Book of Moses Evidence: Wordplay on Noah

The name Noah predates biblical Hebrew, yet for those who spoke and read that language the name held several connotations. As explained by Matthew L. Bowen,

The biblical account that tells the story of the patriarch Noah and the Flood interplays the form nōaḥ with forms of the related root nwḥ (to “rest”) and the partly homonymous and partly synonymous but distinct verbal root nḥm (to “regret” or “be sorry”; “console oneself,” or “comfort” someone) throughout the Flood narrative. The narrator explains that Noah (nōaḥ “[divine] rest”) was so named because he would “comfort” (yĕnaḥămēnû) his forefathers concerning their work and toil (Genesis 5:29). This etiological, midrashic etymology interplays with the Lord’s “regretting” (wayyinnāḥem, niḥamtî) his having created humanity (Genesis 6:6–7). The wordplay then shifts from nḥm to nwḥ (“rest”), with the ark coming to “rest” (wattānaḥ, Genesis 8:4), the dove’s attempting to find “rest” (mānôaḥ, Genesis 8:9), and the “sweet savour” (rēaḥ hannîḥōaḥ) of the sacrifice that appeased the Lord after the flood (Genesis 8:21).1

Noah’s name has also been connected to the concepts of “favor” or “grace.” As reported in Genesis 6:8, “Noah [nōaḥ] found grace [ḥēn] in the eyes of the Lord.” Although these terms do not appear to be etymologically related, the Hebrew consonants of nōaḥ (n-ḥ) and ḥēn (ḥ-n) are reversed, creating what several scholars have recognized as a deliberate pun.2

These associations provide a useful backdrop for the Book of Moses, where Noah’s name repeatedly occurs in close proximity to words or ideas associated with its Hebrew form or meaning. These include (1) comfort, (2) repentance, (3) rest, and (4) grace or favor. In several instances, the text appears not merely to preserve associations already present or visible in Genesis, but to develop them in new and sometimes surprisingly concentrated or sophisticated ways.

Noah and Comfort

Genesis 5:29 explicitly associates the concept of “comfort” with Noah’s name: “And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.” As noted previously, this explanation employs a Hebrew wordplay between nōaḥ and the root nḥm (“to comfort” or “console”). The etiology thus predicts that Noah will somehow provide relief from the curse imposed on the ground described in Genesis 3:17–19, which seems to characterize the hardship of humanity’s post-Edenic condition.

Moses 7 redeploys this wordplay in a broader visionary setting. As Enoch beholds Noah, the impending flood, and the preservation of his posterity, the narrative turns immediately to Enoch’s own grief and refusal to be comforted. As can be seen, Noah’s name is used repeatedly in this narrative unit, turning up both before and after the “comforted” language:

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. And as Enoch saw this, he had bitterness of soul, and wept over his brethren, and said unto the heavens: I will refuse to be comforted; but the Lord said unto Enoch: Lift up your heart, and be glad; and look. And it came to pass that Enoch looked; and from Noah, he beheld all the families of the earth; and he cried unto the Lord, saying: When shall the day of the Lord come? When shall the blood of the Righteous be shed, that all they that mourn may be sanctified and have eternal life? (Moses 7:42–45)

This is more than a mere etymological echo of Genesis 5:29. Enoch’s refusal to be comforted is answered by a vision that moves from Noah’s temporal preservation to the future salvation of his posterity and ultimately to a time when “all they that mourn may be sanctified and have eternal life.” The association is therefore drawn into an eschatological trajectory, where consolation is no longer limited to relief from physical toil but becomes part of the promised overcoming of sorrow, destruction, and death. As explained by Bowen:

In the context of the narrative, Enoch’s declaration “I will refuse to be comforted” clearly anticipates the formal etiology subsequently proffered in Genesis 5:29/Moses 8:9: “And he called his name Noah, saying: This [son] shall comfort us [Hebrew yĕnaḥămēnû] concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed” (see further below). Enoch’s “refus[al] to be comforted” thus frames Noah’s story in an entirely new way and helps us understand the “comfort” which Lamech foresees (and which the Lord shows Enoch) Noah will bring. Noah and his posterity — specifically his descendant Jesus Christ — will eventually bring “comfort” and “rest” to the earth in a manner that vastly transcends the idea that the patriarch Noah would merely give “comfort” as a winemaker.3

Interestingly, a remarkably similar development appears in 1 Enoch 107:3, where Noah’s name is likewise connected to “comfort” in an eschatological setting: “And [Methuselah] called the name of that son Noah, for he will comfort the earth after all the destruction.”4

A related association arises in D&C 107:52–55, where Noah is mentioned not long before the Lord administered “comfort” unto Adam and renewed promises concerning Adam’s posterity: “Noah was ten years old when he was ordained under the hand of Methuselah. … And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.” As assessed once again by Bowen,

Noah was the one through whom Adam’s righteous “posterity” would continue (see also Moses 7:52; 8:2). In other words, the Lord’s promise that “I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, [etc.]” was specifically fulfilled in and through Noah, and this was the “comfort” that the Lord administered to him. Perhaps this suggests that the nōaḥ/nwḥ/nḥm etiology has its origins in the aforementioned “Book of Enoch,” portions of which the JST Genesis/Book of Moses text restores, and is “to be testified of in due time.”5

Noah and Repent

In addition to comfort, the Hebrew root nḥm can also convey the concepts of regret, sorrow, or repentance. With this semantic layer in mind, several pairings of “Noah” and “repent” arise in Moses 8:17–24

• “And the Lord said unto Noah … if men do not repent, I will send in the floods upon them.” (Moses 8:17)
• “And it came to pass that Noah called upon the children of men that they should repent.” (Moses 8:20)
• “And it came to pass that Noah continued his preaching unto the people, saying … repent of your sins.” (Moses 8:23–24)

These examples are certainly inviting, but the final two occurrences of “repented” provide more  persuasive evidence for intentional wordplay:

• “And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart.” (Moses 8:25)
• “For it repenteth Noah that I have created them.” (Moses 8:26)

Although these passages otherwise closely follow the wording of Genesis 6:6–7, a significant change has been implemented. Instead of depicting the Lord as the one who repented, the version in Moses 8:25–26 transfers the language of regret to Noah. The result is that the name of Noah (nōaḥ) now turns up on two occasions in immediate proximity to the term “repented” (nḥm). This obviously deliberate transposition of names creates a surprisingly good case for intentional wordplay.

Noah and Rest

The discussion of Noah’s salvation in Moses 7 also introduces the theme of “rest” (nwḥ), a term that reflects the etymological meaning of Noah’s name. The first instance arises in Moses 7:48–49:

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? And when Enoch heard the earth mourn, he wept, and cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, wilt thou not have compassion upon the earth? Wilt thou not bless the children of Noah?

The pairing of terms arises again in Moses 7:51–54:

And the Lord could not withhold; and he covenanted with Enoch, and sware unto him with an oath, that he would stay the floods; that he would call upon the children of Noah; And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand; … And it came to pass that Enoch cried unto the Lord, saying: When the Son of Man cometh in the flesh, shall the earth rest? I pray thee, show me these things.

A final clustering can be seen in Moses 7:58–64:

And again Enoch wept and cried unto the Lord, saying: When shall the earth rest? … And the Lord said unto Enoch: As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfil the oath which I have made unto you concerning the children of Noah; And the day shall come that the earth shall rest, … And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest.

In summary, what begins as a question about the earth’s suffering gradually transforms into a concern about its ultimate destiny. Noah enters that development as the figure through whom life is preserved beyond the flood, but the vision does not stop there. Enoch’s revelation expands from the rescue of Noah and his seed to the future condition of the earth itself, until “rest” comes to describe not merely relief from destruction but the final state of a cleansed and sanctified creation. The etymological resonance between Noah (nōaḥ) and rest (nwḥ) thus repeatedly reinforces the larger movement of the vision.6

This association may be even more significant than the corresponding language of “comfort.” Whereas Genesis 5:29 alerts the reader to Noah’s onomastic association with “comfort,” nothing in the English text similarly points to a connection with “rest.” Any intentional development of the latter wordplay would therefore have required knowledge of the Hebrew relationship between the key terms, which Joseph Smith most likely did not have in 1830.7

Noah and Favor/Grace

In Moses 8:27, Noah is said to have “found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” The wording closely follows Genesis 6:8, where the name of Noah (nōaḥ) and the concept of grace/favor (ḥēn) have been understood by scholars as participating in deliberate paronomasia. Ancient authors such as Philo likewise connected the name of Enoch (ḥănôk) to grace/favor (ḥēn) through the use of wordplay.8

With this backdrop in place, it may be significant that Noah and Enoch are brought together in connection to the Lord’s protective favor toward the ark in Moses 7:42–43: “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.” While this passage does not directly mention “grace” or “favor,” it appears to allude to a biblical verse that famously does, namely the priestly blessing in Numbers 6:25: “The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious [ḥānan] unto thee.”

As explained in a separate evidence article, the idea of God’s face shining upon someone can be reasonably understood as a Hebrew idiom for smiling.9 Thus, just as Noah himself “found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Moses 8:27), the ark is likewise depicted as receiving God’s favorable countenance when the Lord “smiled upon it” (Moses 7:43). Further support for this idea comes from Jewish legends that describe Noah’s ark being illuminated by divine light through the use of precious stones, similar to the Jaredite barges in the Book of Mormon.10

Still, one may wonder whether Moses 7:42–43 is really alluding to the priestly blessing in Numbers 6:25. This is where a Jewish text known as Sefer HaYashar becomes quite significant:

And Noah [Nōaḥ] prayed ‎fervently, and he cried unto the Lord on account of that trouble, and he said: Oh Lord help us, ‎for there is in us no strength to bear this great evil wherewith thou hast surrounded us; for the ‎wild breakers encircle us, and the whirlpools of the lower regions terrify us and the snares of ‎death are before us. Answer us Lord, oh answer us! Let thy countenance shine upon us and be ‎gracious [ḥānan] unto us, redeem us and save us, oh Lord!11 

Here, we not only have the name of Noah paired with a clear quotation of the priestly blessing in Numbers 6:25, but these elements happen to arise together in a context that is remarkably similar to Moses 7:42–43, which seems to allude to the very same biblical passage. In light of this correspondence, the case for allusion becomes much more compelling. 

Conclusion

Taken together, these associations suggest that Noah’s name holds onomastic significance in the Book of Moses. Although some associations are inherited from the corresponding account in Genesis, others emerge as new and distinctive features in Moses 7–8. These include the repeated “rest” language, the transposition of “repent” from God to Noah, and the expansion of Noah’s role into an eschatological framework of consolation and renewal, which parallels a similar wordplay in 1 Enoch 107:3. Noah’s name thus becomes a thematic anchor point around which the flood narrative is integrated into Enoch’s own revelations. The fact that similar types of wordplay surround the name of Noah in the Book of Mormon provides additional support for viewing the pattern as intentional.12

The artistry and literary sophistication of this arrangement, however, largely depend on an awareness of the Hebraic linguistic associations surrounding Noah’s name. Assuming Joseph Smith lacked such awareness in 1830, the cumulative integration of these features provides meaningful evidence for the miraculous nature and genuine authenticity of the Book of Moses.13