Book of Moses Evidence: Wickedness in the Days of Enos

The early portions of Moses 6 have significant overlap with Genesis 4–5. Yet, on several occasions, the Book of Moses expands upon the Genesis account, interspersing additional details throughout the text. A selection of this expanded content (bolded for emphasis) is presented in the following chart.

As can be seen, the Book of Moses provides new information regarding the descendants of Seth, including his son Enos (alternatively spelled Enosh in many texts). On several different levels, the details of these expansions align well with ancient and medieval sources.

The Beginning of Wickedness

The lengthiest—and perhaps most significant—expansion comes from Moses 6:15. After giving genealogical information pertaining to Adam, Seth, and Enos (Moses 6:12–14; cf. Genesis 5:5–7), the narrative is interrupted with a curious insertion about emerging wickedness: “And the children of men were numerous upon all the face of the land. 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” (Moses 6:15).

This report appears to build on discussions of wickedness from the previous chapter, where secret combinations to get gain involved murder, deceit, and perverse covenants with Satan (Moses 5:25–55).1 The text emphasizes that, at that time, “works of darkness began to prevail among all the sons of men” (Moses 5:55). Because of the reportedly long lives of those in the antediluvian period, which naturally led to significant generational overlap, it is difficult to situate exactly when these evil works described in Moses 5 began to spread, in connection with the report in Moses 6:15. Yet it seems plausible that they are discussing the same (or at least a related) cultural development, just in two different narrative movements.

If so, the details in Moses 5 can expand our insight into the nature of the wickedness reported in Moses 6:15. Moreover, it seems likely that the wickedness in Enoch’s day was an outgrowth of the earlier emergence of wickedness during the generation of Enos. In other words, the text seems to intentionally link together these phases of wickedness from Cain to Enos, and from Enos to Enoch.2  

Remarkably, many rabbinic sources likewise assume a tradition in which wickedness began to spread among the children of men specifically during the generation of Enos. This is based, at least in part, on an interpretation of Genesis 4:26 that entails idol worship. John Reeves explains that “classical Jewish tradition normally ascribes a negative connotation to the phraseology of Gen 4:26b by reading it as an etiology for false religion: ‘then was begun the naming [of material objects] with the Name YHWH.’  In other words, Enosh and/or his generation marked the first appearance in the world of idolatry (b. Šabb. l18b; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 4:26).”3 Rabbinic sources often refer to this period as either the “generation” or “days” of Enosh. As summarized by Meike Christian,

Pseudo-Jonathan ad locus mentions—after reporting about the birth of Enosh—“the generation in whose days it was begun to go astray” (דרא דביומוהו שריו למטעי). Similarly, Targum Onqelos ad locus mentions a declension from praying in “his days” (ביומוהי), referring back to the birth of Enosh. Mekilta, Tractate Bahodesh, chap. 6 (Exod 20:3–6) and Genesis Rabbah 23:6 use the term “the days of Enosh” (ימי אנוש). In 3 En. 5:6 “the sons of the generation of Enosh” (בני דורו של אנוש) are mentioned and Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 7 refers to “the days of the generation of Enosh” (ימי דור אנוש).4

This aligns with what is found in Moses 6:14–15, where the wickedness reported “in those days” is likewise preceded by a description of the birth of Enos: “And Seth lived, after he begat Enos, eight hundred and seven years, and begat many sons and daughters. And the children of men were numerous upon all the face of the land. And in those days [i.e., the days of Enos and Seth’s other descendants] Satan had great dominion among men.”5

Although the early Jewish historian Josephus doesn’t provide any particularly valuable insight concerning Enos, he does report on the general depravity arising among the descendants of Seth. Steven Fraade writes,

According to Josephus, the progeny of Seth were initially like him in virtue, in contrast to the descendants of Cain, who were violent and insolent. But after seven generations, the Sethites “abandoned the customs of their fathers for a life of depravity .... They no longer rendered to God God’s due honors ... but displayed by their actions a zeal for vice twofold greater than they had formerly shown for virtue, and drew upon themselves the enmity of God.” Thus, in paraphrasing biblical history … [Josephus] subsumes Seth’s immediate descendants under a scheme that describes their initial collective virtue followed by progressive depravity leading up to the flood.6

Thus, the later rabbinic commentaries match the general thrust of Josephus’s earlier writings, which can be dated to the first century AD. This places at least the general contours of this tradition firmly into antiquity.

Types of Wickedness

Idol Worship

In the rabbinic corpus, if any specific sin is attributed to the days of Enos, it is typically idol worship. In his commentary on competing interpretations of Genesis 4:26, the late-medieval Jewish rabbi known as Radak stated, “According to what we have seen in the writings of our sages, and according to the understanding of most people, that idolatry was widespread in the days of Enosh, the meaning of the verse before must be that in Enosh’s time many people began to look upon the celestial phenomena as deities and address them and worship them as gods.”7 Fraade notes that this “understanding of Gen 4:26b, as marking the origins of idolatrous worship by Enosh’s contemporaries, is precisely the interpretation of that verse which is presumed in our earliest rabbinic midrashic sources which employ it: the Mekilta of R. Ishmael and the Sipre to Deuteronomy.”8

Although idolatry isn’t directly mentioned in Moses 6:14–15, Enoch later stated that “Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God” (Moses 6:49).9 Passages reporting that the people “denied” their creator seem to also be related (Moses 6:28, 43).10 Since there isn’t a timeframe attributed to these activities, they could easily refer to a period of emerging idol worship that became widespread in the days of Enos and continued onward.

Men Became Carnal, Sensual, and Devilish

Enoch’s statement that men became “carnal, sensual, and devilish” (Moses 6:49) is also interesting, as it suggests that, in connection with false worship, mankind began to give in to their baser, fleshy instincts. According to one rabbinic commentary (which, incidentally, also repeatedly references the wickedness in the time of Enosh), there were two aspects of human creation, one from the upper realms and another from the lower realms. The lower part of humanity (i.e., the carnal and sensual aspects of human bodies) was associated with the animal kingdom: “He [man] eats and drinks like an animal, procreates like an animal, defecates like an animal, and dies like an animal.”11

A related theme turns up in rabbinic writings specifically in connection to the idol worship in the generation of Enos. Summarizing this tradition, Fraade writes, “By turning from the worship of God to the worship of God’s creations, humanity loses its privileged, godlike position in the order of creation.” Fraade further explains that “the midrashic tradition views him [Enos] as marking an initial stage in humanity’s decline from godlike to beastlike characters.”12

Growing Darkness

Some rabbinic commentaries allegorically associate the “darkness” mentioned in the Creation account in Genesis 1 with the emerging wickedness during the time of Enos. Rabbi Jehudah bar Simon reportedly taught that the “void” mentioned in Genesis 1:2 “referred to Cain who voided the act of creation by killing Abel” and that the “darkness” in this verse “referred to the generation of Enosh.”13 Commenting on the same passage in Genesis, Bereshit Rabbah states, “‘And darkness’ – this is the generation of Enosh, based on the verse: ‘Their actions are in the dark and they say: Who sees us and who knows of us?’”14 The second quotation in this passage is from Isaiah 29:15, which in the King James Version reads in full: “Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?”

These associations are fascinating because the Book of Moses likewise associates the emerging wickedness with darkness and also uses language very similar to that found in Isaiah 29:15. We read that “from the days of Cain, there was a secret combination, and their works were in the dark” (Moses 5:51). After reporting that these activities were carried on during the time of Lamech, the text reemphasizes them as an emerging phenomenon: “And thus the works of darkness began to prevail among all the sons of men” (Moses 5:55).15

To top it off, we get this statement from the Lord to Enoch, which, like Bereshit Rabbah, intertextually relates to Isaiah 29:15: “for these many generations, ever since the day that I created them, have they gone astray, and have denied me, and have sought their own counsels in the dark” (Moses 6:28). These statements are part of a general theme of darkness running throughout the Book of Moses that, although not explicitly linked to the generation of Enos, appear to be thematically and perhaps chronologically related.16

Counsel

The specific mention of “counsel” in the Isaiah passage just cited in Moses 6:28 (“sought their own counsels in the dark”) is actually part of a theme in the Book of Moses, wherein the wicked repeatedly reject the counsel of God and instead rely on Satan or other mortals for counsel. In Moses 5:25 we read that Cain, when he submitted to Satan’s enticements, “rejected the greater counsel which was had from God.” Later, in Enoch’s speech, the counsel held among the wicked is connected to their rejection of God and potentially to idolatry: “Why counsel ye yourselves, and deny the God of heaven?” (Moses 6:43). Furthermore, God is specifically labeled as “Man of Counsel” in Moses 7:35. Thus, by rejecting God, the wicked implicitly rejected the “Man of Counsel.”

Once again, this is a theme that turns up in rabbinic texts specifically in relation to the generation of Enos. Commenting on Psalm 1, Bereshit Rabbah 26:1 states, “According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: ‘Happy is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked,’ this is the generation of Enosh.”17 This same interpretation of this passage is reported in Akeidat Yitzchak 12:1: “‘According to the counsel of the wicked,’ refers to the generation of Enosh.”18 It is likewise found in Midrash Tehillim.19 In a text from the Mishneh Torah we read, “During the times of Enosh, mankind made a great mistake, and the wise men of that generation gave thoughtless counsel.”20

The Righteousness of Enos

Although the Book of Moses inserts a report about growing wickedness in the days of Enos, the text doesn’t suggest in any way that Enos contributed to this religious decline. In fact, just the opposite is the case. We read that Seth “taught his son Enos in the ways of God; wherefore Enos prophesied also” (Moses 6:13). A few verses later, it is reported that Enos and a group of presumably righteous followers embarked on a journey to a land of promise: “And Enos and the residue of the people of God came out from the land, which was called Shulon, and dwelt in a land of promise” (Moses 6:17).

These descriptions aren’t necessarily in contradiction with early rabbinic sources. Fraade notes that in the texts from the Amoraic period (ca. 200–500 AD), “rabbinic commentators show little interest in Enosh as an individual. Rather, their emphasis is on the moral and physical decline of his contemporaries, it being unclear whether, or to what extent, Enosh participated in that decline.”21 This stands in contrast to later medieval traditions which regularly implicate Enos as either a participant or leader in the burgeoning idolatrous practices. As seen in 3 Enoch 5:10, Enos became viewed as “the chief of the idolators.”22

Interestingly, Christian exegetes went in the opposite direction, interpreting Genesis 4:26 as a positive commentary on Enos’s piety. “For Christian commentators,” writes Fraade, “Enosh, as true and godlike man, effects a partial remedy to the primal sin of Adam and Eve. He typifies the line of Seth as ‘sons of God,’ who are contrasted with the wicked line of Cain and whose intermixing with Cain’s line (Gen 6:2–4) necessitated the flood in Noah’s time.”23

This Christian view accords with that of Philo of Alexandria, an early Jewish author (first century BC to first century AD) who “lauds Enosh as the ‘true man,’ a model of virtue, standing at the head of a chain of virtuous biblical models.”24 We thus see that although a later strain of rabbinic tradition viewed Enos negatively, other ancient and medieval commentators, both Jewish and Christian, viewed him in a positive light, just as is seen in the Book of Moses.

Conclusion 

In various ways, the expansions of Genesis found in Moses 6:3–18 align well with ancient and medieval traditions. This includes the predominantly Christian notion that Enos was a righteous antediluvian patriarch, as just discussed. While not insignificant, this detail is of somewhat lesser importance due to the fact that a favorable view of Enos is already hinted at in Genesis 4:26. In other words, if Joseph Smith was simply making up the contents of the Book of Moses, the fact that men “began to call upon the name of the Lord” (Genesis 4:26) in the days of Enos might have signaled to him that Enos was a righteous man who contributed to a period of growing devotion towards God among his people.

Far less expected—especially in light of the positive picture of Enos’s day that one might gather from Genesis 4:26 in the King James Bible—is the report in the Book of Moses of growing wickedness among the descendants of Seth, specifically in the days of Enos (Moses 6:14–15). Yet this revelatory insertion is abundantly reinforced in rabbinic traditions.

It should be noted that the origin of this tradition is not actually known. Fraade points out that “our earliest rabbinic texts already assume interpretations of Gen 4:26 that are nowhere evidenced in extant Second Temple sources.” Although Fraade entertains the possibility that the tradition “developed in the intervening years,” he is also open to a scenario in which these interpretations “were already in circulation in Second Temple times, but are not preserved among the texts that the Dead Sea community chose to hide or that early Christian churches preserved and transmitted.”25

The same principle could, of course, apply to the Second Temple period itself, as the antecedents of its own oral and literary developments are largely shrouded in mystery. Due to the fragmentary and incomplete nature of the historical record, it is ultimately impossible to pin down the exact origins of this tradition. Consequently, it could very well stretch much deeper into antiquity, as presented in the Book of Moses.

It should be acknowledged that there were some sources in Joseph Smith’s environment from which he could have learned about the moral decline in the generation of Enos. For instance, as stated previously, the general idea that the sons of Seth rebelled against God was contained in the writings of Josephus, which were available in English and popular in early 19th century America.26

More promising, however, are publications that directly drew upon the relevant rabbinic sources. Adam Clarke, for instance, informed his readers that Jewish scholars viewed Genesis 4:26 as introducing idolatry among the people. Clarke then provided this quotation from the famous Jewish rabbi known as Maimonides: “In the days of Enos the sons of Adam erred with great error, and the counsel of the wise men of that age became brutish, and Enos himself was (one) of them that erred.”27 Of Course, if Joseph Smith actually used this source, one might expect him to have cast Enos himself as an idolator—which he doesn’t.

Ultimately, it is unknown whether Smith ever came across relevant information about Enos in his environment. While it is not impossible that he derived some details from available sources, there is also no reliable evidence that he did. For instance, although some researchers have claimed to find strong evidence that Smith relied on the writings of Adam Clarke, such assertions appear to be unfounded.28

One must also consider that the Book of Moses presents a curious mixture of traditions that doesn’t appear to be derivative of any single source. It treats Enos favorably and emphasizes his personal righteousness in a chain of righteous patriarchs, similar (although not precisely the same) to developments within the Christian tradition.29 At the same time, the Book of Moses comments on the wickedness arising during the days of Enos, as do the early and later rabbinic writings. And yet the text provides an alternative explanation for the origin of this wickedness and contradicts the later rabbinic tradition of Enoch himself being an idolator.30

Finally, it should be pointed out that some specific details in the Book of Moses regarding this period of growing wickedness (men becoming carnal, emerging darkness, an intertextual relationship with Isaiah, and the theme of wicked counsel) can’t easily be attributed to any single source. Assuming these more specific parallels are valid and meaningful, they may complicate any 19th century derivative hypothesis.

At the very least, the expansions in Moses 6 offer several authentically ancient details about Enos and a growing period of wickedness in the antediluvian period. They come across as the types of varied and nuanced interactions with diverse traditions that one might expect if the Book of Moses were a genuine ancient text, and yet they seem difficult to explain as either being made up or cobbled together from available extrabiblical sources.