the Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000.

Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “The Apocalypse of John, 1 Enoch, and the Question of Influence,” in The Myth of Rebellious Angels, edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 281–325. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017.

———. “The Book of Giants among the Dead Sea Scrolls: Considerations of Method and a New Proposal on the Reconstruction of 4Q530,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 129–41. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. https://www.academia.edu/36691330/The_Book_of_Giants_among_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls_Considerations_of_Method_and_a_New_Proposal_on_the_Reconstruction_of_4Q530 (accessed June 3, 2021).

———. The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Translation, and Commentary. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

———. “Giant Mythology and Demonology: From the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen un frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (Demons: The Demonology of the Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment), edited by A. Lange and H. Lichtenberger, 318–38. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. https://www.academia.edu/2209731/Giant_Mythology_and_Demonology_from_the_Ancient_Near_East_to_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls (accessed June 3, 2021).

———. The Myth of Rebellious Angels. 2014. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017.

Sundermann, Werner. “Ein weiteres Fragment aus Manis Gigantenbuch,” in Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata, 491–505. Acta Iranica 23. Leiden: Brill, 1984.

———. Mittelpersische und parthische kosmogonische und Parabel texte der Manichäer. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 8. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973. [Page 238]https://www.scribd.com/document/396552610/Werner-Sundermann-Mittelpersische-und-parthische-kosmogonische-und-Parabeltexte-der-Manichaer-1973 (accessed June 3, 2021).

Taylor, Scott. “Elder Uchtdorf’s Devotional on Technology in Missionary Work Is ‘Almost Like a Worldwide Zoom Meeting.” Church News. Updated February 25, 2021. https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2021–02–25/elder-uchtdorf-sister-missionary-devotional-technology-205086 (accessed June 3, 2021).

Thomas, Samuel I. The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Early Judaism and Its Literature 25, edited by Judith H. Newman. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.

Thomasson, Gordon C. “Matthew Black and Mircea Eliade Meet Hugh Nibley,” in Hugh Nibley Observed, edited by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Shirley S. Ricks, and Stephen T. Whitlock, 423–32. Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn, 2021.

Touger, Eliyahu, trans. The Rambam’s Mishneh Torah. By Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. Brooklyn, NY: Moznaim, n.d. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682956/jewish/Mishneh-Torah.htm (accessed March 31, 2020).

Townsend, Colby. “Appropriation and Adaptation of J Material in the Book of Mormon.” Honors thesis, University of Utah, 2016.

———. “Returning to the Sources: Integrating Textual Criticism in the Study of Early Mormon Texts and History,” intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 10, no. 1 (2019): 55–85. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/imwjournal/vol10/iss1/6/ (accessed June 3, 2021).

Townsend, Colby [Hans Rosekat, pseud.]. “The King James Bible in the Book of Moses, Part 1.” Rational Faiths (blog). April 12, 2014. https://rationalfaiths.com/king-james-bible-book-moses/ (accessed June 3, 2021).

Tsedaka, Benyamim, and Sharon Sullivan, eds. The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah. Translated by Benyamim Tsedaka. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013.

Tuval, Michael. “‘Συναγωγὴ Γιγάντων’ (Prov 21:16): The Giants in Jewish Literature in Greek,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, 41–57. [Page 239]Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

van Wolde, Ellen. “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men in Genesis 6:1–4.” Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013): 63–74.

VanderKam, James C. Enoch: A Man for All Generations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995.

Vermes, Geza, ed. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 1962. Revised ed. London: Penguin Books, 2004.

Vernay-Nouri, Annie. Livres d’Arménie: Collections de la Biblio-thèque nationale de France. Paris, France: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 2007. https://books.openedition.org/editionsbnf/1133. (accessed May 26, 2021).

Wayment, Thomas A., and Haley Wilson-Lemmon. “A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” in Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity, edited by Mark Ashurst-McGee, Michael Hubbard MacKay, and Brian M. Hauglid, 262–84. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020.

Welburn, Andrew, ed. Mani, the Angel, and the Column of Glory: An Anthology of Manichaean Texts. Edinburgh: Floris Books, 1998.

Wenham, Gordon J., ed. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary 1. Nelson Reference and Electronic, 1987.

———. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in I Studied Inscriptions before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4, 399–404. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.

Westermann, Claus, ed. Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary 1st ed. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

Whittaker, David J. “Substituted Names in the Published Revelations of Joseph Smith.” BYU Studies Quarterly 23, no. 1 (1983): 103–12.

Widengren, Geo. The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book (King and Saviour III). Uppsala, Sweden: Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1950.

Wilkens, Jens. “Remarks on the Manichaean Book of Giants: Once Again on Mahaway’s Mission to Enoch,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, edited by Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano, [Page 240]213–29. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 360, edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

Williams, Frederick Granger. The Life of Dr. Frederick G. Williams: Counselor to the Prophet Joseph Smith. Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2012.

Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 2:35–142. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.

Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.

Woodworth, Jed L. “Extra-Biblical Enoch Texts in Early American Culture,” in Archive of Restoration Culture: Summer Fellows’ Papers, 1997–1999, edited by Richard Lyman Bushman, 185–93. Provo, UT: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute, 2000.

Wright, Archie T. The Origin of Evil Spirits. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 198. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

Wyatt, Nicolas. Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

Young, Brigham. 1874. “Discourse by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Third Ward Meeting HOuse, Salt Lake City, Sunday evening, June 23, 1874. Secret of happiness; self examination; Joseph Smith a man of obedience to God; baptism for the dead; temporal and spiritual one; a dream; order of Enoch, the order of God; a good word for the women,” in Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. 18:235–49. Liverpool and London: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1853–1886.

Zinner, Samuel. “Underemphasized Parallels between the Account of Jesus’ Baptism in the Gospel of the Hebrews/Ebionites and the Letter to the Hebrews and an Overlooked Influence from 1 Enoch 96:3: ‘And a Bright Light Shall Enlighten You, and the Voice of Rest You Shall Hear from Heaven,’” in Textual and Comparative Explorations in 1 and 2 Enoch, edited by Samuel Zinner, 225–29. Ancient Scripture and Texts 1. Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn, 2014.

[Page 241]1. T. L. Givens and F. Givens, God Who Weeps, 24.

2. Carmack, “Book of Moses English.”

3. Carmack, “Book of Moses English.” Among other findings, Carmack also notes the following: “[The Book of Moses’ pattern] is similar to the Book of Mormon’s pattern, which is an uncommon, early modern pattern. However, at least one linguistic pattern found in the Book of Moses is quite unlike Book of Mormon usage: the absence of relatively heavy periphrastic did usage.”.

4. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, 1–9. Joseph Smith’s “translation” did not involve the study of original manuscripts in ancient languages but was the result of his prophetic gifts.

5. J. Smith Jr., History of the Church, 1:245.

6. Though the precises dates of dictation for Moses 6:52–7:1 (given sometime between December 1 and December 10, 1830) and Moses 7:2–8:30 (given sometime between ca. December 10, 1830, and March 7, 1831) are uncertain, current evidence suggests that other large sections of the preceding sections of the Book of Moses were each “probably translated and written in one day”: Moses 5:43–51 (October 21, 1830); Moses 5:52–6:18 (November 30, 1830); Moses 6:19–52 (December 1, 1830; Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, 57).

7. Muhlestein, “Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Moses.”

8. E.g., Townsend, “King James Bible”; Townsend, “Appropriation and Adaptation”; Townsend, “Returning to the Sources”; Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon, “Recovered Resource.”

9. See Bradshaw, “Truth and Beauty,” where arguments for nineteenth-century sources for Moses 1, 6, and 7 are summarized and evaluated. For a more accessible version of arguments for ancient affinities within Moses 6–7 see Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion. For a one-volume verse-by-verse commentary on the Book of Moses taking ancient sources into account, see Bradshaw, The First Days and the Last Days. This shorter commentary draws upon and updates the more extensive commentary found in Bradshaw, God’s Image 1 and Bradshaw, et al, God’s Image 2. See also Draper et al., Commentary, an excellent commentary on the entire Pearl of Great Price.

[Page 242]10. See Bradshaw, “Truth and Beauty.”

11. See Jackson, “Some Notes”; Bradshaw, “Book of Moses Textual Criticism 3.”

12. See Bradshaw, “Truth and Beauty.”

13. See Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and Ryan Dahle, “Could Joseph Smith Have Drawn on Ancient Manuscripts?”

14. Ben Tov (pseudonym of Colby Townsend), “Book of Enoch.”

15. See Bradshaw, Larsen, and Whitlock, “Twin Sons of Different Mothers.”

16. See, e.g., Lindsay and Reynolds, “Strong Like unto Moses,” in this proceedings; Calabro, “Early Christian Context.”

17. See Stuckenbruck, “Apocalypse of John.”

18. Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 276. Cf. Nibley, 267–68. Nibley complained that the Ensign editors only gave him two pages to wrap up the series, implying that they were weary of it. Nibley, “Hugh Nibley on the Book of Enoch.”

19. Published as Milik and Black, Books of Enoch.

20. Milik and Black, Books of Enoch.

21. See Bradshaw, Bowen, and Dahle, “Where Did the Names Mahaway and Mahujah Come From?,” 193.

22. Nibley, “Strange Thing,” 64.

23. Milik and Black, Books of Enoch.

24. See Bradshaw, Bowen, and Dahle, “Where Did the Names Mahaway and Mahujah Come From?”

25. See Townsend, “Returning to the Sources,” 80–82.

26. See Townsend, “Returning to the Sources,” 82.

27. Milik and Black, Books of Enoch, 305. Photo by Stephen T. Whitlock taken on February 1, 2021. Photo ID: HBLL-ASR_STW9072-EC.jpg.

28. For a description of Matthew Black’s encounter with the Book of Moses, see Thomasson, “Matthew Black and Mircea Eliade,” 423–27. Professor S. Kent Brown’s recollections of Matthew Black’s visit, which includes details on the dates and setting of Black’s two BYU lectures can be found in Brown, “Enoch, the Book of Moses, and [Page 243]the Book of Giants.” Two brief video accounts of this incident are available: Nibley, “Hugh Nibley on the Book of Enoch”; Bradshaw et al., “What Did Enoch Scholar Matthew Black Say.”

29. According to Gordon Thomasson, immediately after hearing about the Book of Moses Enoch account, Matthew Black “formulated a hypothesis . . . that a member of one of the esoteric groups he had described previously [i.e., clandestine groups who had maintained, sub rosa, a religious tradition based in the writings of Enoch that predated Genesis] must have survived into the 19th century, and hearing of Joseph Smith, must have brought the group’s Enoch texts to New York from Italy for the prophet to translate and publish.” Thomasson then comments, “I did not argue the point that the Book of Mormon might not have been available in Europe in time for someone to sail to the United States and get to upstate New York to meet a late 1830 (or even 1832) ‘publication deadline’” (Thomasson, “Matthew Black and Mircea Eliade,” 426).

30. After meeting Thomasson and at his suggestion, Black made a previously unplanned trip to BYU to meet Hugh Nibley. S. Kent Brown, then the director of Ancient Studies, extended the invitation to Black, sent him pages of the Book of Moses, and managed the logistics of the visit (Brown, “Enoch, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Giants”). Although Nibley recounts that Black declined to take questions about the Book of Moses in his public lectures in Provo, Nibley reported that in private: “He did say a number of times, shaking his head in a bemused fashion, ‘Someday we will find out where Joseph Smith got that. . . . Someday a source will turn up.’ Which I doubt not for a moment, since we already have an impressive sampling. I am afraid it will not be what Brother Black is hoping for” (quoted in Thomasson, “Matthew Black and Mircea Eliade,” 427).

31. McKane, “Matthew Black,” 282.

32. Courtesy Elizabeth Thomasson. Email message to author, April 9, 2021.

33. Cirillo, “Joseph Smith,” 97. Cf. Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 27.

34. In this and later quotes from Cirillo, the names of works he cites will be spelled out rather than abbreviated as they were originally.

35. See Ludlow, “‘Enoch Walked with God.’”

[Page 244]36. For an accessible discussion of relevant scholarship, see Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion. For more extensive discussions, see Bradshaw, The First Days and the Last Days; Bradshaw et al., God’s Image 2.

37. Migne, speaking of Enoch and those with him, said: “By fleeing and hiding the people on high have ascended higher than us. We have never known them. All the same, there they are, clothed with glory and splendors. . . . And now they are sheltered from our blows” (“Livre d’Adam,” 21, p. 170).

38. David Calabro kindly checked and updated Hugh Nibley’s translation of the account below from Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, 4:131–32. Jellinek’s account is almost identical to the one found in Noah, Book of Jasher, 3:24–38, pp. 7–8. Ginzberg summarizes this account, with an addition recounting that when the people searched for those who had gone with Enoch, “they discovered the bodies” (Legends, 1:129–130). Though this idea might be reasonably inferred, it is found explicitly in neither of the two original accounts. Jellinek’s version from Bet ha-Midrasch is included here because it is more difficult to find in English translation:

It happened at that time, that as the children of men were sitting with Enoch[,] he was speaking to them, that they lifted up their eyes and saw something like a great horse coming down from heaven, and the horse moving in the air [wind] to the ground[.] And they told Enoch what they had seen. And Enoch said to them, “It is on my account that that horse is descending to the earth; the time and the day have arrived when I must go away from you and no longer appear to you.”

And at that time that horse came down and stood before Enoch, and all the people who were with Enoch saw it. And then Enoch commanded, and there came a voice to him saying, “Who is the man who delights to know the ways of the Lord his God? Let him come this day to Enoch before he is taken from us.” And all the people gathered together and came to Enoch on that day. . . .

And after that he got up and rode on the horse, and he went forth, and all the children of men left and went after him to the number of 800,000 men. And they went with him for a day’s journey. Behold, on the second day he said to them, “Return back to your tents; why are you coming?” And some of them returned from him, and the remainder of them went with him six days’ journey, while Enoch was saying to them every day, “Return to your tents lest you die.” But they did not want to return and they [Page 245]went with him. And on the sixth day men still remained, and they stuck with him. And they said to him, “We will go with thee to the place where thou goest; as the Lord liveth, only death will separate us from thee!” And it came to pass that they took courage to go with him, and he no longer addressed them. And they went after him and did not turn away.

And as for those kings, when they returned, they made a count of all of them (who returned) to know the number of men who remained, who had gone after Enoch.

And it was on the seventh day, and Enoch went up in a tempest into heaven with horses of fire and chariots of fire. And on the eighth day all the kings who had been with Enoch sent to take the number of the men who had stayed behind with Enoch [when the kings left him] at the place from which he had mounted up into the sky.

And all the kings went to that place and found all the ground covered with snow in that place, and on top of the snow huge blocks of snow. And they said to each other, “Come, let us break into the snow here to see whether the people who were left with Enoch died under the lumps of snow.” And they hunted for Enoch and found him not because he had gone up into the sky.

For threads in Jewish tradition of groups of worshippers who figuratively ascended to heaven through ritual, see Larsen, “Enoch and the City of Zion”; Bradshaw, “Ezekiel Mural.”

39. See Henning, “Book of the Giants,” text G (Sogdian), p. 69. See more on this topic below.

40. See Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” p. 172, in light of the discussion later on in this essay.

41. Photograph from 4Q530 (4QGiantsb ar), fragment 7b, column II. Mislabeling of photograph in online source confirmed by Donald W. Parry (personal communication, March 2, 2020).

42. E.g., Milik and Black, Books of Enoch, p. 306. Cf. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 105.

43. Parry and Tov, Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (DSSR), 4Q530, fragment 7, column ii, end of line 7, p. 951.

44. Morano, “Some New Sogdian Fragments,” 197.

45. See Henning, “Book of the Giants.”

[Page 246]46. See Sundermann, Mittelpersische; Morano, “Libro dei Giganti”; Morano, “Some New Sogdian Fragments”; Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition.” For a comprehensive though somewhat dated study of the manuscript evidence, see Reeves, Jewish Lore. The Manichaean BG sources are translated into English and discussed at length in Reeves’ work. Reeves concludes that the Book of Giants, a foundational work of Manichaean cosmogony, is indebted in important respects to traditional Jewish interpretations of Genesis 6:1–4.

47. See Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 2.

48. However, 1 Enoch and the Book of Giants both touch on some related themes. For a summary of the literary relationship between the Book of the Watchers in 1 Enoch and the Book of Giants, see Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 24–28.

49. See Homilies 25:2–5; Psalm-Book 46:21–47:4; Gardner, Kephalaia, 5:22–26, p. 11.

50. Lemaire, “Nabonide et Gilgamesh,” 125. Lemaire writes (my translation):

Since we live more than two thousand years after the Qumran manuscripts were copied, we may be tempted as modern readers to recognize . . . [a] direct link with the books of the Bible. Such a conclusion seems obvious from the titles given to certain manuscripts. . . . However, these titles may give the false impression that the Aramaic manuscripts of Qumran were centered on the Bible and dependent on it even though the Bible itself . . . did not yet exist. A bibliocentric vision of this sort appears anachronistic. (p. 125)

51. With specific reference to Enoch texts, Reeves and Reed continue as follows:

Scholars of the Hebrew Bible and specialists in ancient Judaism and Christianity have increasingly come into conversation around the trajectories of biblical interpretation and the continued lives of authoritative writings within and between religious communities. Alongside traditional source-critical, redaction-critical, and text-critical inquiries into the Torah/ Pentateuch, for instance, new approaches have emerged in the attempt to recover what James Kugel has termed “the Bible as It Was” [Kugel, Bible as It Was]—that is, not simply the text of this or that biblical book as it came to be fixed in writing, but also the much broader array of common exegetical motifs and legends [Page 247]through which premodern peoples encountered the primeval and patriarchal past. What has emerged, in the process, is a new sense of the degree to which premodern Jews, Christians, and Muslims—as well as Samaritans, Manichaeans, “gnostics,” and others—participated in preserving and developing a common store of traditions about figures such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses.

So too with Enoch. The traditions associated with this figure, however, expose the limitations of modern notions of “the Bible” to capture the scope, dynamism, and complexity of premodern discourses about the biblical past. There has been much attention, for instance, to Jewish and Christian traditions about the fallen angels in relation to the exegesis of Genesis 6. What such studies have shown, however, is the impossibility of accounting for the history of interpretation without a sense of the ample influence of Enochic and other texts now commonly deemed “noncanonical.” So too with Genesis 5 and traditions about Enoch, which took form from an ancient matrix of Mesopotamian traditions that continued to be developed in new ways in writings produced alongside and after what we know now as “the Bible.”

Traditions surrounding Enoch thus offer especially rich foci for tracing the transmission and transformations of traditions across religious boundaries. In light of new insights into scribal practices and textual fluidity from the biblical and related manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, it has become clear that the process of the formation of “the Bible” was much longer and more complex than previously imagined. Likewise, the recent growth of concern for the mechanics of written and oral transmission and pedagogy among ancient Jews has redescribed biblical “authorship” in continuum with interpretation, redaction, collection, and transmission—wherein oral/aural and written/visual components, moreover, often remained intertwined in various ways in various settings. Just as these insights lead us to question the assumption of any clear line between scripture and interpretation in relation to the Torah/Pentateuch, so they also open the way for integrating what we know of the formation, transmission, and reception of Enochic literature into a more complete picture of the biblical past as remembered by premodern Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others. (Enoch from Antiquity, 1:8–9)

52. Reeves, “Some Parascriptural Dimensions,” 840–41. Reeves explains:

[Page 248]The . . . “Bible” and Qur’an are magnetized nodes within a common “text network” that share a lexicon of ancestral heroes, places, and narrativized events, a lexicon not limited by the constraints of canon or its lemmata governed by the “tyranny of canonical assumptions.” Within this lexicon resides a rich reservoir of revered tales, ancestral folklore, and tribal traditions about the pre-Deluge era that antedate their varying literary presentations in works such as the many redacted forms of Genesis, the Enochic Book of Watchers, renditions of the Second Temple book of Jubilees, and so-called rewritten components of the biblical primeval history (Genesis 1–11). Therein also resides the cultural memory—and perhaps even physical exemplars—of the written sources and editorial moves that preceded the later formal crystallization of discrete textual entities such as proto-Masoretic “Genesis” or “Jubilees.” (pp. 840–41)

53. Silverstein, “Axes of Evals”; Bauman, “Commentary.” Thanks to David Calabro for pointing me to these articles.

54. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 88.

55. Dawood, Koran, 2:102, 19. For a collection of related traditions in Islam, see al-Tha’labi, “Lives,” 86–91.

56. Regarding the popularity of the Book of Giants at Qumran, Ken M. Penner writes:

If the identification of Qumran fragments belonging to Giants is correct, the work was very popular at Qumran: about ten copies were found, in four caves. The significance of these numbers becomes apparent when compared to those of the Aramaic book of [1 Enoch] itself: only seven copies found, all in a single cave. The only books more popular at Qumran are Psalms (36 copies), the books of the Pentateuch (23–24, 16, 12–13, 9, 35 copies respectively), Isaiah (21), Jubilees (17), and the Community Rule (13); the Damascus Document and Rule of the Congregation each have ten. (Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael, 44–45)

57. Stuckenbruck dates the Book of Giants to “sometime between the late 3rd century and 164 BCE” (Book of Giants, 31). For a more recent summary of the literature concerning dating and geographical origins of the book, see Angel, “Reading the Book of Giants,” 315n5. Angel generally agrees with Stuckenbruck’s dating. For a summary of evidence relating to Mesopotamian and Hellenistic influences in the Book of Giants, see Angel, 315n5.

[Page 249]Notwithstanding the unrivaled prominence and antiquity of the Book of Giants at Qumran, the first reflex of some scholars is to attribute any resemblances to 1 Enoch to “borrowing” from the latter source. However, caution should be exercised in concluding a straightforward dependence of the Book of Giants on 1 Enoch. For example, comparing Ezekiel 1, Daniel 7, 1 Enoch 14, and the Book of Giants, Bledsoe argues that 1 Enoch 14’s adoption of the Danielic idea of the deity shows only that this idea was “accepted even at a late period, and does not automatically make [1 Enoch 14] older even if the tradition may be observed in generally more ancient writings” (“Throne Theophanies,” 85). More generally, Bledsoe concludes Daniel, 1 Enoch, and the Book of Giants “drew from a common tradition(s) regarding the heavenly throne and then adapted it to fit within their individual context” (p. 90).

Regarding Angel’s thesis that the Book of Giants, as we have it, reflects “the realities of life under Hellenistic imperial occupation,” the author himself hints at more ancient and complex roots for the story:

There are hints in the Book of Giants that signal a more nuanced and developed plot. The giants argue with one another and there are perhaps different factions among them. Thus, if I am correct that the Book of Giants models the humbling of Hellenistic figures of power, it seems that the composition now before us preserves only the remains of a complex allegory, whose original referents cannot be recovered. (“Humbling,” 80)

58. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 11.

59. Stuckenbruck, “Giant Mythology,” 319. Stuckenbruck describes three factors that make the Book of Giants distinctive from contemporary Jewish works (319–321):

1. Whereas the other Enochic compositions are “pseudepigrapha” in the technical sense, the Book of Giants seems not to have been a first-person account attributed to Enoch himself (contra Milik . . .). . . . In the Book of Giants Enoch is never clearly portrayed as a first person narrator and, furthermore, none of the Book of Giants materials unambiguously cast Enoch in the role of being the recipient of visions or dreams. . . .

2. Secondly, the Book of Giants distinguishes itself in the role assigned to Enoch. As just mentioned, he is not the recipient of dreams; instead he functions in the narrative as a dream [Page 250]interpreter par excellence as he clarifies the meaning of the ominous visions given to the giants. . . .

3. Thirdly, and most significant . . . , the author(s) of the Book of Giants cast the spotlight on the gigantic offspring of the watchers more than any other extant Jewish document written or copied during the Second Temple period. . . . It is only in the Book of Giants that any of the giants are actually given proper names.

Notwithstanding the unique nature of the narrative and the unrivaled prominence and antiquity of the Book of Giants at Qumran, the first reflex of some scholars is to attribute any resemblances to 1 Enoch to “borrowing” from the latter source. As part of a larger effort to counter such reflexive tendencies, Reeves has demonstrated with a well-argued example that the tale of Hārūt and Mārūt, though sharing some affinities with 1 Enoch, is actually more dependent in its conceptual foundations on the book of Jubilees. He has concluded that the relative neglect of Jubilees in scholarly circles, “a work . . . that does not necessarily ‘rewrite’ any of the ‘canonical’ versions” (“Some Parascriptural Dimensions,” 833), can be attributed, at least in part, to misconceptions about Jubilees itself that relegate it (like the Book of Giants) to a secondary, derivative status:

Speaking in both conceptual and archaeological (i.e., physical) terms, it seems to be more responsible to view Jubilees as simply one pre-canonical manifestation of the rich pool of sub-textual ancestral traditions that also surface in related but distinctive forms of the biblical books of Genesis–Exodus as well as in other places outside those books that utilize many of the same characters, stories, and themes. (833n50)

60. Lemaire, “Nabonide et Gilgamesh,” 144.

61. Bledsoe, “Throne Theophanies,” 90.

62. Stuckenbruck, Myth of Rebellious Angels, 118.

63. Angel, “Humbling,” 80.

64. Caquot, “Les prodromes,” 50.

65. Frölich, “Giants and Demons,” 100.

66. See Sanders, From Adapa to Enoch.

67. See George, Gilgamesh, pp. xvi–xxx.

68. Goff, “Gilgamesh the Giant,” 253.

[Page 251]69. Machiela, “Situating the Aramaic Texts,” 90.

70. Machiela, 91–92.

71. Machiela, 105.

72. See, for example, this sense of gibborim in Moses 8:21 (the children of the self-proclaimed “sons of God”), Genesis 10:8–9 (Nimrod), Genesis 10:25 (Peleg), and Genesis 11:4 (the builders of the Tower of Babel who wanted to make themselves a name).

73. Namely, Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 7:3, p. 182. See Nickelsburg’s views on the implications of this verse on p. 186.

74. The current convention of using terms that correspond to “giants” to refer to the gibborim is due largely to the later influences of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible (see, for example, Wright, Evil Spirits, 83–84) and of widespread transmission of various translations of the Book of Giants within the works of Mani. Though the title of Mani’s Book of Giants appears “in several Manichaean and anti-Manichaean documents scattered throughout Europe and through Africa as far as Asia Minor and Chinese Turkistan, almost nothing was known of the contents of this document before the appearance of the remarkable article by W. B. Henning” in 1943 (Milik and Black, Books of Enoch, 298; see Henning, “Book of the Giants”).

Wright gives two possibilities for the somewhat unexpected use of gigantes, the Greek word for “giants,” in the Septuagint:

It may be suggested that the Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible had difficulty in understanding some of the Hebrew terminology (e.g., nephilim and gibborim) in the text and therefore translated the terms imprecisely, thus enhancing the ambiguity of the passage. Another possibility is that modern scholars have misunderstood what the Greek translators meant by their use of the term [gigantes]. It appears that more work needs to be done in order to discover the use of this term in the Greek literature prior to the translation of the [Septuagint]. (Evil Spirits, 92)

For more on the impact of the Septuagint on later traditions and on interactions among related Jewish and Greek conceptions of the “giants,” see Tuval, Giants in Jewish Literature; and Newington, “Greek Titans.” For Mesopotamian influences in descriptions of the “giants” in 1 Enoch, see Drawnel, “Mesopotamian Background.”

[Page 252]75. Frölich, “Giants and Demons,” 106–7.

76. Reeves gives the following summary of the complex and somewhat controversial meanings that have been attributed to these terms, as well as to the semidivine “Watchers”:

The term gbryn is the Aramaic form of Hebrew gibborim (singular gibbor), a word whose customary connotation in the latter language is “mighty hero, warrior,” but which in some contexts later came to be interpreted in the sense of “giants.” [The term is translated seventeen times with the Greek word for “giants” in the Septuagint.] . . . Similarly nplyn is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew np(y)lym (i.e., nephilim), an obscure designation used only three times in the Hebrew Bible. Genesis 6:4 refers to the nephilim who were on the earth as a result of the conjugal union of the [“sons of God” and the “daughters of Adam”] and further qualifies their character by terming them gibborim. [More plausibly, Wright (Evil Spirits, 81–82) and Grossman (“Who Are the Sons of God?,” 5–8) argue for Genesis 6:1–4 as being a description that proceeds in strict chronological order, concluding that the nephilim were on the earth before this conjugal union between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of Adam.”] Both terms are translated in [Septuagint] Genesis 6:4 by [“giants”] and in Targum Onkelos by gbry’. Numbers 13:33 reports that gigantic nephilim were encountered by the Israelite spies in the land of Canaan; here the nephilim are associated with a (different?) tradition concerning a race of giants surviving among the indigenous ethnic groups that inhabited Canaan. A further possible reference to both the nephilim and gibborim of Genesis 6:4 occurs in Ezekiel 32:27. The surrounding pericope presents a description of slain heroes who lie in Sheol, among whom are a group termed the gibborim nophelim [sic] me‘arelim. The final word, me‘arelim, “from the uncircumcised,” should probably be corrected on the basis of the Septuagint . . . to me‘olam, and the whole phrase translated “those mighty ones who lie there from of old.” . . .

The conjunction of gbryn wnpylyn in QG1 1:2 may be viewed as an appositional construction similar to the expression ‘yr wqdys—“Watcher and Holy One.” . . . However, the phrase might also be related to certain passages that suggest there were three distinct classes (or even generations) of Giants, names for who of which are represented in this line. . . . Compare Jubilees 7:22: “And they bore children, the Naphidim [sic] . . . and the Giants killed the Naphil, and the Naphil killed the ’Elyo, and the ’Elyo [Page 253][killed] human beings, and humanity (killed) one another.” (Jewish Lore, 69–70; see also Wright, Evil Spirits, 79–95)

Reeves further proposes that “the sons of God are in fact [identical with] the giants mentioned in [Genesis 6:4], whereas the ‘heroes’ [i.e., gibborim] described at the end of the story are the results of these giants’ [i.e., the nephilim] coupling with the daughters of man” (Jewish Lore, 18). While it may well be that the gibborim were the descendants of these mixed marriages, and while the Book of Moses agrees with Grossman’s conclusion that the nephilim (also known as the “sons of God”) were not divine nor even “especially close to God” (“Who Are the Sons of God?,” 10), the rationale for the latter conclusion differs, as I discuss in Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion.

77. Moses 7:14–15.

78. See Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q531, fragment 1, lines 1–3, p. 953.

79. See Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, 203.

80. See Bradshaw and Larsen, 203, 225–27.

81. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stele_of_lion_hunt,_from_Uruk,_Iraq,_3000-2900_BCE._Iraq_Museum.jpg (accessed June 3, 2021).

82. See Hendel, “Nephilim,” 28–29. Note that in his writings, Hendel typically conflates the gibborim and the nephilim. See also Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion.

83. Hendel, “Genesis 1–11 and Its Mesopotamian Problem,” 34.

84. For discussions of Genesis 6:1–4 in the context of additional ancient cultures, see Hendel, “Nephilim”; and Hendel, “Demigods.” As early as 1915, George A. Barton argued that the list of names in Genesis 4–5 can be traced to a Sumerian tablet of Nippur (see LaCocque, Onslaught against Innocence, 131).

85. For extensive studies of this gibborim culture, see Mobley, “Wild Man”; and Mobley, Empty Men. For more in-depth discussion of the gibborim culture in the context of Moses 6–7, see Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion.

86. Mobley, Empty Men, 35.

87. Doak, “Giant in a Thousand Years,” 24.

[Page 254]88. See Genesis 10:8. For more on the Hebrew term gibbor and its use in the accounts of Enoch and Noah, see Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, 41, 203.

89. Note that JST Genesis 10:9 modifies the King James Version description of Nimrod as “a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Genesis 10:9) to read “a mighty hunter in the land,” thus eliminating any intimation of divine sanction for Nimrod’s activities. Cf. Ether 2:1: “the mighty hunter.”

90. For sources and a brief summary of literary analyses of the tower story that highlight it as a brilliant example of Hebrew storytelling, full of irony and satire, see Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, 387–88. With specific reference to Nimrod, Kawashima writes:

It should be noted that postbiblical lore [invested] Nimrod with giant status and associated him with the building of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1–5 (probably due to Nimrod’s association with Shinar). Furthermore, the Greek translation of gibbor as “Giant” in Genesis 10:8–9 attests to what may have been a popular, and not altogether illogical, interpretation that Nimrod’s stock as a giant somehow was passed through Noah, thus manifesting the hubris with which giants are often associated in his act of founding several cities and inciting the Tower of Babel project. (“Sources and Redaction,” 59n33)

91. The phrase “from the east” in Genesis 11:2 can be just as easily read as “to the east” or “eastward” (e.g., Hendel, “Genesis,” p. 19, note b). LaCocque writes:

In Genesis 11:2 humanity is going eastward, prolonging the initial migration since the exit from Eden. To them, Shinar and hence Babylon is in the east, that is, farther removed from the original Garden. Their settlement in the east is already in and of itself a token of their rebellion against God. (Captivity of Innocence, 44)

92. See Genesis 11:4. For more on the motif of making a name, see Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, 386, 388–90, 393–97, 414–15.

93. See Moses 6:31; 8:27.

94. Grossman, “Who Are the Sons of God?,” 16.

95. Stuckenbruck, Myth of Rebellious Angels, 19.

[Page 255]96. “Marriage Superstitions,” 549; Burne, Shropshire Folk-Lore, 646. Though the first known published sources of the phrase are Victorian, the tradition may be older. The longer version of the proverb adds: “and a [silver] sixpence in your shoe.” Compare the French wedding proverb, “Mariage plus vieux, mariage heureux,” signaling that a marriage undertaken at maturity is likelier to result in happiness than one that is contracted in the first blush of youth. Whether inadvertently or deliberately, the original phrase is often misunderstood as “Mariage pluvieux, mariage heureux,” signaling that marriage on a rainy day is a sign of good luck.

97. Bradshaw, Bowen, and Dahle, “Where Did the Names Mahaway and Mahujah Come From?”

98. This is how the name is rendered in the neo-Assyrian version of the epic, as opposed to Ḥuwawa in the Old Babylonian version (see Stuckenbruck, 20n56).

99. See Milik and Black, Books of Enoch, p. 427, s.v. “Ahya”; Nickelsburg, “Bible Rewritten,” 96; Stuckenbruck, “Giant Mythology,” 322. Cf. Stuckenbruck, Myth of Rebellious Angels, 41.

100. See Russell, “Hārūt and Mārūt.” ʾOhyah reappears in later sources as Og of Bashan or Ogias (Henning, “Book of the Giants,” 54).

101. Going beyond the example of the two brothers with their two dreams, Stuckenbruck sees “the repeated use of the number two” as a broad indicator of a “way in which the Qumran Book of Giants was structured” (Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 20).

102. Russell, “Hārūt and Mārūt.” Nibley cites Laman and Lemuel with ʾOhyah and Hahyah (= Hārūt and Mārūt) as examples of what some scholars have called “pendant names”:

The most striking thing about the names of Laman and Lemuel is the way they go together; as we saw above it has been suggested that the former is but a corruption of the latter. Whether that is so or not, the musical pair certainly belong together and are a beautiful illustration of the old desert custom of naming the first two sons in a family with rhyming twin names, “a pair of pendant names,” as Spiegel puts it, “like Eldad and Medad, Hillek and Billek, or Jannes and Jambres. The Arabs particularly seem to enjoy putting together such assonant names Yagug and Magug for Gog and Magog, Harun and Karun for Aaron and Korah, Habil and Kabil for Abel and Cain, Hillit and Millit for the first dwellers in hell.” Speigel is here discussing the names [Page 256]Heyya and Abeyya, and might well have included in his parallels the recently discovered romance of Sul and Shummul. Harut and Marut were the first two angels to fall from grace, like Laman and Lemuel, according to Arab tradition of great antiquity. These names never go in threes or fours but only in pairs, designating just the first two sons of a family with no reference to the rest. This “Dioscuric” practice has a ritual significance which has been discussed by Rendel Harris, but of the actual practice itself, especially among the desert people, there can be no doubt, for we read in an ancient inscription: “N. built this tomb for his sons Hatibat and Hamilat.” One could not ask for a better illustration of this little-known and, until recently, unsuspected practice than we find in the Book of Mormon where Lehi names his first two sons Laman and Lemuel. (Approach, 291–92)

103. See Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q530, fragment 2, lines 1–3, p. 949. For an interpretation of this passage that stresses ʾOhyah’s deceit, see Goff, “Gilgamesh the Giant,” 249–52.

104. See, e.g., Sogdian Text C of the Book of Giants, where ʾOhyah attempts to pick a fatal fight with Mahaway (Henning, “Book of the Giants,” 66).

105. See, e.g., Reeves, Jewish Lore, 84–102.

106. See, e.g., Reeves, 93.

107. See Parry and Tov, DSSR, 6Q8, fragment 1, lines 2–6, p. 973. For interpretations of this passage, see Reeves, Jewish Lore, 107–9; Goff, “Gilgamesh the Giant,” 249–52.

108. Mozgovine, De Abdallah, 70.

109. Copie de la fresque de la grotte 25 : l’arbre de vie. Iacovlev Alexandre (1887–1938), Iakovleff (aka). Paris, musée Guimet (musée national des Arts asiatiques), 00-000530/MG24341. Photo copyright RMN-Grand Palais (MNAAG, Paris)/Thiérry Ollivier. https://www.photo.rmn.fr/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2CMFCI865EDV&SMLS=1&RW=1560&RH=1630 (accessed January 27, 2020)

110. This scholarly consensus (see, e.g., Klimkeit, Manichaean Art, 31–32), based on a faulty attribution of citations of Severus of Antioch to the Book of Giants in his critique of Manichaeism, was refuted in Reeves, Jewish Lore, 165–74—notwithstanding the fact that the painting was depicted on the cover of Reeves’ book (credited to the Musée Guimet). Later, Kósa advanced several new ideas about the interpretation of the mural, including a [Page 257]convincing argument that the three trunks in the painting were meant to evoke the Manichaean concept of the “three constancies” rather than Noah and his sons (“Peacocks”). Despite this new interpretation, no scholar disputes the strong connection between the Manichaean Book of Giants (well known to Manichaeans in the East) and the Qumran Book of Giants—only the idea that Severus was quoting the Book of Giants rather than another Manichaean source.

111. See Reeves, “Midrash of Shemhazai and Azael.”

112. E.g., Qur’an 2:102.

113. See Stuckenbruck, Myth of Rebellious Angels, 43.

114. Langlois, “Shemihazah et compagnie(s),” 174. Alternatively, Russell suggests:

The name sounds, as Shaked has suggested, as though it might be simply Hebrew ha-šēm ha-zeh, literally “this name,” maybe a cautious circumlocution. Pious Jews refer to God discreetly as Hashem, “The Name.” (“Hārūt and Mārūt,” n13).

However, David Calabro strongly disagrees: “This suggestion seems extremely unlikely to me. The “h” in Shemiḥazah is the ḥeth, while that in ha-shem ha-zeh is just heh” (email message to author, May 18, 2020).

115. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, p. 179.

116. See Nickelsburg, p. 179.

117. Nickelsburg, p. 180. See Parry and Tov, DSSR, 6Q8, fragment 1, line 4, 973.

In the Doctrine and Covenants, the name of Enoch (Doctrine and Covenants 78, 82, 92, 96, 104) or Baraq’el was sometimes used as a code name for Joseph Smith (“Baurak Ale”; see Doctrine and Covenants 103, 105). Note that Joseph Smith’s approach is simply to follow the lead of his Hebrew teacher, James Seixas, who seems to have transliterated both the Hebrew letters kaph and qoph with a k, so it is difficult to trace what original name he is transliterating (Whittaker, “Substituted Names,” 107). Nibley observes:

That Baraq’el is interesting. . . because[, in the Book of Giants,] Baraq’el is supposed to have been the father of [Mahujah]. . . . A professor in Hebrew at the University of Utah said, “Well, Joseph Smith didn’t understand the word barak, meaning ‘to bless.’” [Page 258]William W. Phelps had previously suggested that “Baurak Ale” meant “God bless you.” [See Whittaker, “Substituted Names,” 107.] But “Baraq’el” means the “lightning of God” [see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, p. 180]. The Doctrine and Covenants is right on target in that. (Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price, 268)

118. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 8:3, p. 188.

119. Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q203, fragment 8, line 5, p. 945.

120. See Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 52, 92; Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q530, fragment 14, line 2, p. 947.

121. “Since Baraq’el is composed from the name of ‘lightning’ followed by the theophoric suffix, [Mahujah/Mahaway, his son,] was given the Iranian equivalent Virogdad, ‘created by lightning’” (Caquot, “Les prodromes,” 50). Cf. Henning, who first recognized Virogdad as having affinities to Baraq’el (Milik and Black, Books of Enoch, 300, 311) in the Manichaean fragments of the Book of Giants (Reeves, Jewish Lore, 147n202; 138n98). According to Jubilees 4:15, Baraq’el is also the father of Dinah, the wife of Enoch’s grandfather Mahalaleel (Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 4:15, p. 61; see also pp. 61–62, note g). If one assumed the descriptions in the relevant accounts were consistent (of course, a very far-fetched assumption), this would make the prophet Enoch a first cousin once removed to Mahujah.

On the other hand, in Moses 5:43 the name of Mahuja-el’s father is given as Irad, a prominent member of the secret combination who was killed later by his great-grandson Lamech when Irad revealed their secrets in violation of deadly oaths he had taken (see Moses 5:49–50).

122. Public Domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sons_of_God_Saw_the_Daughters_of_Men_That_They_Were_Fair,_by_Daniel _Chester_French,_modeled_by_1918,_carved_1923_-_Corcoran_Gallery_of_Art_-_DSC01065.JPG. (accessed June 3, 2021). Other famous statues by Chester include the Abraham Lincoln statue in the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC and “The Minute Man” in Concord, Massachusetts.

123. See Reeves, Jewish Lore, 93. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 6:7, p. 174; 8:3, p. 188; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 69:2, p. 297. [Page 259]Cf. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 60:13–15, p. 224. See also Mopsik, Hénoch, 14:4, p. 109; 17:1, 3, pp. 110, 111.

124. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 6:7, p. 174; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 69:3, p. 297.

125. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 6:5, p. 174.

126. Nickelsburg, 6:1, p. 174.

127. See Nickelsburg, 8:3, p. 188.

128. See Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 60:13–15, p. 224; Mopsik, Hénoch, 14:4, p. 109; 17:1–3, pp. 110–11.

129. George, Gilgamesh, p. xxxi. For Nibley’s discussion of the Jaredites in the context of Gilgamesh, see Nibley, “Babylonian Background,” 358–65. For arguments that “ancient pseudo-histories may contain kernels of geographic truth,” see Graham, “Mythogeography,” 1.

130. George, Gilgamesh, p. xxxv.

131. See Stuckenbruck, Myth of Rebellious Angels, 49.

132. Mold of a seal, Indus Valley civilization (2500–1500 BCE), Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya (formerly Prince of Wales Museum). Mumbay, India. Public domain. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yogi._Mold_of_Seal,_Indus_valley_civilization.jpg (accessed January 29, 2021).

133. AO 6778, Department of Near Eastern Antiquities of the Louvre, room 227, display case 6, Atlas database entry 24801. Photo courtesy of Rama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Head_of_Humbaba-AO_6778-IMG_0661-black.jpg (accessed January 29, 2021).

134. Stuckenbruck, 45; see also pp. 44–48; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 124–26.

135. Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q531, fragment 22, lines 3–9, p. 959.

136. See Moses 7:13–15.

137. See Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q531, fragment 2, column II, line 1, p. 949.

138. See Parry and Tov, 4Q530, fragment 22, line 12, p. 959.

139. See Stuckenbruck, Myth of Rebellious Angels, p. 45.

140. See Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q203, fragment 3, line 3, p. 943. See also Stuckenbruck, Myth of Rebellious Angels, 44–45.

[Page 260]141. See Goff, “Gilgamesh the Giant,” 253.

142. Stuckenbruck, Myth of Rebellious Angels, 46.

143. Stuckenbruck, Myth of Rebellious Angels, 54. The author is citing Reeves, Jewish Lore, 126.

144. Goff, “Gilgamesh the Giant,” 253.

145. See Bradshaw, Bowen, and Dahle, “Where Did the Names Mahaway and Mahujah Come From?”

146. Calabro, “Early Christian Context.”

147. Koehler and Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1:334.

148. See 2 Chronicles 7:9.

149. Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 173.

150. Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 173.

151. Matthew L. Bowen, quoted in Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion.

152. See Orlov, Enoch-Metatron Tradition, 27.

153. E.g., VanderKam, Enoch, 6–8; Orlov, Enoch-Metatron Tradition, 23–39. VanderKam comments:

What is of special note here is that Shamash and Adad brought Enmeduranki into their council or assembly. Hence, he had with them a closer association than humans could normally enjoy. (Enoch, 8)

154. Orlov, “Learned Savant,” 165. For an extensive discussion of the similar roles of Enoch and Enmeduranki, see Orlov, Enoch-Metatron Tradition, 23–85.

155. https://pages.uncc.edu/john-reeves/course-materials/rels-40005000-jewish-apocrypha-pseudepigrapha/course-syllabus/ (accessed April 16, 2021).

156. See Parry and Tov, DSSR, 1Q24, fragment 27, line 2, p. 941; Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 27; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 93.

157. E.g., Milik and Black, Books of Enoch, p. 434, s.v. “Mahawai.”

158. E.g., Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q530, fragments 2 column II + 6 + 7 column I + 8–11 + 12(?), line 21, p. 951.

159. See David Calabro, email message to auhor, May 18, 2020, with permission; Nibley, Hugh Nibley on the Book of Enoch.

[Page 261]160. Photograph of Book of Giants, 4QEnGiantsa ar (4Q203), fragment 7b, column ii, from plate 31, Milik and Black, Books of Enoch. Used with permission. Cf. 4QEnGiantsa ar (4Q203), fragment 7b, column ii.

Milik translates lines 5–7 as follows: “[. . .] 5to you, Mah[awai . . .] 6the two tablets [. . .] 7and the second has not been read up till now [. . .].” (Milik and Black, Books of Enoch, 314; brackets in original translation).

Though only a small part of the H can be seen in the photograph of the manuscript reproduced here, Martínez, like Milik, reads the end of line 5 as “MH” (“MartínezBook of Giants (4Q203),” fragment 7, column II, lines 5–7, p. 260). By way of contrast, Stuckenbruck and Reeves see only “M” and not “MH” in this particular fragment (Book of Giants, 84; Jewish Lore, 110). Attesting to the complexity of interpreting these fragments is a later transcription by Stuckenbruck in which he interprets the last nearly complete letter of line 7 as a Hebrew B rather than an M (see Parry and Tov, DSSR, p. 945). Despite the ambiguities in this particular photograph, scholars agree that Mahaway’s full name appears in other, more complete and readable fragments from the Book of Giants.

161. See Moses 6:40.

162. See Moses 7:2.

163. Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 277–79.

164. The use of two variations of the same name in one statement is not uncommon in the Hebrew Bible. In this case, the Masoretic text of Genesis 4:18 includes both spellings of the name (Mehuja-el and Mehija-el) one right after the other, and in a context that leaves no doubt that the two occurrences refer to the same individual (see, e.g., Bandstra, Genesis 1–11, 268). Hendel attributes this phenomenon either to a graphic confusion of “Y” and “W” (Text, 47–48; cf. Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 278; Nibley, “Churches in the Wilderness” [1989] 290) or to linguistic modernization of what seems to be the older form (Mehuja-el). Note that instead of featuring two different forms of the name in succession as in the Masoretic text, some other texts render the names consistently. For example, the Cairo Geniza manuscript gives Mehuja-el twice, while the Samaritan version has Mahi-el (cf. Mehijael) twice (see [Page 262]Shoulson, Torah, Genesis 4:18, p. 11; Tsedaka and Sullivan, Israelite Samaritan, Genesis 4:18, p. 12).

165. Stuckenbruck, “Giant Mythology,” 322. Cf. Stuckenbruck, Myth of Rebellious Angels, 41. In “Giant Mythology,” 324, Stuckenbruck briefly repeats his previous suggestion for MHWY in connection with possible explanations for the names ʾOhyah and Hahyah. I will discuss the two latter names in a later section of the present article.

166. See Stuckenbruck, “Giant Mythology,” 324.

167. Stuckenbruck, Myth of Rebellious Angels, 41.

168. Richard Hess, in Freedman, Anchor Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Mehujael,” 4:681.

169. Hess, in Freedman, Anchor Bible Dictionary, 4:681.

170. See Hendel, Text, 47–48.

171. See Sarna, Genesis, 36.

172. See Hess, Studies, 41.

173. See Cassuto, Adam to Noah, 232.

174. Cassuto, Adam to Noah, 232. For more about their role and function, see Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 221. Cf. Heimpel, Letters to the King, s.v. “ecstatic,” p. 578. Matthew Bowen further comments on Cassuto’s analysis and other possible Mesopotamian etymologies for these names as follows:

Methusael may or may not constitute a Hebraization of the widely accepted, but still (as yet) theoretical and unattested Akkadian form, mutu ša ili (“man of god”). Nevertheless, Mesopotamia seems to be a good place to look in terms of obtaining more precise etymologies for the names in the Genesis genealogies.

Since Umberto Cassuto opens the door to considering Akkadian maḫḫû (“ecstatic, prophet” [Black, George, and Postgate, Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, 190]) as the source of the first element in Mehujael, we can also consider the word maḫḫû (“great”) as a possible source. The latter term derives from Sumerian MAḪ (adj. “high, exalted, supreme, great, lofty, foremost, sublime” [Halloran, Sumerian Lexicon, 168]). If Cassuto is right that Lamech can be connected to Akkadian lumakku, we would do well to note that lumakku or lumaḫḫû (which can also mean “chief, ruler” [Black, George, and Postgate, Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, 185]) also appears to derive [Page 263]from Sumerian MAḪ (LÚ.MAḪ = “great man”). This may have some further bearing on the etymology of the Book of Moses name “Mahan” (Moses 5:31, 49 [spelled “Mahon” in OT1 of the Joseph Smith Translation (Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Original Manuscripts, p. 10 of OT1, p. 94)]).

I think the point that lmk does not occur in West Semitic is more important than it may seem at a glance. (Bowen, email message to author, March 18, 2020)

175. Cassuto, Adam to Noah, 233.

176. See Cassuto, Adam to Noah, 233. Cf. Hess, Studies, 46.

177. See Hess, Studies, 46.

178. Stuckenbruck, “Book of Giants among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 134–35.

179. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 106:7, p. 536.

180. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 33:2, p. 329.

181. Enoch’s “similarity to, and perhaps derivation from, the [Mesopotamian] figure of Enmeduranki is widely accepted” (Wyatt, Space, 101; see also Orlov, Enoch-Metatron Tradition, 23–29; VanderKam, Enoch, 6–14; Annus, “On the Origin of Watchers”; Drawnel, “Mesopotamian Background”; Day, “Enochs of Genesis 4 and 5”). For an excerpt with commentary of a Mesopotamian account of the ascent of Enmeduranki, see Wyatt, Space, 195–96.

182. Jens Wilkens observes that “only Enoch’s voice is mentioned” (“Remarks,” 224, 225). In explaining this state of affairs, Wilkens mentions a Uyghur fragment of the Book of Giants in which a speaker (likely Mahaway referring to Enoch) says, “But I did not see him in person” (cited in Wilkens, 224).

183. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 225–26.

184. I.e., a Sogdian fragment M8005 (expedition code: T iii 282; see Henning, “Book of the Giants,” text E, p. 66, which states that some of the wicked “are glad at seeing the apostle,” “who is obviously Enoch” (according to Wilkens, “Remarks,” 225), while others are afraid of him. Also, the Middle Persian fragment M101, frg. l (Henning, “Book of the Giants,” 61), addressed, according to Wilkens, “to the Watchers and their children, the [gibborim],” states: “[The judgment on you is] that you shall be bound for the [Page 264]sins you have committed. You shall see the destruction of your children.”

185. See, e.g., Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 91, 199, 200. For more on the role of Mahaway as a messenger, see Wilkens, “Remarks”; Morano, “Some New Sogdian Fragments,” 190, 194.

186. See Bradshaw, Bowen, and Dahle, “Where Did the Names Mahaway and Mahujah Come From?”

187. Calabro, “Early Christian Context.”

188. Stuckenbruck, Myth of Rebellious Angels, 39.

189. Elsewhere, Stuckenbruck writes: “As no other extant early Jewish writing, BG focuses most exclusively and elaborately on the giants. The interest at the outset in cataloguing their misdeeds (instead of those of, e.g., the Watchers) corresponds to the detail devoted to them . . . throughout the story” (Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 144).

190. Writing generally about the ancient use of the term apocrypha, Nibley explained:

The Apocrypha originally got their name of “hidden” writings from the fact that they were considered too sacred to be divulged to the general public. The name does not designate, as it later came to, books of dubious authenticity, but rather scripture of very special importance and holiness. (Approach, 483n1)

For example, a controversial letter purportedly written by Clement and discovered by Morton Smith mentions certain “secret” doings and writings that were part of the “hierophantic teaching of the Lord [that would] lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth” but that were “most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries” (purported letter of Clement to Theodore, published in M. Smith, Secret Gospel, 14). Though some scholars dispute the nature of the “Secret Gospel of Mark” cited in the latter and some of Smith’s interpretations, most accept that the letter is an excellent match to the style of Clement. Hugh Nibley cites the work without qualification in Message, 515. For a summary of the debate on the nature and authenticity of this document, see, e.g., Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 67–89; M. Smith, Secret Gospel, xi, 139–50. Further associating the Gospel of Mark with ritual is the research of Whitney Shiner, who “has suggested that the Gospel [Page 265]of Mark was designed to be recited at the water’s edge after an all-night vigil as part of a baptismal service, so that the reading of the resurrection scene would dramatically coincide with the break of dawn” (Calabro, “Early Christian Context.” See Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel, 51–52.

With respect to esoteric teachings at Qumran, Michael E. Stone mentions the fact that “Josephus stresses transmission of written documents, when he says explicitly that the Essene initiates swear not to reveal ‘books belonging to their sect’ (BJ 2:142)” (Secret Groups, 38). On the other hand, and perhaps of relevance to the seemingly widespread transmission of the Manichaean Book of Giants fragments, an “abundance of insider documentation is an outcome of the Manichaean attitudes to their teachings, which they disseminated vigorously. This situation is the reverse of what [is] observed in the Hellenistic–Roman mystery cults” (Stone, 51).

Consistent with the idea that different levels of initiation in groups such as the Qumran covenanters corresponded to differential access to written (and most likely oral) teachings is Stone’s conclusion that “not only were . . . writings [containing special knowledge (e.g., Nickelsburg, “Nature and Function”) revealed in stages, but also steps were taken to ensure that those not yet admitted into the appropriate rank could not read them” (Stone, Secret Groups, 71). Those at the highest levels of initiation were thought to have knowledge reserved for the angels (e.g., “1 Enoch says, in praise of its hero, that Enoch heard and understood all the words of the Watchers, the highest class of angels (1:2)” [Stone, 102]). Here and elsewhere in Watchers and Similitudes of Enoch, “it becomes clear that the subjects taught by the Watchers are negative aspects of subjects apprehended by Enoch is his angelified state. Thus, the status of the revealer determines what can be revealed” (Stone, “Enoch and the Fall of the Angels,” 342).

The need for graded secrecy seems to have led naturally to the need for different works or different versions of the same work for different settings. As Stone observed, “Some, but not all, of [the secret subjects listed or alluded to in the most sacred teachings of the apocalypses] were not actually revealed in narratives of the apocalypses [themselves,] but are repeated in different works” (Stone, Secret Groups, 100). In some cases, sacred things were not [Page 266]to be written. Compare analogous statements made with reference to Latter-day Saint temple rituals (e.g., Flake, “Oral Canon”).

191. See Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion; Bradshaw, The First Days and the Last Days; Bradshaw et al., God’s Image 2.

192. Zinner, “Underemphasized Parallels.”

193. See Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 10:4 (shorter recension), p. 119; Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 2:2, p. 357; 3:2, p. 257; 4:1, p. 258; 4:10, p. 259; and Mopsik, Hénoch, 48D 1, p. 156 (97). For the Ginza, see Migne, “Livre d’Adam,” chap. 21, p. 167; Lidzbarski, Ginza, Ginza Right 11, lines 20–27, p. 264. A mention of “Enoch the Younger (who is Idris)” in a late Islamic source is no doubt derived from the same tradition (al-Kisa’i, Tales, 75).

194. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 1:2, p. 137. Cf. Doctrine and Covenants 110:1: “The eyes of our understanding were opened.”

195. See Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 25:1 [J], p. 144; 64:5 [J], p. 190.

196. See Migne, “Livre d’Adam,” 21, p. 169, English translation by author. Compare the English translation of Migne given by Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 210. Migne’s original reads:

La Vie [souveraine] lui répondit : Lève-toi, prends ta course vers la source de l’eau, détournes-en le cours, et que cette eau vive et subtile, tombant dans l’eau profonde, en adoucisse l’amertume en s’y mêlant, et que les hommes qui la boivent deviennent semblables à la Vie souveraine.

A ce commandement Tavril détourna en effet le cours de l’eau subtile, et la dirigeant dans l’eau amère, il en adoucit l’amertume, en sorte que les hommes se réjouissaient en la buvant.

Cf. Lidzbarski, Ginza, Ginza Right 11, pp. 266–67:

Da sprach das große Leben zu Mandä dHaije: „Mache du dich auf, geh an der Spitze des Wassers hin und ziehe einen dünnen Zug lebenden Wassers hin. Es soll hingehen, in das trübe Wasser fallen, und das Wasser werde schmackhaft, auf daß die Menschenkinder es trinken und dem großen Leben gleich werden.“

Da sprach er zu Taurel-Uthra, dieser machte sich ans Werk, er zog einen dünnen Zug Wassers hin, es fiel in die Tibil, in das Wasser, das nicht schmackhaft war, und das Wasser der Tibil wurde [Page 267]schmackhaft, daß die Menschenkinder es trinken und es ihnen schmecke.

The account of Enoch in the Book of Moses does not give a clear purpose for the turning of the waters from their course. Perhaps there is a longer version of the story in which this detail is explained. However, the Mandaean angel’s promise to deliver Enosh/Enoch from the “flood that will rise up on [his] head” provides a tantalizing hint of one possibility. In the Ginza, the incident is incorporated into the Mandaean mythology relating to baptism. Specifically, the turning of the water’s course is made necessary by the requirement for “living water” to become available for Mandaean baptism, which includes immersion, drinking of the water, and a series of sacred handshakes. The first phase of the rite is described by Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley as follows:

The priest submerges the person three times and uses his wet finger to draw a line three times across the person’s forehead, from the right to the left ear. Again thrice, the person in the water receives a palm full of water to drink. The sacred handshake, the kushta, takes place between the two. (Mandaeans, 82)

Erik Langkjer further elaborates:

Tauriel is the old god “El, the bull,” tr il, acc. to the Ugarit texts having his throne by the double offspring of the water-brooks in the mountain Lel. In the Mandaean baptismal ritual any river used for baptism is called Jordan (Jardna) and baptism can only be done in running water (not in “cut off water” in a font or basin). Lidzbarski thinks that this reflects an old belief in the Jordan as the paradise-river from Hermon, the mountain of the sons of God in the North (“as no other river in Asia it runs in a straight direction north-south” [Lidzbarski, Ginza, Einleitung, p. v, 13–15]). Lidzbarski does not mention Psalm 133:3: The unction on the head of the high priest is “like the dew of Hermon falling on the mountains of Zion. There the Lord sends down blessing, Life eternal,” in Temple Theology the dew in the morning and the unction is identified with the “Water of Life” from the mountain of the sons of God. (“From 1 Enoch”)

197. It is important to note that, of the Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch found at Qumran, none of those identified preserve any of the Parables. But even so, according to the consensus of scholarship, this segment is pre-Christian.

198. See Brown and Bradshaw, “Man and Son of Man.”

[Page 268]199. It seems at Qumran that knowledge classed as eschatological—including, among other things, “the secrets that relate to ‘him,’ that is the Righteous One (or the Lord of Spirits)” (Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, p. 102, commenting on 1 Enoch 38:3)—was reserved for the righteous at Judgment Day and, it seems in some cases, also for initiates at Qumran in the form of unwritten teachings (see, e.g., Stone, Secret Groups, 79–80). See, more generally, Stone, 78–87, 132–34.

200. Orlov, Enoch-Metatron Tradition, 102. Cf. H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch, part 2, p. 30, note 11:1: “According to v. 5 of the preceding chapter the angel(s) called the Prince of Wisdom and Prince of Understanding are the instructors of Enoch-Metatron. Here it is the Holy One who reveals secrets to him. An important parallel to this is found in 2 Enoch 23:24. In chapter 23 the angel Vretil tells Enoch of ‘all the works of heaven and earth, etc. etc.,’ in chapter 24 again it is God Himself who reveals to Enoch ‘the secrets of Creation.’ The reason of the change is there to be seen in the explicit statement that these latter secrets are not even revealed to the angels and could therefore be handed over to Enoch only by God Himself.” Cf. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” pp. 141ff.; Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” pp. 264ff.

201. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 22:8 [J], p. 138. See also Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, 104. For additional parallels to this theme in the ancient Enoch literature, see Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 228–32. Relevant biblical references include Exodus 34:29; 2 Chronicles 6:41; Psalm 93:1; 104:1; 132:9; Isaiah 61:10; Luke 9:26; 21:36; 1 Corinthians 15:19; 2 Corinthians 5:2–4, taking “house” to refer to “celestial glory”; Revelation 1:7; 3:5, 18; 4:4; 7:9; and Doctrine and Covenants 28:3.

202. See Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 16:2–3, p. 268.

203. Moses 7:59. Cf. Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 10:1, p. 263: “The Holy One, blessed be He, made me a throne like the throne of glory.”

204. Is it possible that the absence of detailed descriptions corresponding to Enoch’s grand vision in Moses 7 in BG might help explain the pointed efforts in so much of the rest of the primary Enoch literature (1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch) to remedy this significant omission through the invention of substitute narratives, no doubt [Page 269]drawing in some instances on traditions of genuine apocalyptic visions that are known to have circulated in the ancient world? Such efforts recall the sort of gap filling Nibley described in his account of how the later Christian Gnostics pined after the true gnosis of the early Christians—a lost gnosis about which they could only speculate and fabricate while falsely claiming to possess the real article. In Nibley’s inimitable style, he provides the following analogy:

It is as if various parties called upon to describe the nature of a bucket were to submit careful chemical analyses of all substances carried in buckets: there would be a milk school, a water school, a bran school, etc., each defining buckets in terms of a particular content. The important thing about the Gnostics is not that they adopted doctrines and practices from Iran or from Alexandria, but that they showed a desperate eagerness to latch on to anything that looked promising no matter where it came from. (World and the Prophets, 67)

In a similar way, we might, in a speculative mood, conjecture that the anxious efforts of later mystics to supply detailed accounts of what Enoch saw on his heavenly journey witnesses more than anything else their conviction that there somewhere existed a true account of that journey that could no longer be had. Commendably, the authors of BG, in contrast to later compilers of Enoch traditions, did not attempt to replicate by their own invention the heavenly visions of Enoch. Instead, for the purposes of their parody, they seem to have thought it sufficient to substitute the fictional dreams and comical antics of the twin brothers for the authentic visions of Enoch.

205. For an analogue to Enoch’s experience in the life of Moses, see, e.g., Smoot, “‘I Am a Son of God,’” in this proceedings; Bradshaw, Larsen, and Whitlock, “Twin Sons of Different Mothers

206. E.g., Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 20; Stuckenbruck, “Book of Giants among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 133.

207. See Bradshaw, Larsen, and Whitlock, “Twin Sons of Different Mothers.”

208. See Stuckenbruck, “Apocalypse of John.” I have also drawn inspiration from George W. E. Nickelsburg’s ongoing project comparing passages that might indicate influence of 1 Enoch on the Petrine corpus. His 2001 study concluded by saying, “The [Page 270]cumulative evidence, unless coincidental, indicates that Enochic traditions were known in Petrine circles” (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, p. 104). Nickelsburg notes the presence of fifteen significant parallels between 1 Peter and chapter 108 of 1 Enoch alone (p. 560). See also Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter.” Kelley Coblentz Bautch, who further clarified what is meant by “Enochic” and “Petrine” traditions, extended Nickelsburg’s research in a study to include the Apocalypse of Peter (see “Peter and the Patriarchs”).

209. Stuckenbruck, “Apocalypse of John,” 324.

210. Stuckenbruck, “Apocalypse of John,” 325.

211. My analysis differs from Stuckenbruck’s in one major respect. Since his corpus was based on parallels proposed by other authors in the literature rather than his own selections, he performed a prior analysis as to whether the parallels had been “shown to participate alongside other writings in developments of apocalyptic tradition that can be observed in other early Jewish writings” (Stuckenbruck, 322). In other words, were the parallels relatively specific to the two texts being considered, or were they themes common to many Jewish texts? Here, however, the selection of passages has already been confined to those considered useful for comparison. Though, admittedly, some of the parallel features occur in other Jewish texts (including, more often than not, other Enoch texts), the fact that the Book of Moses resembles to an astonishing degree any one of these texts is remarkable. And that there are many specific resemblances in particular to BG, in content and sequence of events, is striking.

212. Of course, the opposite course could have been taken—comparing Moses 6–7 against the narrative structure of BG. However, I concur with Jared Ludlow that extracanonical traditions should be measured against canonical versions of the standard works, not vice versa. “This comparison may appear to be a circular argument,” attempting to “prove” modern scripture by analyzing ancient traditions against it, “but the truthfulness of [modern scripture] will certainly not be proved by . . . any . . . intellectual endeavor,” though such analysis “may help eliminate some possible explanations (like Joseph Smith’s having made up these stories ex nihilo). If one has a testimony of [works of modern scripture], however, one can then use [them] as standards against which other traditions can be measured (Ludlow, “Vision,” 73n60).

[Page 271]213. Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 11–24.

214. Stuckenbruck, “Book of Giants among the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

215. Stuckenbruck, “Book of Giants among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 133.

216. See Wilkens, “Remarks,” 219–20, 221–22.

217. Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 18–19.

218. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 221.

219. For example, Kósa observed that although the idea of repenting “demons” that is found in BG would have been “complete nonsense” within the “extreme ontological dualism of Manichaeism,” the motif somehow survived in a Manichaean depiction of the story “due to the influence of the BG tradition” (“Book of Giants Tradition,” 175). The implication is that, in this instance and perhaps in others, the perception of the importance of the motif in the “original” BG story seems to have precluded any attempt to modify what would have ordinarily been seen as a doctrinally impossible episode in order to provide a better fit to Manichaean theology.

220. E.g., Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 20; Stuckenbruck, “Book of Giants among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 133.

221. Gulácsi, Mani’s Pictures, 437, 439.

222. Gulácsi, 485–89; Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition.”

223. Copyright Japanese private collection. Details of the Cosmology Painting are reproduced and discussed in Gulácsi, Mani’s Pictures, 436–89.

224. Welburn, Mani, 205.

225. Gulácsi, Mani’s Pictures, 470.

226. See Gulácsi, 470; cf. Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” plate 2, p. 182. See the description of the eight layers of the universe in Manichaeism represented in this and another image in Gulácsi, Mani’s Pictures, 468–69, 472–77.

227. See Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” 173–74.

228. See Kósa, 162–63, 168–69.

229. See Kósa, 169. For visual details, see fig. 2a, p. 183.

230. See Kósa, fig. 2a, p. 183. See also pp. 155–57.

[Page 272]231. See Kósa, fig. 3, p. 186. See also pp. 164–67, 169–71, 178.

232. As Nickelsburg describes it, the Genesis 6:4 description of events is made “without comment and with no explicit connection to what follows” (1 Enoch 1, p. 167).

233. For example, the well-known Genesis scholar Ronald Hendel translates Genesis 6:4 in a way that equates the nephilim to the gibborim:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. (Attridge et al., HarperCollins Study Bible, Genesis 6:4, p. 15)

By way of contrast, Nickelsburg understands such descriptions as depicting two distinct groups (1 Enoch 1, p. 185).

234. Ephrem the Syrian, “Paradise,” 1:11, pp. 81–82. See also Malan, Adam and Eve, 3:4, p. 147; Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 178–93. See also Reeves, Jewish Lore, 68–69.

235. See Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, 203, 225–30.

236. Nibley, “Gifts,” 93–94. See also Nibley, “Deny Not,” 128; “What Kind of Work?,” 256, 276; and “Law of Consecration,” 436–37.

237. Nibley, “Intellectual Autobiography,” 45.

238. Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q203, frg. 3, l. 4, p. 943.

239. Nibley, “Intellectual Autobiography,”40. As Nibley points out, this question is not unrelated to John Dewey’s golden question: “What is there in it for me?” (Nibley, “Educating the Saints,” 338).

240. Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 50.

241. Henning, “Book of the Giants,” frg. i, 103–10, p. 62.

242. While Wise and Cook translate the key term as “secrets,” Martínez translates the term as “mysteries” (Martínez, “Book of Giants (1Q23),” 9 + 14 + 15:2, p. 291). Cf. Beyer’s reconstruction as “mysteries” that is reported in Reeves, Jewish Lore, 74. Stuckenbruck (who provided the translation of Parry and Tov, DSSR, 939) is more cautious: “Not enough is visible on 1Q23 14 to verify this reading” (Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 58).

[Page 273]243. Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 1Q23, 9 + 14 + 15:2–4, p. 291.

244. Henning “Book of the Giants,” text A, frg. j, p. 60. The phrases in brackets are my suggestions.

245. Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QapGen, 1:2, p. 91. Cf. Martínez, “Genesis Apocryphon,” 1:2, p. 230; Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, 1:2, p. 67: “mystery of evil.” See also 2 Thessalonians 2:7 (Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, p. 120, note 1:2). For an extended discussion, see Thomas, “Mysteries,” 180–82.

246. See Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, 727nE-105.

247. al-Tha’labi, “Lives,” 88; cf. Chanoch Albeck, Midrash, p. 587; see English translation in Reeves, “Midrash of Shemhazai and Azael.”

248. Nibley, “Return to the Temple,” 63; cf. Genesis 6:4–6; Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, 398n5:53-a.

249. See Bradshaw, God’s Image 2, 96nM6–19. Because of differences in Hebrew spelling, some have questioned whether a connection can be made between Mahijah/Mahujah (in the Book of Moses), Mahaway (in the Qumran Book of Giants), and Mehuja-el (in Genesis 4:18). For a detailed response on this issue, see Bradshaw, Bowen, and Dahle, “Where Did the Names Mahaway and Mahujah Come From?”

250. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 6:5, p. 174.

251. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 69:13–14, p. 304.

252. Moses 5:29. For more on the uses of such oaths within and outside of scripture, see Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, Moses 5:29-b, c, d, pp. 377–78; Bradshaw and Head, “Investiture Panel,” 33–34.

253. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 6:5, p. 174.

254. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 6:1, p. 174.

255. Moses 5:44. See Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, p. 392, note 5:44-a: “The wording ‘took unto himself’ is paralleled in the description of the illicit relationships of the wicked husbands in the days of Noah (Moses 8:14, 21).” Wright observes that “there is no indication . . . that a marriage actually took place, but rather [the phrase] could be translated and understood as ‘Lamech took to himself two women’” (Evil Spirits, 135–36).

[Page 274]256. See Moses 5:47–55. See also Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 395–99, notes 5:47a–54c.

257. Moses 5:53: “Lamech had spoken the secret unto his wives, and they rebelled against him, and declared these things abroad, and had not compassion.”

258. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 8:3, p. 188. For an extensive discussion of this topic, see Lesses, “They Revealed Secrets.”

259. Courtesy of hadrian6. https://hadrian6.tumblr.com/post/96633448657/samson-smiting-a-philistine-with-the-jawbone-of-an (accessed April 16, 2021).

260. See Genesis 16:12.

261. Jeremiah 2:24.

262. Sarna, Genesis, 121n12: “a wild ass of a man.”

263. George, Gilgamesh, tablet 8, line 51, p. 65.

264. Mitchell, Gilgamesh, book 8, p. 153.

265. See Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion.

266. Moses 8:14; emphasis added.

267. See Moses 8:20.

268. See Moses 8:13–14.

269. Moses 8:21; emphasis added.

270. Moses 8:21; emphasis added.

271. Moses 8:13; emphasis added. For more on this episode, see Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, 84, 203, 225; Bradshaw, Temple Themes, 53–65. Cf. Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 180.

272. Alma 31:5. Note that the word “virtue” is a term whose older meaning connotes strength, especially strength in battle. It comes from the Latin nominative virtus (= valor, merit, moral perfection), which derives from the root vir (= man).

273. Mobley, Empty Men, 2.

274. Alter, Hebrew Bible, Hosea 10:13, 2:1230–31.

275. Alter, 2 Kings 23:25, 2:606.

276. Alter, Proverbs 24:5, 3:426.

[Page 275]277. Mobley uses the phrase “more the geber” (Empty Men, 3).

278. Mobley, Empty Men, 4.

279. See Angel, “Humbling,” 67–68.

280. Edward Cook, “4Q531 (4QEnGiants(c) ar),” 22:3–8, in Parry and Tov, DSSR, 3:495.

281. Angel, “Humbling,” 68. Angel continues:

The portrayal of Gilgamesh roaming like a wild man after the death of Enkidu is a well-known image from the Mesopotamian epic. And, as Matthias Henze has pointed out, Daniel’s portrait of Nebuchadnezzar as [having become] a wild man is best understood as a polemical reversal of Enkidu’s metamorphosis portrayed in Gilgamesh.

282. See Angel, “Humbling,” 68.

283. Stuckenbruck, “Book of Giants among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 133.

284. Cassuto, Adam to Noah, 232. For more about their role and function, see Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 221. Cf. Heimpel, Letters to the King, 578, s.v. “ecstatic.”

285. See Heimpel, Letters to the King, 26 220, p. 262; 26 221, p. 263.

286. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 227.

287. Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 278. Noting the possibility of wordplay, Nibley conjectures that “what the Ma- [in Mahijah] most strongly suggests is certainly the all-but-universal ancient interrogative, Ma (“who?” or “what?”), so that the names Mahujah and Mahijah both sound to the student of Semitics like questions” (“Churches in the Wilderness,” [1989], 290).

288. See, e.g., Henning, “Book of the Giants,” text E, p. 66; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 117. On the identification of Enoch with the title “apostle,” see Wilkens, “Remarks,” 225.

289. Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 122.

290. See Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 74–76.

291. E.g., they prostrated and wept bef[ore (Parry et al., DSSR, 4Q203 4, p. 943; cf. Martínez, “Book of Giants (4Q203),” 4, 6, p. 260: “they bowed down and wept in front of [Enoch]”; “when] they saw the apostle [i.e., Enoch], . . . before the apostle . . . those demons [i.e., the gibborim, in this context] that were [timid], were very, very [Page 276]glad at seeing the apostle [i.e., Enoch]. All of them assembled before him” (Henning, “Book of the Giants,” text E, p. 66).

292. Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q530, 2 II + 6 + 7 I + 8–11 + 12(?), 22–23, p. 951. In providing consistency with Manichaean BG fragments describing Enoch’s preaching mission, the Book of Moses also sheds light on the scholarly controversy as to whether the visit of Mahaway to Enoch in heaven later on is his first or second encounter with Enoch (see, e.g., Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 126–27; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 94, 105; Wilkens, “Remarks,” 219–20, 221–22). The most common answer to this question is that it was his second encounter with Enoch. The fact that it was Mahaway’s second encounter with Enoch is implied by the reference in the BG passages shown in the table above that refers to a “second time” (Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q530, fragment 7, column II, lines 6–7, p. 951) and a “first [time]” (Parry et al., DSSR, 4Q530, 2 II + 6 + 7 I + 8–11 + 12(?), 22–23, p. 951; cf. Vermes, Complete, 550: “Previously you listened to his [Enoch’s] voice”). Because of the frequent doubling of various motifs in BG, the idea of Mahaway being involved in two journeys rather than one seems probable—and the Book of Moses idea of Mahijah’s earthly encounter with Enoch (Moses 6:40), followed by a heavenly encounter with him (Moses 7:2), fits the expected narrative structure perfectly.

293. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 226–27.

294. For a survey of the examples of the concept of the “ends of the earth” in the ancient Near East, see Wyatt, Space, 113–120.

295. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 225.

296. See Bradshaw, Larsen, and Whitlock, “Moses 1 and the Apocalypse of Abraham,” (journal), 194.

297. See, e.g., Reeves, Jewish Lore, 93.

298. Nibley, Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price, 268. In Nibley’s interpretation, the relevant discussion among the gibborim referring to the selection of Mahaway leads directly to the question raised by Mahijah in the Book of Moses during his first visit: “Tell us plainly who thou art, and from whence thou comest?” (Moses 6:40). However, I take the discussion that leads to the selection of Mahaway as the envoy as occurring prior to his second visit to Enoch.

[Page 277]299. This is in line with Stuckenbruck’s conclusion that the addressees of the message in this passage are the “‘demons’ (= giants),” (Book of Giants, 86, 200), i.e., the gibborim.

300. Moses 6:46. Cf. Moses 6:5.

301. In Jewish tradition, several types of “heavenly books” are distinguished (Baynes, Heavenly Book, 7–8):

The Book of Life, in which the names of the righteous are written. In some accounts, there is a corresponding Book of Death in which the names of the wicked are recorded. This book is “by far the most common” type of heavenly book mentioned, and references to it are found both in the Old and New Testaments.

The Book of Fate “records what will happen in advance, either to an individual or to a larger community.” It appears “only rarely in the Hebrew scriptures but much more frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Second Temple literature, and especially in Jubilees.”

The Book of Deeds, a “heavenly accounting of people’s works, good or evil,” which “regulates entrance into eternal happiness.” Like the Book of Fate, this type of heavenly book predominates in Isaiah, Daniel, and in the pseudepigrapha.

302. For example, the Zohar teaches that Enoch had a copy of the “book of the generations of Adam” from the same heavenly source that revealed it to Adam (Zohar 1:37b [ed. Vilna Gaon—aka Elijah ben Solomon Zalman], as cited in Reeves and Reed, Sources from Judaism, 87): “They brought down to Adam the protoplast (from heaven) an actual book. . . . Enoch also had a book and that book was from the (same) place as the ‘book of the generations of Adam’ (Genesis 5:1).” Cf. Matt, Zohar, Bereshit 1:37b, pp. 237–38. The Testament of Abraham identifies Enoch as the heavenly scribe who records the righteousness or wickedness of the souls of the dead (Sanders, “Testament of Abraham,” recension B, 11:3–10, p. 900; Ludlow, Abraham Meets Death, 136–37).

The book of remembrance mentioned in the Book of Moses appears to have been passed down to the righteous descendants of Adam. For example, Moses 6:3–5 prefaces its description of the keeping of “a book of remembrance . . . in the language of Adam” with a mention of the births of Seth and Enos, who called “upon the name of the Lord,” and “it was given unto as many as called [Page 278]upon God to write by the spirit of inspiration.” This passage recalls a fragmentary text from Qumran that has been given the title “The Secret of the Way Things Are” (4Q415–18, 1Q26, 4Q423). It likewise preserves a tradition that a “book of remembrance” was successively bequeathed to Seth and Enos “with a spiritual people” (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q417, fragment 1, column I, lines 13–17, p. 484). Though Jewish pseudepigrapha, Josephus, and Christian gnostic writings all mention Seth in connection with this tradition, it is rarer to find it associated with both Seth and Enosh. Thanks to David Snell for pointing out this reference (see “New Find”).

303. Baynes, Heavenly Book, 8. This type of heavenly book predominates in Isaiah, Daniel, and in the pseudepigrapha.

304. Sundermann, “Ein weiteres Fragment,” M 7800/II, fragment L, I recto 1–9, pp. 495–96, translated in Reeves, Jewish Lore, 109. For additional discussion of the mention of two tablets, see Reeves, 64, 78–79, 110n6, 111, 153nn291–92, 154n306. Cf. 4Q203, frg. 7b, col. ii, l. 1–3, frg. 8, l. 1–12, in Parry and Tov et al., DSSR, p. 945. Milik and Black cite a fragment of the Middle Persian Kawân (M 101, frg. j, p. 60) and a small fragment from Qumran (2Q26) for more detail about the tablets (Books of Enoch, 334–335). The first tablet, made of wood, is washed by the wicked in order to efface its writing. It “symbolizes the generation of the Flood” who will be “submerged by the waters of the Flood. . . . The tablet of line 3 seems to be a second or third one, since it is the ‘board’ of salvation, the ark of Noah and his three sons.”

305. Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 214. See Martínez, “Book of Giants (4Q203),” 8:1–11, p. 260–61.

306. See Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 90–91; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 154n304.

307. Museum of History, Sanok, Poland. Public domain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MHS_Eliasz_i_Enoch_XVII_w_p.jpg (accessed May 1, 2021). For more on this painting, see Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, fig. M6–2, p. 34.

308. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 225.

309. See Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 74–76.

[Page 279]310. Reeves acknowledges that 4Q203 “of very fragmentary pieces whose precise position in the narrative sequence of BG is impossible to determine” (Reeves, Jewish Lore, 124).

311. Martínez, “Book of Giants (4Q203),” 4, 6, p. 260, emphasis mine.

312. Milik and Black, Books of Enoch, 312.

313. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 225.

314. Henning, “Book of the Giants,” Sogdian text E, 66.

315. Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 216: “a Hypomnemata, or memorial.”

316. Nickelsburg says:

Abel-Main is the Aramaic form of Abel-Maim . . . (cf. 1 Kings 15:20 and its parallel in 2 Chronicles 16:4). It is modern Tel Abil, situated approximately seven kilometers west-northwest of “the waters of Dan,” at the mouth of the valley between the Lebanon range to the west and Mount Hermon, here called Senir, one of its biblical names (Deuteronomy 3:8–9; cf. Song of Solomon 4:8; Ezekiel 27:5). (1 Enoch 1, p. 250, notes 9–10)

For more on the history of the sacred geography of this region, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 238–47.

317. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 13:3–5, 8–9, pp. 234, 237. See Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 214.

318. Nibley, “Churches in the Wilderness” (1978), 159.

319. In Stuckenbruck’s view, the group to whom the possibility of repentance was held out were the gibborim, to whom the first tablet of Enoch was read—see Book of the Giants, 86–87, 200. This proposal accords generally with the suggestion of Goff that while the Watchers were beyond repentance, the gibborim, the “sons of the Watchers,” were capable of reform (Sons of the Watchers,” 124–127. See also Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” 173–75.

According to Kósa, within the Manichaean adaptation of the BG account, “the Watchers . . . were not angelic beings anymore, but were [instead] conceived as [rebellious] demons [who had figured in the Manichaean system in the first major battle prior to the establishment of the universe (see 147ff.)]. Given the Manichaean notion of two independent and ontologically radically opposing principles, [this transformation of identity from Watchers to demons] was an inevitable step, since the Watchers’ misdeeds did [Page 280]not allow them to be part of the Realm of Light” (Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” 148 and 148–49n24).

Kósa explains why the survival of this feature of the BG account in the Manichaean text is surprising:

This act of repentance, which was definitely an integral part of the BG tradition, and which is perhaps depicted in [MCP], is a strange phenomenon if see in the context of Manichaeism. Given the extreme ontological dualism of Manichaeism, the motif of repenting demons, be they Watchers or giants [gibborim], is complete nonsense. It contradicts the essence of Manichaeism. Neither can the Light principle, or any representatives thereof, turn into the Dark principle, nor can the representatives of the Kingdom of Darkness repent and correct their way. In the Manichaean world, there is no chance for any representative of the dark principle to change its essential nature. Thus, seen in this perspective, the motif of kneeling and apparently repenting demons in the [MCP] shows the influence of the BG tradition, since it is only the latter one where repenting demons might, and emphatically do, occur (175).

With respect to the term “demon,” Drawnel observed that “early Christian tradition (2nd century CE) unequivocally identified the children of the Watchers [i.e., the gibborim] as demons” (Drawnel, “Mesopotamian Background,” 19n16. See Justin Martyr, “Second Apology,” 5, p. 190). Reed, Fallen Angels, 163, wrote that Justin invoked “the Greco-Roman concept of the daimon as an intermediary figure who is neither as divine as the gods nor as lowly as humans,” but use of the Greek term in Justin (which is consistent with New Testament usage), is different from “the mening in Greek culture and religion (god, one’s daemon or genius, or in Hesiod the souls of men of the golden age, forming the link between gods and men). The English term “demon” properly connotes the evil and violent character of the spiritual beings under consideration. For general readings on demons and demonology in the ancient world, see Petersen, “Notion of Demon”; Reed, Demons. Blair, De-Demonising provides a much-needed critique of previous studies that have sometimes applied evidence from the ancient Near East in questionable ways, sometimes erroneously concluding that “biblical authors had demythologized the Hebrew texts in order to ‘cover up’ the presence of some ‘demons’” (Blair, De-Demonising, 216).

[Page 281]320. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 12:5, p. 234. Cf. the conclusion by Stuckenbruck that the Watchers are beyond repentances (Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, p. 93).

321. Parry and Tov, DSSR, 947. Martínez reads the sense of this phrase as “Now, then, unfasten your chains [of sin] . . . and pray” (Martínez, “Book of Giants (4Q203),” frg. 8, l. 14–15, p. 261). Cf. Milik and Black, Books of Enoch, pp. 315, 316, note L. 12: “And now, loosen your bonds which tie [you] up [. . .] and begin to pray,” in a less-likely interpretation written prior to the discovery of the MCP depiction, Milik and Black explain the text as being addressed solely to the Watchers who are seen as wearing physical rather that spiritual chains: “The Watchers seem to be already chained up by the angels; in order to be able to pray, to lift their arms in the gesture of suppliants, they have to have their bonds loosened” (p. 316, note L. 14). See also Wise and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q203, 8:14–15: “But now, loosen the bonds [. . .] and pray.”

Because Stuckenbruck argues that this passage from this second tablet of Enoch occurs in the context of a reading made exclusively to the Watchers, who are beyond repentance (vs. the reading of the first tablet, which he takes as having been directed toward the gibborim, who are capable of repentance), he cannot interpret the “summons to pray” as meaning that “the possibility of forgiveness is being left open [to the addressees of the second tablet]. . . . Rather, as in the Book of Watchers, their praying is a sign of defeat signaling a contrast with the ultimate lot of the earth’s victims . . . [whose] cries have been heeded” (Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 93). Goff differs with Stuckenbruck’s interpretation that the command to pray was an “ironic request,” merely highlighting the impossibility for God to save them (“Sons of the Watchers,” 124). He highlights the 4Q203, frg. 9 (Parry and Tov, DSSR, 947) as “remnants of what appears to be a prayer … in which a speaker tells God that ‘nothing has defeated you.’ This could be uttered by a giant [gibbor] who follows Enoch’s recommendation and acknowledges in prayer the power and superiority of God (l. 4; cf. 4Q203 7b i 5)” (“Sons of the Watchers,” 124). Though it is true that the second tablet is explicitly addressed to the Watchers (Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q203, frg. 8, l. 5, p. 947), it also explicitly describes the activities of the gibborim in association with the wickedness of the Watchers (Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q203, frg. 8, l. 8, p. 947), making it clear that the message of the tablet is relevant for both groups.

[Page 282]322. Parry and Tov, DSSR, 947.

323. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 225.

324. Henning, “Book of the Giants,” Sogdian text E, p. 66.

325. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 225.

326. See Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q530, fragment 7, column ii, line 3: “how long the giants [i.e., gibborim] have to live.” Translated more literally by Reeves, Jewish Lore, 103, as “span of the giants” and by Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 126, as “life-span of the giants.” Alternatively, this phrase is translated by Martínez as “the evidence of the Giants” (“Book of Giants (4Q530),” p. 261).

327. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 103. Reeves appeals to Etheridge, Onkelos, Genesis 6:3, p. 47, which uses the same noun translated as “span” in the context of a probationary period for the gibborim: “A span of 120 years I will grant them (to see) if they repent.”

328. Widengren, Ascension, 38n2.

329. Widengren, Ascension, 38n2. The idea continues today in what has come to be called the Yamim Noraim (“Days of Awe”) or Aseret Yemei Teshuvah (“Ten Days of Repentance/Return”). The tradition draws on Isaiah 55:6, which says, “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon his name while he is near.” Maimonides formulated the most cited passages associated with this period. He wrote:

Even though repentance and crying out to God are always timely, during the ten days from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur it is exceedingly appropriate, and accepted immediately [on high]. (Touger, Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, Laws of Teshuvah, 2:6)

According to Rich:

One of the ongoing themes of the Days of Awe is the concept that God has “books” that he writes our names in, writing down who will live and who will die, who will have a good life and who will have a bad life, for the next year. These books are written in on Rosh Hashana, but our actions during the Days of Awe can alter G[o]d’s decree. The actions that change the decree are “teshuvah, tefilah, and tzedakah,” repentance, prayer, good deeds (usually, charity). These “books” are sealed on Yom Kippur. This concept of writing in books is the source of the common greeting during this time: “May you be inscribed and sealed for a good year.” (“Days of Awe”)

[Page 283]330. Draper, Brown, and Rhodes, Commentary, 103.

331. Nibley, “Churches in the Wilderness” (1978), 160.

332. Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 4Q203, frg. 8 ll. 6–9, p. 90. Cf. Milik and Black, Books of Enoch, 315: “Let it be known to you that [you] n[ot . . .] and your works and those of your wives [. . .] themselves [and their] children and the wives of [their children . . .] by your prostitution on the earth”; Martínez, “Book of Giants (4Q203),” frg. 8 ll. 6–9, p. 260: “Know that [. . .] not your deeds and those of your wives [. . .] they and their sons and the wives of [their sons . . .] for your prostitution in the land.” Cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 10:9, p. 215.

333. See Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q403, 8:6–9, p. 945. Cf. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 114n9. Compare Kee, “Testaments,” Dan 5:6, p. 809: “I read in the Book of Enoch the Righteous . . . that all the spirits of sexual promiscuity . . . cause [the sons of Levi] to commit sin before the Lord”; Kee, Simeon 5:4, p. 786: “For I have seen in a copy of the book of Enoch that your sons will be ruined by promiscuity”; Kee, Naphtali 4:1, p. 812: “I have read in the writing of holy Enoch that you will stray from the Lord, living in accord with every wickedness of the gentiles and committing every lawlessness of Sodom”; Kee, Benjamin 9:1, p. 827: “From the words of Enoch the Righteous I tell you that you will be sexually promiscuous like the promiscuity of the Sodomites.”

In al-Kisa’i’s version of the Islamic tales of the prophets, we are given further detail on the people’s wickedness:

When [Enoch] was forty years old, God made him a messenger to the sons of Cain, who were giants on the earth and so preoccupied with frivolity, singing and playing musical instruments that none of them was on guard. They would gather about a woman and fornicate with her, and the devils would make their action seem good to them. They fornicated with others, daughters, and sisters, and mingled together. (Tales, 88; cf. Reeves and Reed, Sources from Judaism, 137–38)

334. Wood engraving from a Bible illustration of Revelation 14:6–7, ca. 1885. Image licensed from Alamy, ID: AJ8AKO or D965XN.

335. Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q530, fragment 7, column II, lines 3–5, p. 951.

[Page 284]336. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 216: “The fire is rising before the door [that lets the sun pass through] has opened. That being so, then whence does the fire emerge as we are told in the very first sentence? If we assume that the cosmology underlying the Manichaean Book of Giants is essentially Enochic [see Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 72:2–3, 7, p. 416], then we may assume that the flames come forth from one of the window openings located to the left and to the right of each gate.”

337. Wilkens, “Remarks” 215, 216: “The text probably wants to stress that the sun is revolving without any other cosmic force interfering. . . . Contrarily, in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch there is mention that the chariots of the sun and the moon are both driven by the wind. It is possible that in Mani’s work the force of the wind was deliberately minimized with regard to the ‘palace of the sun’ because of the high status the luminary is accorded in Manichaean doctrine. It is the residence of several divinities” but also a divinity in itself.

338. See Wilkens, “Remarks,” 219.

339. See Wilkens, “Remarks,” 217–20.

340. The sense is perhaps “too much like some of them”—i.e., in resembling their wickedness. Wilkens says: “Does the phrase ‘like some of them’ allude to a distinction between the [gibborim]? We have evidence from other fragments that this seemingly was the case. Stuckenbruck has detected evidence for factions among the [gibborim] in two fragments from Qumran [Book of Giants, 107]” (Wilken, “Remarks,” 224).

341. Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q530, fragment 7, column II, lines 3–5, p. 951. The Paradise in the eastward location is designated in some conceptions as the “Paradise of Justice,” containing the Tree of Knowledge, presumably by way of contrast to the “Mountain of God” to the north, which contains the Tree of Life.

342. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, p. 290. See Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, endnote M6–20, p. 97.

343. For an overview and examples of the Egyptian concept of the horizon, see Wyatt, Space, 184–85, 187–92.

344. Second Enoch locates paradise “between the corruptible [earth] and the incorruptible [heaven]” (Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 8:5, pp. 116 and 116nl).

[Page 285]345. Wyatt discusses the “two seemingly opposed ideas . . . of the end of the world, often represented by the notion of a ‘cosmic ocean,’ and . . . the center of the world” in the ancient Near East (Space, 183–84). See Wyatt, 77–78, 83–84, 184–207 for examples from the ancient Near East of traversals of cosmic boundaries in heavenly ascent and of symbolic boundaries as part of ritual ascent in the temple.

Specifically with respect to Manichaean thought, Severus of Antioch (fl. 512–18), similar to other anti-Manichaean sources, reported:

And they [i.e., the Manichaeans] say: That which is Good, also named Light and the Tree of Life, possess those regions which lie to the east, west, and north; for those (regions) which lie to the south and to the meridian belong to the Tree of Death, which they call Hyle [i.e., Matter], being very wicked and uncreated. (As cited in Bennett, Iuxta unum, 69)

However, Bennett clarifies that the interpretation of the cardinal direction might best be understood in light of an eastern rather than a western frame of reference:

There are . . . some remarkable parallels for this teaching [about the primordial state] in both the Mandaean and Zoroastrian cosmogonies, suggesting that this teaching may have been formulated for an eastern audience who had the background beliefs necessary to comprehend and value it. The interpretation of the four cardinal directions as lines inscribed on a vertical plane (so that north and south are identified with above and below respectively) is found in the Mandaean cosmogony. Several other features can be paralleled in Middle Persian accounts of the Zoroastrian cosmogony. (76–77)

346. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 33:2, p. 329.

347. Nickelsburg notes:

Whatever the origin of the author’s knowledge of these animals, they are envisioned primarily in mythic terms. Evidence for such a mythic tradition appears at a number of points in the cartology of the ancient world. In the Babylonian Mappa Mundi of the fifth century BCE, the sixth island that lies east of the Bitter River is said to be the place where “a horned bull dwells and attacks the newcomer.” Much later maps from the Common Era depict sea monsters and other beasts lurking in the farthest recesses of land [Page 286]and sea. Doubtless these reflect a tradition much older than the charts on which they are found. (1 Enoch 1, 329–30n1)

348. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 33:1, p. 329.

349. Machiela, Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon, 2:23, p. 37: “And [Methusaleh] went through the length of the land of Parvain, and there he found the end of [the] ea[rth.”

350. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 106:7, p. 536.

351. Goff, “Where’s Enoch?,” 488. Cf. Oh, “Circular World Maps,” 31, 32: “Mt. Yupa . . . is located in the East Sea, a great distance away or farthest from the center. . . . Given that pine trees are one of the ten traditional symbols of longevity, the trees in the [north, east, and west] of the [circular world maps] can be regarded as deeply related to [the] ‘Taoist idea of immortality.’”

In medieval times, European biblical drama sometimes contained portrayals of Elijah and Enoch that had them situated in the Garden of Eden:

As Christ leads the redeemed souls out of Hell . . . a few plays include the scene of their arrival in Earthly Paradise (usually escorted by Michael) where they meet Elijah and Enoch, who have not yet died and will return to earth to fight against Antichrist. (Muir, Biblical Drama, 139)

352. Scholars do not agree as to whether it is Mahaway’s first or second journey (See Wilkens, “Remarks,” 219–22, 224–25).

353. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 222.

354. For a survey of the examples of the concept of the “ends of the earth” in the ancient Near East, see Wyatt, Space, 113–20.

355. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 225.

356. Goff, “Where’s Enoch?,” 488: “Or as it says in 1 Enoch 17:6, ‘where no human walks’” (emphasis Goff’s). Cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 17:7, p. 276: “where no flesh walks.” See also Nickelsburg, 19:3, p. 276: “I, Enoch, alone saw the visions, the extremities of all things. And no one among humans has seen as I saw.”

357. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flammarion.jpg (accessed May 25, 2020). Public domain. Published in Camille Flammarion, L’Atmosphère: Météorologie Populaire (Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1888), 163, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k408619m/f168.image.

[Page 287]358. Goff, “Where’s Enoch?,” 486–88.

359. Goff, “Where’s Enoch?,” 488.

360. Cirillo, “Joseph Smith,” 105. Looking for additional ideas besides the Book of Giants for what he takes to be a necessary manuscript source for ancient parallels to Joseph Smith’s Enoch, Cirillo argues: “This journey . . . is not unique to the [Book of Giants], it is also found (and likely based on) the journey of Methuselah in 1 Enoch [see The Birth of Noah, in Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 106:1–107:3, pp. 536–37]. . . . This format, for one person journeying to Enoch to question him, is evident once more in 1 Enoch [see The Apocalypse of Noah, in Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 65:1–68:1, pp. 273–74]” (105–6). However, a careful reading of the 1 Enoch accounts will show that evidence for a resemblance to the Book of Moses is strained. Especially significant is the fact that, unlike the Book of Giants, there is no mention in 1 Enoch of Mahijah or Mahujah.

361. Detail of Gulácsi, Mani’s Pictures, 470. This demon is depicted apart from the others, on a high mountain cliff, perhaps recalling the second journey of Mahaway to meet Enoch. The only comment I have found on this scene is from Gulácsi, 489:

A third demon inhabits a mountaintop. This demon is shown kneeling atop the gold highland of a mountain, the sides of which are defined similarly to the sides of Mount Sumeru.

362. See Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Original Manuscripts, p. 15 of OT1, p. 103.

363. Non–Latter-day Saint scholar Salvatore Cirillo agrees with this reading (see “Joseph Smith,” 103).

One problem with the OT1 with this reading is that afterward, Enoch went up to meet God alone (“I turned and went up on the mount; . . . I stood upon the mount” [Moses 7:3]). The only way to reconcile the absence of Mahujah in subsequent events would be if he did not follow Enoch to the mount as he had been commanded to do in Moses 7:2 (taking the “Turn ye” to be plural).

On the other hand, in a different reading, David Calabro points out that the phrase in Moses 7:2 “As I was journeying . . . and I cried” “could be an example of the use of ‘and’ to introduce a main clause after a circumstantial clause, which is a Hebraism that is frequently found in the earliest Book of Mormon text” (email [Page 288]message to author, January 24, 2018). In this case, the “ye” in “Turn ye” would have to be interpreted as singular rather than plural.

364. Brown, Testimony of Luke, 1020. See Hebrews 9:12–15.

365. Draper, Brown, and Rhodes, Commentary, 113n4, citing Brueggemann, “Costly Loss of Lament,” 106–7. See also Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, p. 128, note 7:2-e.

366. See Moses 7:45, 48, 50, 54, 58. Cf. the cry of Adam in Moses 6:64.

367. E.g., Exodus 22:22–27.

368. E.g., Psalm 107:4–22; Alma 33:4–11.

369. See, e.g., Zechariah 1:3; and Malachi 3:7. For additional discussion, see Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, 5:4-b, p. 357.

370. See Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Original Manuscripts, p. 15 of Old Testament Manuscript 1, Plate 5. Cf. the transcription on p. 103.

371. For an analysis of the likelihood of error in transcriptions of “Mahijah” and “Mahujah” in the earliest manuscripts of Moses 6–7, see Bradshaw, Bowen, and Dahle, “Textual Criticism,” 122–31.

372. See Genesis 17:5, 15; 32:28. On the tests and changes of name for Abram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah, see, e.g., Clark, Blessings, 166–67. On the test and change of name for Jacob/Israel, see Hayward, Israel.

373. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 227.

374. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 226.

375. Wilkens, “Remarks,” Mainz 317 fragment, p. 228.

376. “‘Some of them’ in the fragment from BG obviously refers to the [gibborim]. . . . Does the phrase ‘like some of them’ allude to a distinction between the [gibborim]? We have evidence from other fragments that this seemingly was the case. Stuckenbruck has detected evidence for factions among the [gibborim] in two fragments from Qumran” (Wilkens, 224; see Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 107–8).

377. See Matthew 19:16–30; Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30.

378. The bracketed phrase substitutes for Reeves’ version the translation of Wilkens, “Remarks,” 227. Wilkens reads the entire phrase as “the great angel has slain that messenger whom they had,” [Page 289]differing with Reeves and Sundermann by reading “great angel” as the agent of the death of Mahaway rather than as a description of Mahaway.

379. Translation in Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 123 of Sundermann, Mittel-persische, M5900, lines 1574–77, p. 78:

Erschlagen, erschlagen hat

der große Engel (?) jenen

Boten, den (sie) hatten (?).

Getötet wurden die Fleischverschlingenden.

380. See Jensen, Woodford, and Harper, Manuscript Revelation Books, facsimile ed., 48v, February 27, 1833, 508–9. For more on this revelation, see Williams, Life, 234–44; and Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, “The Song of Enoch,” 449–57.

381. If the name Mahujah relates to the idea of questioning (as proposed in Nibley, “Churches in the Wilderness” [1978], 157), it would provide a neat counterpart to the name of the mount Simeon (Hebrew Shim’on = “he has heard”), where Enoch was commanded to go in order to receive his answers. Note al-Tha’labi’s account of Adam and Eve being rejoined after their separation when “they recognized each other by questioning on a day of questioning. So the place was named ‘Arafat (= questions) and the day, ‘Irfah” (Lives, 291).

382. See also, e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4.

383. Moses 6:37; cf. Moses 6:38; 7:17.

384. Nibley, Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price, 22, p. 281.

385. Photograph DSC05265, 25 September 2012. © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw.

386. The event occurred during his near-fatal illness in Iowa. His journal records the following:

My spirit seems to have left the world and introduced into that of Kolob. I heard a voice calling me by name, saying: “He is worthy, he is worthy, take away his filthy garments.” My clothes were then taken off piece by piece and a voice said: “Let him be clothed, let him be clothed.” Immediately, I found a celestial body gradually growing upon me until at length I found myself crowned with all its glory and power. The ecstasy of joy I now experienced no man can tell, pen cannot describe it. (Beecher, “Iowa,” 269; spelling and punctuation modernized)

[Page 290]387. See Jensen, Woodford, and Harper, Manuscript Revelation Books, facsimile ed., 48v, February 27, 1833, 508–9, as modernized in Williams, Life, table 1, p. 238, with my own slight alterations in punctuation.

388. Williams, Life, 243. See also Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, p. 128, note 7:2-e.

389. Illustration from the 1728 Figures de la Bible; illustrated by Gerard Hoet (1648–1733) and others, and published by P. de Hondt in The Hague; image courtesy Bizzell Bible Collection, University of Oklahoma Libraries. Public Domain. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Figures_God_took_Enoch.jpg (accessed June 7, 2021). The version used in this chapter is licensed by Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/god-took-enoch-genesis-5-royalty-free-illustration/483654474 (accessed June 7, 2021).

390. Enoch’s “similarity to, and perhaps derivation from, the [Mesopota-mian] figure of Enmeduranki is widely accepted” (Wyatt, Space, 101; see also Orlov, Enoch-Metatron Tradition, 23–29; VanderKam, Enoch, 6–14; Annus, “On the Origin of Watchers”; Drawnel, “Mesopotamian Background”; Day, “Enochs of Genesis 4 and 5”). For an excerpt with commentary of a Mesopotamian account of the ascent of Enmeduranki, see Wyatt, Space, 195–96.

391. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 224, 225.

392. Mainz 317 fragment, cited in Wilkens, “Remarks,” 224.

393. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 222.

394. Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q531, fragment 14, line 4, p. 957.

395. Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 4Q531, p. 155.

396. See Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 166–67.

397. “It is unclear whether the initial word gbr is to be understood as a verbal (‘he strengthened, prevailed’) or nominative (‘man,’ [‘gibbor’] form)” (Reeves, Jewish Lore, 118).

398. Cf. Morano, “Some New Sogdian Fragments,” 188, where the meaning of two lines in a new Sogdian fragment is conjectured (“red . . . great ocean” [So10701a [T I D] + So20193b, /R/5/ and /R/6/], p. 189): “The ocean appears to be red, possibly because of blood.”

[Page 291]399. On the number of two hundred demons, see Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” 167.

400. The bracketed phrase substitutes for Reeves’ version the translation of Wilkens, “Remarks,” 227. Wilkens reads the entire phrase as “the great angel has slain that messenger whom they had,” differing with Reeves and Sundermann by reading “great angel” as the agent of the death of Mahaway rather than seeing it as a description of Mahaway.

401. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 118; emphasis in the original. Cf. Alma 30:17, where Korihor teaches that “every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.”

402. Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q531, fragment 7, lines 5–6, p. 955.

403. “Whereas none of the Qumran materials contain anything which actually narrates a battle . . . against heavenly angelic forces . . . , some of the Manichaean fragments preserve this motif. . . . The absence of such material among the Qumran fragments does not necessarily mean that it did not exist, but it is possible that the relative abundance of it among the Manichaean sources reflects a later interest which took expression in expansions of the tradition” (Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 19n82).

404. Henning, “Book of the Giants,” text G, p. 69.

405. Henning, 54; Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” 155–57. See also Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 10:1–15, pp. 215–28: “Sariel, Raphael, Gabriel, and Michael.”

406. Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” 163.

407. From Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” fig. 2a, p. 183.

408. Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” 162–63, 168–69.

409. Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” 169. Kósa bases his speculation about the possibility that the divine figure behind the four archangels is Enoch on Henning 1943, text A, frg. i, p. 61 [and 62n4], which reads: “And the angels veiled (or covered, or: protected, or: moved out of sight) Enoch” (see Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” 169n98).

410. Henning, “Book of the Giants,” text G, p. 69; text A, fragment I, p. 61.

411. Henning, text Q, p. 72.

[Page 292]412. Henning, text A, fragment I, p. 61. Compare this text from the Mandaean Ginza (Migne, “Livre d’Adam,” 21, p. 170), speaking of Enoch and those with him: “By fleeing and hiding the people on high have ascended higher than us. We have never known them. All the same, there they are, clothed with glory and splendors. . . . And now they are sheltered from our blows.”

413. Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 4Q531, 17:8, p. 164.

414. Martínez, “Book of Giants (4Q531),” 22:8, p. 262; emphasis added.

415. Milik and Black, Books of Enoch, 308; emphasis added.

416. Moses 7:13; emphasis added.

417. After describing how the category of “wildness” applied equally well to the “wild man” and “wild animal” in the mind of the ancient military man or hunter, Doak writes: “I conflate these potentially distinct categories of the ‘elite adversary’ and the ‘elite animal’ in order to highlight the correspondence between elite military victory against a prestige animal (lion) and the defeat of an Egyptian giant in 1 Chronicles 11:22–23” (“Giant in a Thousand Years,” 24). On p. 25, he goes on to argue from another example by comparing 2 Samuel 23:20–23; 1 Chronicles 11:22–23; and 2 Chronicles 20:6.

Julian Reade similarly writes:

The close relationship of the two royal activities—killing animals which were dangerous like lions or merely wild, and killing people who were dangerous enemies or merely foreign—is implicit in several inscriptions of Assyrian kings, between the eleventh and ninth centuries. (“Assyrian Royal Hunt,” 56)

Reade provides several examples of these activities being closely associated in art and inscriptions. One inscription from Tiglath-Pileser I (1115–1076 BCE),

after giving extensive details of forty-two lands and rulers that the king has conquered, immediately proceeds to describe four extraordinarily strong, wild, virile bulls he has shot in the desert . . . in just the same way as he has brought enemy booty home; there were also ten elephants killed and four captured, and 120 lions killed on foot and 800 lions killed from his chariot. (Reade, “Assyrian Royal Hunt,” 56)

418. Daniel 6:22; “mouth” = Aramaic pum. Cf. Henze, “Additions to Daniel,” 31–40, pp. 138–39; Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea [Page 293]Scrolls Bible, 494; Pietersma and Wright, Septuagint, 1011 (Greek stoma [OG, Theodotion]). Note the parallel in Daniel 6:17, when the king shut and sealed “the mouth [Aramaic pum] of the den” with a stone and his signet (emphasis added).

John Collins (see Daniel, 267, 271) finds metaphorical parallels in Psalms 57:5 (“I lie in the midst of lions”); 22:14–29; 91:13; 1QH 5:5–7, and in a Babylonian poem: “It was Marduk who put a muzzle on the mouth of the lion that was devouring me” (Hallo and Younger, Context, Poem of the Righteous Sufferer (1.153), 1:491. Cf. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom, 56). According to Lambert, “The first attestation the [Babylonian] poem receives is in the library of Ashurbanipal” (26).

Louis Hartman and Alexander Di Lella caution as follows regarding the historical setting of this story:

Whereas the keeping of lions in ancient Mesopotamia is well attested in the inscriptions and stone reliefs of the Assyrian kings, who used to let the lions out of their cage to hunt them down, there is no ancient evidence for the keeping of lions in underground pits, apart from the present story and perhaps its variant [Bel and the Dragon]. Perhaps one might compare, for a later period, the hypogeum of the Roman Colosseum, where animals were kept before being brought up to the arena. (Book of Daniel, 199)

A temporary holding area for lions is also attested in an 1800 BCE letter from a senior official to a king of Mari in Old Babylon (Reade, “Assyrian Royal Hunt,” 54–55).

419. For the “power of language,” see Moses 7:13. For the “opening of the mouth,” see Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion.

420. Goff, “Sons of the Watchers,” 226.

421. Wilkens, “Remarks,” 225.

422. Wilkens, 225. See Henning, “Book of the Giants,” Text E, p. 66 for the full citation.

423. Modified from the original illustration to show the Tree of Life at the very top of the mountain of the Lord. On the rationale for this modification, see Bradshaw, “Tree of Knowledge.” Original drawings published in Parry, “Garden,” 134–35. Used here courtesy of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. A similar visual concept was published earlier in Holzapfel and [Page 294]Seely, My Father’s House, 17–19. The concept and visualization was reused without attribution in Price, Rose Guide to the Temple, 7–9.

424. Nibley, “Hierocentric,” 104. See Burrows, “Some Cosmological Patterns,” 46. Burrows further distinguishes “three cosmological patterns corresponding to three ways of imagining the relation between heaven and earth. The first pattern is formed when the interest is at the center, on earth; the second when it is at the periphery, in heaven; the third may be considered a synthesis. . . . One might almost formulate a law that in the ancient East contemporary cosmological doctrine is registered in the structure and theory of the temples” (Burrows, “Some Cosmological Patterns,” 45).

425. For an impressive collection of maps with detailed explanations from antiquity through the Renaissance, see http://www.myoldmaps.com (accessed May 27, 2021). For an excellent overview of later, medieval visual representations of the cosmos, see E. Edson et al., Cosmos.

426. Nibley, “Hierocentric,” 110. For a survey of beliefs in the ancient Near East regarding the cosmic mountain at the center of the world, see Wyatt, Space, 147–157.

427. See, e.g., Bradshaw, “Tree of Knowledge,” 50–52; Parry, “Garden”; Lundquist, “Reality”; Parry et al., “Temple in Heaven”; Stordalen, Echoes, 112-116, 308-309; Alexander, From Eden, 20-23; Beale, Temple, 66–80; Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism”; Holzapfel and Seely, Father’s House, 17–19; Morrow, “Creation”; Seely et al., “Crown of Creation.”

428. See, e.g., Parry, “Garden,” 134–35; Holzapfel and Seely, My Father’s House, 17–19; Price, Rose Guide to the Temple, 7–9.

429. For more on the correspondence between the symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge and the temple veil, see Bradshaw, “Tree of Knowledge.”

430. In most depictions of Jewish temple architecture, the menorah is shown as being outside the veil—in contrast to the Tree of Life, which is at the holiest place in the Garden of Eden. However, Margaret Barker cites evidence that, in the first temple, a Tree of Life was symbolized within the Holy of Holies (e.g., Barker, Hidden, 6–7; Barker, Christmas, 85–86, 140; Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, 366–367). Barker concludes that the Menorah (or perhaps a second, [Page 295]different, representation in arboreal form?) was both removed from the temple and diminished in stature in later Jewish literature as the result of a “very ancient feud” concerning its significance (Barker, Older, 221; see 221–232). Mandaean scripture describes a Tree of Life within the heavenly sanctuary as follows: “They . . . lifted the great veil of safety upward before him, introduced him, and showed him that Vine,” meaning the Tree of Life (Lidzbarski, Ginza, GL 1:1, p. 429:3–20; cf. Drower, Prayerbook, 49, pp. 45–46).

431. See Parry, “Garden,” 135.

432. Parry, “Garden,” 135.

433. Bartholomew of Bologna, the author of the work, was a Dominican missionary to Armenia who was made bishop in Maragha and Nachidiewan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_of_Bologna_(missionary) ).

434. Église Notre-Dame de K’rni (Nakhidjewan), vers 1670-1680. Papier occidental, 89 f., 26 × 18,5 cm Acquis en 1847. Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Manuscrits orientaux, arménien 149, f. 5 r°-5. See A. Vernay-Nouri, Livres, 44, https://books.openedition.org/editionsbnf/docannexe/image/1153/img-5.jpg [accessed May 26, 2021]).

435. About the symbolic geography of the sacred mountain and of the mountain where the Watchers made their oath, and the various place names associated with them, see Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne, 252. For wordplay on the name of Mount Hermon in 1 Enoch 6:6, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 177–178, 238–247.

436. See, e.g., Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, 143.

437. Eastmond, Narratives, 22.

438. Nes, Uncreated Light, 90.

439. Eastmond, Narratives, 22.

440. Anderson et al., Synopsis, 30(5):3, p. 34E; cf. Barker, Christmas, 119; Nes, Uncreated Light, 90.

441. For a Jewish account of Seth’s cave, containing a “vault of gold” that held a book of knowledge and “precious spices,” see Savedow, Rezial, 4. For a corresponding Christian account, see Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne, 178–179.

[Page 296]442. See, e.g., Barker, Christmas, 120, 138–139; Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne, 252.

443. Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne, 179.

444. Moses 5:41.

445. Sebastian Brock in Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, p. 189 n. 1:11.

446. Cf. Moses 7:17.

447. Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, 1:11, pp. 81–82. See Malan, Adam and Eve, 3:4, p, 147; Nibley, Enoch, 178–193; Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, 5:41b, 388; Bradshaw and Larsen, God’s Image 2, 203; Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne, 225–26. Ri observes: “The fall of humanity at the time of Jared is a very ancient tradition that is found in the books of Enoch and Jubilees” (Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne., 255, my translation). See, e.g., Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 4:15, p. 62; Kugel, “Jubilees,” 4:15, p. 302; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 6:6, p. 174; 106:13, p. 536; Machiela, Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon, 3:3–4, pp. 37–38; Parry et al., DSSR (2013), 1QapGen, 3:3–4, p. 517.

448. Image copyright Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. From a 12th-century illuminated version of the Homilies of James of Kokkinobaphos from Byzantium (Vat. gr. 1162, fol. 35v.). Published in Eastmond, Narratives, plate 14. http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1162 (accessed January 31, 2017). No known copyright restrictions. This work may be in the public domain in the United States.

For a comparison of this painting to rabbinic conceptions of the paradisiacal state of the Israelites as well as to similar Christian iconography comparing disciples of Jesus to the new Israel, see Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne, 254–55; Bradshaw and Bowen, “By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified,” 105–7.

449. For an account of Jared’s descent, see, e.g., Budge, Cave, 84–86.

450. Hess, Studies, 69–70. On the possible connection of Jared to the place names of Arad, Eridu, etc. and related etymological and interpretive issues, see Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 4:18, p. 328; 5:15–17, p. 357; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 111–112; Cassuto, Adam to Noah, 229–232;

451. Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:33, possibly to be equated with the “giants” in Moses 7:15; 8:18. In contrast to some others (van Wolde, [Page 297]“Sons of God,” 65–67), Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 269–270 sees this group “as being distinct from the mighty men” (i.e., gibborim).

452. Dorofeeva-Lichtmann, “‘Inversed Cosmographs’ in Late East Asian Cartography and the Atlas Production,” 159.

453. Dorofeeva-Lichtmann writes that the Korean circular maps “have obvious typological similarity with such classical examples of mappaemundi as the Babylonia Disc (ca. 7th century BC) … and the medieval T–O mappaemundi centered on Jerusalem and oriented to the East, the location of Paradise. These maps, however, had long been out of circulation when the circular world maps became so popular in Korea” (Dorofeeva-Lichtmann, “Inverted Cosmographs,” 159).

454. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/cheonhado-world-map (accessed April 14, 2020). British Library, Shelfmark: Maps C.27.f.14. Public Domain. The description on the website reads:

This world map is from an atlas produced in Korea in around 1800. It is one of a group of maps known as “Cheonhado,”, meaning “Map of all under heaven.” The map shows a large inner continent surrounded by sea. This represents China and its surrounding lands. Beijing, the Yellow River and Great Wall of China are visible, with the sacred Mount Mēru at its center. The rest of the world appears as outer islands, with the Trees of Sun and Moon beyond.

The concentric circle structure of the map and many of the mythological names come from the Chinese Shan Hai Jing (The Classic of Mountain and Seas), a text that was probably compiled from older texts in the first or second century BCE. For detailed background on these and similar maps, see Oh, “Circular World Maps.” Among other things, Oh establishes the fact that even though such maps are round, they do not depart from the traditional “square earth-round heaven” principle. The circular form of the map represents the round shape of heaven.

For a general introduction to cartography and the cosmic ocean in the ancient Near East, see Wyatt, Space, 80–88, 113.

455. Among these mythical locations are the mountains and trees typically shown as sacred trees and mountains at the location of the rising and setting of the sun and moon (east and west) and at the north (Oh, “Circular World Maps,” 31, 32):

[Page 298]To the east, where the sun and moon rise, Mt. Yupa and Busang tree are depicted. Mt. Bang and the Bangyeoksong pine tree are also depicted to the west, where the sun and moon met. . . . It is presumed that Mt. Yupa was chosen [from among the many mountains where the sun and moon were supposed to rise] because it is located in the East Sea, a great distance away or farthest from the center. . . .

It would be . . . appropriate to believe that the maps tried to show where the sky and the earth meet. Circular world maps are still based on the traditional view that the heaven is round and the earth is square. As this differs from the theory of the round Earth, circular world maps have east and west poles, and the locations of sunrise and sunset, and moonrise and moonset visibly represent the poles.

No tree in the south is shown on the map in this figure, and we do not currently have access to an interpretation of what is shown there. However, from another time and culture we have the report of Severus of Antioch (fl. 512–518) that avers, similar to other anti-Manichaean sources that “those (regions) which lie to the south and to the meridian belong to the Tree of Death, which they call Hyle [i.e., Matter], being very wicked and uncreated” (as cited in B. Bennett, Iuxta unum, 69). In Mandaean and Zoroastrian cosmogonies the north and south are associated with “above” and “below” (i.e., the underworld).

456. Oh, Circular World Map, 32–33.

457. Lewis, Construction, 285.

458. For cogent summaries of the mythology of the mountain paradise of K’un-lun, see Birrell, Mythology, 183–185; Loewe, Ways, 110–112. For traditions surrounding the primeval couple, Fu Xi and Nü Gua, whose stories are intertwined with K’un-lun, the Creation, and other temple themes, see Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, 654–657.

With respect to the placement of K’un-lun on the map, Major, Heaven, 155 explains how physical and mythological geography became inextricably intertwined in Chinese thought:

K’un-lun has two closely related aspects: First, it is the world-mountain or axis mundi, pillar that at once separates and connects heaven and earth. As such it is the highest of mountains, the terrestrial plane’s closest approach, and stepping-stone, to the celestial vault. . . . Second, K’un-lun is a paradise, a magical [Page 299]and beautiful land that is the home and kingdom of Xiwangmu, the Queen Mother of the West.

One problem that immediately arises in dealing with these two aspects of K’un-lun is that the K’un-lun Mountains are, and from early times have been known to be, an entirely real and terrestrial mountain range on China’s northwestern frontier [“on the borderland of Xinjiang province and Tibet” (Allan, Turtle, 99)]. . . . In fact it is not unusual for real but distant places to take on paradisiacal qualities; think of Serendip, or Shambala.

Thus in early China the name K’un-lun attached to a geogra-phical mountain and a mythical one, and the two were soon hopelessly conflated.

459. Moses 3:10.

460. In support of the possibility of such influence, Major, Heaven, 154–55 writes:

It is not clear how one was intended to visualize the nine-fold walls of K’un-lun, but the most obvious image is as a peak of tremendous height, rising in nine steps like a ziggurat. Such a nine-tiered heaven … makes little sense in terms of the overall gaitian cosmology of Huainanzi [an ancient Chinese work of cosmological geography]: might there be here a hint of weak and distant Indian influence to go along with the possible Indian origin of the Jupiter Cycle names in Huainanzi 3. XXXIII? Certainly tiered-roof pagodas in later Chinese Buddhism reflect the Indian nine-tiered cosmos; earlier influence of the same sort is unattested but hardly impossible. The Nine-fold Shade mountain … associated with the Torch Dragon, is suggestive of a multitiered parasol of state of the sort found ubiquitously in Indic civilizations; it too may hint at an Indian-style nine-fold heaven weakly impinging on early Chinese cosmology.

Major, Heaven, 337n17 goes on to explicitly imply a common symbology in Mount K’un-lun and Mount Mēru:

In the Indian tradition the link between architecture and cosmology is explicit. In Balinese Hinduism, for example, multitiered (often nine-tiered) temple towers are called mēru, imitative in name as well as in structure of the classical Indian nine-tiered axis mundi or cosmic mountain.

461. On the symbolism of eastward movement as distancing oneself from God and westward movement as approaching God, see [Page 300]Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, 3:8-b, pp. 160–61. The symbolism of east–west orientation and the symbolism of the sacred center are conjoined in the symbolic layout of the Israelite temple and the Garden of Eden (Bradshaw, Temple Themes, 57–58, 77, 88–89). The east-west, right-left layout also recalls the vertical bisecting of almost all Egyptian hypocephali and corresponding visions of the cosmos given to Jewish seers. Hugh Nibley describes this bisecting view of the cosmos in terms of “a graphic representation of ‘the whole world [and] its circle,’ (Box, Apocalypse, 12:8, p. 51) in which the human race, God’s people and the others (see Kulik, Apocalypse of Abraham, 22:5, p. 1471) confront each other beneath or within the circle of the starry heavens, on opposite halves of the picture” (Nibley, Abraham, 45). In terms that echo the vertical and horizontal divisions of the hypocephalus in Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham, Rubinkiewicz explains this feature in the cosmic vision of the Apocalypse of Abraham, a Jewish pseudepigraphon that has close affinities with Moses 1 (see Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 171. For more on affinities between the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Book of Abraham, and Moses 1, see Bradshaw, Larsen, and Whitlock, “Twin Sons of Different Mothers.”

462. Moses 6:42.

463. Moses 6:41.

464. Moses 6:42.

465. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 13:7–8, 237.

466.1 Enoch arguably identifies the “waters of Dan” as the sea of Galilee and the nearby sacred mountain of Hermon (see Bradshaw and Larsen, God’s Image 2, Endnote M6-21, p. 97). See also Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 250 n. 9–10 on “Abel-Main” and, more generally, on the sacred geography of this region on pp. 238–47. While Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that Enoch’s ministry took place in the New World (Doctrine and Covenants 107:53–57), the general story line in ancient Enoch accounts is not inconsistent with the symbolic geography of the Book of Moses.

467. Milik and Black, Enoch, 39.

468. Milik and Black, Enoch, 39.

[Page 301]469. The map is adapted from Milik’s reconstruction (see Milik and Black, Enoch, 35–41), and published in Nibley et al., One Eternal Round, 364, Figure 43 and caption. See also pp. 363–365, 465–468.

470. Milik and Black, Enoch, 36.

471. See Milik and Black, Enoch, 39–40.

472. http://www.myoldmaps.com/maps-from-antiquity-6200-bc/004-book-i-ancient-intro.pdf, pp. xlix–l (accessed May 27, 2021).

473. Gulácsi, Mani’s Pictures, 470.

474. Moses 7:16, 19.

475. Henning, “Book of the Giants,” Text A, frg. i, p. 61 [and 62n4].

476. Henning, “Book of the Giants,” Text G (Sogdian), 69.

477. Some texts report thirty-six towns— see, e.g., comments in Henning, “Book of the Giants,” 55–56 comparing text S to Text G. Cf. Gardner, Kephalaia, chap. 45 (codex 117, lines 5-8), p. 123 which also speaks of thirty-six towns. See also Reeves, Jewish Lore, 160n386; Wilkens, “Remarks,” 220–221.

478. Gardner has summarized the view of Kephalaia that all those described in this passage were wicked (Gardner, Kephalaia, p. 122. Cf. Gulácsi, Mani’s Pictures, 273):

The point of this chapter is the foreknowledge of the powers of light that has enabled them to prepare places to hold and contain various evil forces that arise during cosmic history. . . . a prison for the Watchers; cities for the giants of old.”

479. Cf. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 160n385:

According to Indian tradition, Mount Mēru or Sumēru (“Good Mēru) was the great mountain which stood at the center of the earth. See Mahābhārata 1(5) 15.5ff.: . . . “The great mountain rises aloft to cover with its heights the vault of heaven.”

480. Goff, “Sons of the Watchers,” 125.

481. Henning, “Book of the Giants,” Text G (Sogdian), 69.

482. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 10:11–13, p. 215. See also Job 22:11, 15–16; 2 Peter 2:4; and Jude 1:6. See Newington, “Greek Titans” for a comparison of the biblical giants to the Greek Titans.

483. Tate Gallery Picture Library, with the assistance of Cressida Kocienski.

[Page 302]484. Alighieri, Commedia, Inferno canto 31, 247–258.

485. Nibley, “Churches in the Wilderness” (1978), 161.

486. Parry and Tov, DSSR, 4Q203, fragment 7b, column i, line 5, p. 945. Compare Milik and Black, Books of Enoch, 313: “He has imprisoned us and you he has subdued”; Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 4Q203, 7b 1. 5, p. 83: “He has imprisoned us and defeated yo[u”; and Martínez, “Book of Giants (4Q203),” 7b l. 5, p. 260: “He has seized us and has captured you.” See also the parallel references to the fate of the Watchers in the Genesis Apocryphon (Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, 0:8, p. 65): “And now, look, we are prisoners” (cf. Wise and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QapGen, 0:8, p. 91: “We are bound” and Martínez, “Genesis Apocryphon,” fragment 1, column i, line 4, p. 230: “I have oppressed the prisoners,” following Milik—see Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, p. 118, note 0:8). See also Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 14:5, p. 251: “It has been decreed to bind you in bonds in the earth for all the days of eternity”; Nickelsburg, 10:11–13, p. 215: “Go, Michael, bind Shemihazah and the others with him, . . . bind them . . . in the valleys of the earth, until the day of their judgment. . . . Then they will be led away to the fiery abyss [cf. Nickelsburg, 221–22nn4–6, 225nn11–13], and to the torture, and to the prison where they will be confined forever.”

Compare the Manichaean Kephalaia: “Again, before the watchers rebelled and came down from heaven, a prison was fashioned and constructed for them in the depths of the earth, below the mountains” (Gardner, Kephalaia, chap. 45 [codex 117], lines 5–8, p. 123).

For discussions of the theme of the imprisonment of the wicked at the time of Noah as it appears in the Bible, see Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, caption to fig. E24–1, p. 588; Davids, II Peter, 9–11, 69–70; Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 202; Davids, Letters, 48–51, 225–26; Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 58–59; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, p. 560; VanderKam, Enoch, p. 172; Reed, Fallen, 104–7; and Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 239–74.

487. Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” fig. 3, p. 186.

488. Kósa writes that the possibility of repentance for one faction of the demons “is especially important, since it is conceivable only in the context of the BG traditions” (“Book of Giants Tradition,” [Page 303]179). One anonymous reviewer asks this relevant and intriguing question:

What are the chances that there is some mixing or cross borrowing between the stories of people who lived on earth in Enoch’s time and what may have been taught about the war in heaven in the pre-mortal existence? This might account for the differences in the eternal fate of the wicked in that those who lost their first estate have lost it forever but those who opposed Enoch in their second estate still have the potential to receive the gospel and inherit a kingdom of glory.

489. Moses 7:44.

490. Moses 7:37–38.

491. Moses 7:57. Compare 1 Peter 3:20.

492. Laurence, Book of Enoch, 45:3–5, pp. 49–50; 56:3, p. 64.

493. Laurence, Book of Enoch, 49:2, pp. 55–56. In 49:3–4, p. 54 he does, however, speak of “mercy” that will be shown to “others” who repent, but he is speaking of the living who choose to repent in the last day, not of the unrepentant who have already sealed their doom in death in the days of Enoch and Noah.

494. Woodworth, “Enoch,” 191–92, as cited in Bradshaw and Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower, 114.

495. See Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 86, 200, referring to Sundermann, “Ein weiteres Fragment,” fragment L, 1r, II.1–10, pp. 495–96; translated in Reeves, Jewish Lore, 109, 117. See also my discussion of Henning, “Book of the Giants,” text E, p. 66 in the section “H. Call to repentance.”

496. Martínez, “Book of Giants (4Q203),” 8:14–15, p. 261.

497. Emphasis added.

498. Goff, “Sons of the Watchers,” 126–27.

499. See Sanders, “Major Positions,” 312–16 for a discussion of postmortem evangelization, including a discussion of Latter-day Saint beliefs on p. 315. Esplin, “Wondering” and Paulsen, “Redemption” give excellent summaries of Latter-day Saint doctrine and teachings relating to salvation for the unevangelized.

500. See, e.g., Paulsen, Cook, and Christensen, “Harrowing of Hell.”

501. See, e.g., Gabriel Fackre in Sanders, Never Heard, 81–85.

[Page 304]502. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, p. 86. Bautch further explores this connection:

There are many reasons for suspecting that 1 Peter is familiar with Enochic traditions. . . . Also of interest is the reference in 1 Peter to Christ making a proclamation to spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:18–20). Many understand the imprisoned spirits to be the angels who are familiar from the Book of the Watchers; these mated with mortals, shared forbidden knowledge [see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, chapters 6–8, pp. 174–201], and were imprisoned in an abyss or pit prior to the final conflagration [see Nickelsburg, chapters 9–18, 21, pp. 202–89, 297–99]. Comparable to the setting in the Enochic narrative in the Book of the Watchers [see Nickelsburg, 10:1–3, p. 215], the Petrine author links the captive spirits at the time of the flood (1 Peter 3:20). Jesus’ encounter with the imprisoned beings in 1 Peter 3:19–20 is likened to Enoch’s viewing of places of punishment and intercession for the rebellious watchers. (Bautch, “Peter and the Patriarchs,” 20–21)

Bautch also describes connections in other apocryphal texts attributed to Peter:

Brief allusion is made to Jesus’ preaching to the dead in the Gospel of Peter [Elliott, Apocryphal, 39–42, pp. 156–157], but visits to the realm of the dead, a paradise, and places of post-mortem punishment are arguably the focus of the Apocalypse of Peter [Elliott, pp. 593–612]. . . . Similarly many of the early Enochic texts, especially chapters 17–36 of the Book of the Watchers, concern the patriarch’s visit to the realm of the dead and places associated with post-mortem punishment or eschatological blessing. (23)

503. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 10:20, pp. 216, 227–28:

Cleanse the earth from all impurity and from all wrong

And from all lawlessness and from all sin;

And godlessness and all impurities that have come upon the earth, remove.

Other allusions to 1 Enoch might also be cited—e.g., Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 108:6, p. 551:

And he said to me, “The place that you see—here are thrown the spirits of the sinners and blasphemers and those who do evil and those who alter everything that the Lord has said by the mouth of the prophets [about] the things that will be done.

Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 16:1, p. 267:

[Page 305]The day of the consummation of the great judgment [i.e., the day when the spirits of the wicked giants will have no more power over humankind].

Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 21:10, p. 297 (see also 21:6):

And he said, This place is a prison for the angels. Here they will be confined forever.

Additional allusions are found in the pseudepigraphic Odes of Solomon, probably a Jewish-Christian text from about AD 100. For example, Charlesworth, “Odes,” 17:9, p. 750:

And from there he gave me the way of his paths,

And I opened the doors which were closed.

Charlesworth, “Odes,” 34:5, p. 757:

And the chasms were opened and closed;

And they were seeking the Lord as those who are about to give birth.

Charlesworth, “Odes,” 42:10–20, p. 771:

11. Sheol saw me and was shattered,

And Death ejected me and many with me. . . .

14. And I made a congregation of living among his dead;

And I spoke with them by living lips;

I order that my word may not fail.

15. And those who had died ran toward me;

And they cried out and said, “Son of God, have pity on us.

16. And deal with us according to your kindness,

And bring us out from the chains of darkness.

17. And open for us the door

By which we may go forth to you,

For we perceive that our death does not approach you.

18. May we also be saved with you,

Because you are our Savior.”

19. Then I heard their voice,

And placed their faith in my heart.

20. And I placed my name upon their head,

Because they are free and they are mine.

504. Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 192. The Prophet Joseph Smith gave a magnificent sermon on this topic, which I quote only in part here (“Baptism for the Dead,” Times and Seasons, April 15, 1842, 759–60; cf. J. Smith Jr., Teachings, 219–20):

While one portion of the human race are judging and condemning the other without mercy, the great parent of the universe looks [Page 306]upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care, and paternal regard; he views them as his offspring; and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes “his sun to rise on the evil and the good; and sends his rain on the just and unjust” [see Matthew 5:45]. He holds the reins of judgment in his hands [see Psalm 11:7; Doctrine and Covenants 39:16, 18]; he is a wise lawgiver [see Isaiah 33:22; James 4:12; Doctrine and Covenants 38:22; 64:13], and will judge all men [Doctrine and Covenants 137:9], [not according to the narrow contracted notions of men, but] “according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil” [see 2 Corinthians 5:10; Alma 5:15]; or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, India: he will judge them “not according to what they have not, but according to what they have;” those who have lived without law, will be judged without law [see Romans 2:12; 2 Nephi 9:25–27; Alma 29:5; Doctrine and Covenants 29:49–50], and those who have a law, will be judged by that law [Alma 42:21–23]; we need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the great Jehovah [see Moroni 10:34; Doctrine and Covenants 128:9], he will award judgment [see 2 Nephi 2:10] or mercy [see Zechariah 7:9; Matthew 23:23; Alma 41:14; Doctrine and Covenants 43:25; 88:40; Moses 6:61] to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed; the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information; and his inscrutable designs [see Doctrine and Covenants 3:1] in relation to the human family: and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess, that the Judge of all the earth has done right [see Genesis 18:25; Psalm 94:2].

The situation of the Christian nations after death is a subject that has called forth all the wisdom, and talent of the philosopher, and the divine; and it is an opinion which is generally received, that the destiny of man is irretrievably fixed at his death; and that he is made either eternally happy, or eternally miserable’ [sic; see Alma 41:3–6] that if a man dies without a knowledge of God [see Hosea 4:1; 1 Corinthians 15:34; Words of Mormon 1:8; Doctrine and Covenants 137:7], he must be eternally damned [see Mark 3:29; Doctrine and Covenants 19:7; 29:44]; without any mitigation of his punishment, alleviation of his pain or the most latent hope of a deliverance while endless ages shall roll along. However orthodox this principle may be, we shall find that it is at variance with the testimony of holy writ; for our Saviour says that all manner of sin, and blasphemy shall be forgiven men [Page 307]wherewith they shall blaspheme; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven [see Mark 3:28–29], neither in this world, nor in the world to come [see Matthew 12:31–32]; evidently showing that there are sins which may be forgiven in the world to come; although the sin of blasphemy cannot be forgiven.

Peter also in speaking concerning our Saviour says, that “he went and preached unto spirits in prison, which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah.” 1 Pet. iii, 19, 20. Here then we have an account of our Saviour preaching in prison [see Doctrine and Covenants 138:18]; to spirits that had been imprisoned from the days of Noah [see Alma 10:22; Doctrine and Covenants 138:9, 28; Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:41]; and what did he preach to them? that they were to stay there? certainly not; let his own declaration testify; “he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised”—Luke iv, 18, Isaiah has it;—“To bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness from the prison house.” Is. xlii, 7. It is very evident from this that he not only went to preach to them, but to deliver, or bring them out of the prison house. Isaiah in testifying concerning the calamities that will overtake the inhabitants of the earth says, “The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgressions thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall and not rise again. And it shall come to pass in that day; that the Lord shall punish the hosts of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in prison, and after many days shall they be visited” [see Isaiah 24:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 88:87]. Thus we find that God will deal with all the human family equally; and that as the antediluvians had their day of visitation [see Isaiah 10:3; 1 Peter 2:12; Mormon 9:2; Doctrine and Covenants 56:1, 16; 124:8, 10]; so will those characters referred to by Isaiah, have their time of visitation, and deliverance, after having been many days in prison.

505. Moses 6:50ff.

506. Used with permission from Dant, “Polish,” 91. This sculpture is from former Latter-day Saint mission president Walter Whipple’s large collection of Polish folk art.

507. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 67:2, p. 273.

[Page 308]508. It also turns up in later texts—e.g., Mika’’el, “Mysteries,” 29: “Even the earth complained and uttered lamentations.”

509. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 7:4–6, p. 182; 8:4, p. 188; emphasis added.

510. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 9:2, 10, p. 202; emphasis added.

511. Or, more literally, “cries the voice of their cries” (Skinner, “Vindicated,” 375).

512. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 87:1, p. 364; emphasis added.

513. Parry and Tov, DSSR, p. 945.

514. Or “licentiousness” in the translation of Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q203, fragment 8, line 9, p. 294. Aramaic znwtkwn.

515. Skinner argues that “filthiness, immorality, and idolatry are closely associated with each other in Semitic-based biblical culture. See, for example, Ezra 6:21; 9:11; Ezekiel 16:36; 24:13; Revelation 17:4” (“Vindicated,” 377).

516. Skinner, “Vindicated,” 377.

517. Nickelsburg relates this accusation to Genesis 4:10–11 and cites “an Aramaic technical term for bringing suit in court” (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 187n6), recalling the context of Isaiah 1 discussed in Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion.

518. Moses 7:48.

519. Skinner, “Vindicated,” 377–78.

520. Cf., e.g., Job 21:17, 30; Proverbs 10:29; Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:4.

521. Gulácsi, Mani’s Pictures, 470.

522. Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” 171.

523. Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” 172.

524. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 25:2–4, p. 312.

525. Kósa, “Book of Giants Tradition,” 171–172; emphasis added. Kósa also has difficulty entertaining the thought that the repentant demons might be the inhabitants of the palaces because “they are evidently too small . . . to accommodate the relatively big demons kneeling on the right side of the foliage” (172).

526. Moses 7:69.

[Page 309]527. Church History Library, MS 2567. Original drawing prepared at the direction of Joseph Smith, Jr. in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1833 by Frederick G. William and mailed to Edward Partridge and others in Independence, Missouri, in June 1833. MS_2567_f0001-Plat_of_city_of_Zion__1833-ORIGINAL.pdf. https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record?id=c5d54bd0-bede-47cb-b636-3281f30b0d0a (accessed May 19, 2021). Elder Alvin R. Dyer observed that the dimensions of the drawing of the Prophet’s proposed temple structures for Zion were 61’0” x 87’0’, thus matching the dimensions of the Latter-day Saints Visitors Center, finished in 1981 and located on part of the Independence Temple Lot owned by the Church (Alvin R. Dyer, “Report of Meeting with President David O. McKay,” diary, March 10, 1967, accn. 1334, box 46, f 6, cited in R. J. Addams, Past and Future of the Temple Lot (TMZ 2020), 65).

528. See, e.g., Doctrine and Covenants 45:11–14.

529. Doctrine and Covenants 84:2; emphasis added.

530. Doctrine and Covenants 57:3.

531. E.g., Young, “Discourse,” 23 June 1874, 242.

532. Moses 7:69.

533. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, p. 11.

534. Caquot, “Les prodromes,” 50.

535. Compare Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 1:3, pp. 106–7; 41:1, pp. 166–67; and Cameron and Dewey, Cologne Mani Codex, 58, p. 45 to Moses 7:49. See Reeves, Heralds, 185–90; and Philonenko, “Une citation manichéenne” for extensive discussions of the Codex Mani Codex passage and possible sources. For more on the general theme of the weeping of God, the heavens, and Enoch, see Bradshaw, Rennaker, and Larsen, “Revisiting”; Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion”; Bradshaw, Bowen, and Dahle, “Textual Criticism,” 104–22.

536. Compare Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 102:1–3, pp. 503–4 to Moses 7:13.

537. Compare Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 13:7–8, p. 237 to Moses 6:42.

538. Compare Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 10:1, p. 263 to Moses 7:59.

539. Compare Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 67:2, p. 273 to Moses 7:43.

[Page 310]540. See Martínez, “Dead Sea Scrolls Translated,” 260–62. Note that com-pilations of the Dead Sea Scrolls in English translation include only the fragments found at Qumran, lacking the Henning fragments (the twenty-two translated fragments without notes comprise about eight single-spaced pages in publication) and the three short Sundermann fragments noted in the table of detailed comparisons.

Of course, different translations differ in page size and comprehensiveness. The selected passages of BG occupy two pages in the translation of Geza Vermes (see Complete, 549–50) and six pages in the more complete translation of Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook that includes an introduction and commentary (see Dead Sea Scrolls, 290‒95). The most complete publication of BG, including translations of many tiny fragments, some containing only a word or two, with both the Aramaic original and the English translation, runs thirty-six pages (see Parry and Tov, DSSR, 938‒74). However, even comparing Parry and Tov’s most extensive English version to Nickelsburg and VanderKam’s English translation of 1 Enoch reveals that BG is only about 12 percent the size of 1 Enoch (see 1 Enoch, 19‒170), whereas the briefer translations contained in the Martínez and Vermes editions are about 2 percent of the size of the corresponding 1 Enoch edition. No commentary is included in this 1 Enoch translation, though the pages are in a smaller format than that of Parry and Tov.

541. In practical terms, if we take 2 percent as a low approximation (Martínez and Vermes editions) and 12 percent as a high approximation (Parry and Tov edition) of relative page count, this means that one would expect significant resemblances to Moses 6‒7 in 1 Enoch to be roughly eight to fifty times more numerous than in BG.

542. Though my search has not been exhaustive, the only unique and significant resemblances between 1 Enoch and Moses 6–7 that I have been able to locate so far are the mention that a vision took place near a body of water Enoch passed on his journey (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 13:7–8, p. 237; cf. Moses 6:42); a prophecy in 1 Enoch that “the earth will be shaken and will tremble” (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 102:1–3, pp. 503–4) that loosely corresponds to a mention that “the earth trembled, and the mountains fled” during the battle of the wicked against Enoch (Moses 7:13); and the motif of Enoch’s [Page 311]visions of the great flood that occurs in multiple places in 1 Enoch (e.g., Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, chap. 83, p. 345; cf. Moses 7:43). In addition, perhaps the most striking unique parallel with 1 Enoch is when God says, “I will put my hand upon [the ark] and protect it” (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 67:2, p. 273), which can be compared to Moses 7:43: “Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and that the Lord smiled upon it, and held it in his own hand.”

Apart from these few unique resemblances with the Book of Moses (and, in addition, the ones in the Book of Similitudes relating to the “Son of Man” theme), every other 1 Enoch resemblance is paralleled in BG, arguably the older of the two texts. And, as results indicate, BG contains additional close and unique likenesses in vocabulary, names, and themes besides.

As a final note on this topic, Bruno, “Congruence and Concatena-tion,” 2 lists additional parallels of the Book of Moses with 1 Enoch, some of which are so loose as to be almost nonsensical. For example, in 1 Enoch 10:4–5 an account of Asael’s binding (which Bruno describes as an instance of “foreknowledge and prophetic warning of the destruction of the world”) is compared with Moses 7:41–67. In another instance, an account of the Flood and Final Judgment in 1 Enoch 60 (which Bruno describes as “a revolutionary social order”) is compared with Moses 7:18–19.

543. See Brown and Bradshaw, “Man and Son of Man.”

544. Stuckenbruck, “Apocalypse of John,” 322.

545. Stuckenbruck, “Apocalypse of John,” 322.

546. Stuckenbruck, “Apocalypse of John,” 323.

547. Stuckenbruck, “Apocalypse of John,” 325.

548. Stuckenbruck, “Apocalypse of John,” 324.

549. See 2 Nephi 31:3; Doctrine and Covenants 1:24.

550. Calabro, “Early Christian Context.”

551. Bradshaw, “Book of Moses as a Temple Text,” in this proceedings.

552. Nibley, “Expanding Gospel.”

553. See 1 Corinthians 13:12.

554. Nibley, “Expanding Gospel,” 204.

[Page 312]555. E.g., Kimball, Teachings, 587–89; Bednar, “To Sweep”; Nelson, Teachings, 220; Taylor, “Elder Uchtdorf’s Devotional on Technology.”

556. Gary P. Gillum, “Hugh Winder Nibley: The Man, the Scholar, the Legacy,” in Bradshaw, Ricks, and Whitlock, Hugh Nibley Observed, 735, citing Nibley, “New Look,” Improvement Era, May 1970, 91.

557. Draper, Brown, and Rhodes, Commentary.

558. https://interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-moses-essays-bibliography/ (alphabetically sorted by author); https://interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-moses-essays-topical-bibliography/ (organized by topic).

559. Russell M. Nelson, cited in Jones, “Especially Noble Calling.”

560. Hafen and Hafen, “Adam, Eve, the Book of Moses,” in this proceedings.

561. Lewis wrote:

It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to three new ones.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period (“On the Reading,” 202).

We need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set against the present, to remind us that periods and that much which seems certain to the uneducated is merely temporary fashion.

A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village: the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age (“Learning,” 58–59).

Contents