Talk:Moses 1:1-42

Chiasmus

While doing a lot of studying of this chapter due to some thought provoking comments by Joe on the Moses 2:1-5 Talk page, I noted that this chapter was sandwiched with the theme of Moses talking to God, and as I recently noted in the Exegesis to verse 42, so is chapter 4. I was beginning to think of this chapter as either an introduction of later origin than Genesis, (by which I mean, a narrative added by the Lord through Joseph Smith) or a text which definitively formed part of the original Genesis and was taken away, with some editorial commentary and/or recasting of the narrator. However, the sandwiching to me hinted of a chiasmus, so I examined the chapter backwards and forwards and found that there might be something to that. Also, since I don't really trust myself to identify a legitimate chiasmus, I searched the internet to see if anyone else had come to the same conclusion and someone had. (He refers to this one as a Davidic Chiasmus, though I'm not really sure what that means.) However, since I don't really trust Internet sources implicitly, I thought I'd ask what others thought.

My thought is that if the chapter (including the apparent editorial notes) comprise a chiasmus, then it would seem unlikely that Joseph was the source of the chapter, or the editorial notes and that they would then seem to be the composition of some Hebrew author. (I've not heard of a Chiasmus in the D&C, though I suppose that in restoring/revising a Hebrew text, the Lord might have Joseph conform to the Hebrew context he's writing in.)

Any thoughts on any of that? --Seanmcox 06:44, 31 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Sean. I like the work done there, but the formatting is somewhat awkward, so I'm not quite clear on what exactly it supposed to be paralleling what all the time. It is probably a good place to get started in looking at a chiastic structure in Moses 1. It certainly suggests that there is something behind this idea.

I've also wondered about the God-Satan-God structure of this chapter. I've wondered, in fact, if it has any connection to the book of Job, where there are three cycles of speeches: in the first cycle, the friends keep interrupting Job, who is praying; after the first round, Job finally seems to get frustrated enough that he leaves off praying and confronts his friends directly; in the third round, he quickly silences the friends and returns to his prayer to God (satan is Hebrew for accuser, and very well describes the friends). In short, there is a major similarity between Moses 1 and Job: the man of God at first engages the Lord directly, then has to silence the enemies to that prayerful possibility, and then the man of God can return to the Lord. What seems even more suggestive of this connection is the fact that in both Moses and Job, the God-Satan-God pattern is followed by a vision of creation (though in Job there is the Alcibiades-like interruption by Elihu). The themes of Job's few words in the final chapters are very, very reminiscent of Moses 1 (man is nothing and absolutely everything at once). There's something to all of this, but I've not been sure how to go about it yet.

But all of this ignores two things you bring up that I think are worth exploring profoundly. First, the idea that the "editorial" comments might fit into a structure is interesting. If they do, I get the same sense you do that they should be read as "original" to the text, not as editorials made by Joseph later on. The way the chapter is written in the original manuscript (as one big long thing, without any indication that the editorials are being "added") would seem to confirm this. Second, I've also wondered about whether one might find chiasmus in the D&C. I'd be surprised if no one has ever looked at the possibility. At the same time, I wonder if chiasmus there would still be amibiguous: that there is chiasmus there might suggest that Joseph "wrote" the Book of Mormon, or that there is chiasmus there might suggest that it is the Lord who speaks in chiasmus, rather than the prophets (and we have to give up--thank heavens--the idea that the prophets wrote in chiasmus as a mnemonic device). I did read an article a few months ago that explored chiastic and other parallelistic structures in Green Eggs and Ham, as well as the themes of Noah and the flood (Sam=Shem, the water scenes at the end where no land is visible, and that the main character first leaves off the flood upon eating the egg, etc.): the point of the article was to say that chiasmus in the Book of Mormon proves nothing. I don't think the argument holds water (a pun for Robert), but it is somewhat suggestive of how carefully we ought to take arguments from chiasmus (Alma 36 will probably always be convincing, however). I suppose I bring all of this up to make the following point: the good of finding a chiastic structure in Moses 1 seems to me to be the textual possibilities it opens up (what parallels what? what gets focused on? what gets "slowed down" in the chiastic flow, and what gets "sped up"? etc.). If we can work out the chiastic structure of the chapter, what might it reveal concerning the meaning of the chapter? --Joe Spencer 15:48, 31 Oct 2006 (UTC)

This is to acknowledge the pun, thanks. I think some of Dr. Seuss's other books indeed have legitimate layers of meaning (at least I remember reading about hidden political meaning in some of his kids' books, like the one with the stars on the belly), so I think whoever authored the Green Eggs and Ham comparison/criticism is all wet (...). But how the structure of the passage helps elucidate meaning(s) I do think is interesting, and there does seem to be some interesting structure in this chapter. --RobertC 01:07, 1 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Verses 1-11

The following was posted anonymously in the questions section of the commentary page. I am moving it here for a couple of reasons a) These are answers, not questions, therefore don't belong in the questions section, b) rewriting this as commentary will take some time, c) I don't have time right now to do that. --Matthew Faulconer 05:52, 14 Jan 2007 (UTC)

• Of what significance are mountains in scripture? For example, why do revelations so often occur on mountains?

At the early days in the history of religion was not sacred places where celestial beings come to instruct man in all the ways of God, sin always has contaminated not only men souls but the earth itself, glorious celestial beings can not set foot on sinned grounds; mountains were respected as places where spirits dwelt and were not grecuently climbed by man kind, and were out of sinful acts, consequentle were 'clean of sin' this is the reason why so many sacred things regarding God ere given to known unto man kind on Mountains

• Why is it important that we know Moses spoke with God face to face?

Because in ancient times, 'gods' were terrible and untouch deites that can not be address, neither see or touch, only when god(s)wants communicate with its subjects is man permisible to be in its presence. Now, you should known the "Living God" of the Israelites was almost unknown among the constellations of God of the Middle-East of the time, besides Israelites, were recognize as a tribe or not much power in the region, consequently the God of this people was not inportant. Then for many people of this time gods are representations of mosters or humanised figures part human part animal' being the God of Abraham, Jacob an 'invisble' God none have a representation of it(HIM). Recording in the written that "God" spoke to him face to face, testified that such 'God' have human form and was in a similitud of man form, latter God declared to Moses that man was made in similitude of God form.

Remember that was through Moses writting that Israel knew God not only in form but in character.

• What does it mean to say “the glory of God was upon Moses”? What is his glory? What does verse 5 tell us about what we read here? How about verse 39? Do D&C 29:36 or D&C 88:19 help us understand these verses?

Let me begins with an example: A famous person, let me say Leonardo de Vince, he is a femous person of the renacense, he holds glory (fame) and when we see all his works,no only in art but architecture, writtings, we 'contemplate all his glory'

Celestial beigns have glory with is represented by a shinning light around them, this glory represents the power of such being, God is and exalted man wich glory (light around his body)is so powerful that human flesh can not stands before him, except he (man) be transfigured before God (remember how Jesus Christ transfigured himself before Peter, James and John, in the mount; revealing his real personality?)If, man is transfigured -man body is prepared by God power to suppor his glory- man then can abide in God's presence. Now, Satan is a spiritual beings that has not power of creation, as God has, but his power is of destruction and chos, consequently has not glory of life, creation, and thus is why Moses could saw him like man seeing another man.

• Why does God tell Moses his name? He has many names, why does he here use this particular name, Endless?

First we should understand Moses background; he was an Israelite, but grew up in a palace as a son of the Pharoah of Egypt, he was rose in the Idolatrous religion of Egypt.

When he got the experience with the "Living God" his religious background was present, in some way or another God has to set his mind in the real living God, and take away the ideas of the idols who were the official gods of the land, using the word 'endless' means that this God who is new to Moses, has not end neither beginning, no as the gods of Egypt that were set by the Pharoah desire and each dynasty set their own gods.

Son of man

Wow, I'm surprised how many times this phrase is really used. Here, I think it is being used to emphasize the human/mortal nature of Moses. When God says it to his prophets, I think there is an important and interesting relationship connotation of the word (again, something that begins in Gen 1-4, the relationship of God to humans and Adam to Eve, etc.) with varying shifts in emphasis. In reference to the Savior, I've heard Son of Man (capitalized) is in reference to the Father, Man of Holiness.... --RobertC 03:55, 11 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Robert, what you say about the use of "son of man" here makes sense and I assume it also applies to Ezekial. In Matt 26:2 man is not capitalized. Though I'm not sure how much it would change things if the people who translated the KJV had capitalized it. I think Matt 26:63-65 is interesting but not sure what to make of it. Clearly there is some relationship between the phrases the son of man and the son of God. --Matthew Faulconer 08:30, 11 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the crucial text is Dan 7:13. It is there of all passages in the Old Testament that it is clear that the "son of man" is something more than human. The key word in that verse is "like," "one like the son of man." The point seems to be that the figure Daniel describes ascending into heaven looks like a mere human being (which is, as has been pointed out here, the obvious meaning in Moses and Ezekiel), but obviously is not. But that this figure is ascending into the heavens to stand before the throne is the real thrust of the vision: Ezekiel, Moses, etc., ascend into the holy of holies to stand before God, hence they are sons of man, yet they transcend that existence in crossing the boundary of the veil. The "son of man" becomes in Second Temple Judaism a phrase that simply means something like "the man who has passed through apotheosis (by crossing the veil)." The "son of man" is an angelic figure. --Joe Spencer 14:11, 11 Oct 2006 (UTC)