Astonishing Bull's-eye!

[consiglieri]

The Book of Mormon prophesies that many "plain and precious" parts will be removed from the scriptures, which will "pervert the right ways of the Lord," "harden the hearts of the children of men," and cause "an exceedingly great many" to "stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them." 1 Nephi 13:26-29.

Imagine my surprise to find the same message in 1 Enoch.

And now I know this mystery: For they (the sinners) shall alter the just verdict and many sinners will take it to heart; they will speak evil words and lie, and they will invent fictitious stories and write out my Scriptures on the basis of their own words.

And would that they had written down all the words truthfully on the basis of their own speech, and neither alter nor take away from my words, all of which I testify to them from the beginning!--1 Enoch 104:10-11.

And again,

Woe unto you who write down false words and words of wickedness! For they write down their lies so that they (the people) may commit wicked acts, and they cause others to commit wicked acts.

They shall have no peace, but shall die quickly.

Woe unto you who cause wickedness! Who glorify and honor false words, you are lost, and you have no life of good things; woe unto you who alter the words of truth and pervert the eternal law!--1 Enoch 98:15-99:2a.

This is made only more interesting by the fact that 1 Enoch was considered scripture by the first century Christians.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[John Williams]

The Book of Mormon prophesies that many "plain and precious" parts will be removed from the scriptures, which will "pervert the right ways of the Lord," "harden the hearts of the children of men," and cause "an exceedingly great many" to "stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them." 1 Nephi 13:26-29.

Imagine my surprise to find the same message in 1 Enoch.

And again,

This is made only more interesting by the fact that 1 Enoch was considered scripture by the first century Christians.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Alteration of scripture seems to have been a concern among the ancients. See, for example, John's warning in Revelations not to add or take away from the scriptures and the similar warning in Deuteronomy. It's certainly consistent with ancient concerns, but not really an astonishing bullseye, is it?

[thesometimesaint]

Johnw:

The book of Revelation does not say Scriptures it says THIS book. As there were other books written by John AFTER Revelation. It is a fair assumption that he was limiting his use of the curse to just Revelation.

[John Williams]

Johnw:

The book of Revelation does not say Scriptures it says THIS book. As there were other books written by John AFTER Revelation. It is a fair assumption that he was limiting his use of the curse to just Revelation.

Of course. If you can kindly point out where I said anything to the contrary, I'd appreciate it. My point was that there has always been concern about alterations of the scriptures. It's in the Book of Mormon, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and apparently the Book of Enoch.

Did you think I was arguing for a closed canon?

[thesometimesaint]

Johnw:

I was just wondering if you going all literal on us.

[Chris Smith]

Alteration of scripture seems to have been a concern among the ancients. See, for example, John's warning in Revelations not to add or take away from the scriptures and the similar warning in Deuteronomy. It's certainly consistent with ancient concerns, but not really an astonishing bullseye, is it?

Apocryphal texts are forced to invent explanations and justifications for their own existence. Ironically, the texts that most adamantly object to the alteration of Scripture and the "writing down of lies" are often themselves pseudepigraphal documents. This is true of Enoch, Deuteronomy, Revelation, and the Book of Mormon. I suspect that this is just part of the justification process. A new "ancient" scripture is being fabricated because the old one has been corrupted.

Incidentally, Jeremiah 8:8 also contains a variation on this theme.

[John Williams]

Apocryphal texts are forced to invent explanations and justifications for their own existence. Ironically, the texts that most adamantly object to the alteration of Scripture and the "writing down of lies" are often themselves pseudepigraphal documents. This is true of Enoch, Deuteronomy, Revelation, and the Book of Mormon. I suspect that this is just part of the justification process. A new "ancient" scripture is being fabricated because the old one has been corrupted.

Incidentally, Jeremiah 8:8 also contains a variation on this theme.

That makes a lot of sense, Chris. Thanks!

[carpeomnius]

Interesting find, consig. It's not an exact match, but it seems like the same theme.

[consiglieri]

Apocryphal texts are forced to invent explanations and justifications for their own existence. Ironically, the texts that most adamantly object to the alteration of Scripture and the "writing down of lies" are often themselves pseudepigraphal documents. This is true of Enoch, Deuteronomy, Revelation, and the Book of Mormon. I suspect that this is just part of the justification process. A new "ancient" scripture is being fabricated because the old one has been corrupted.

Incidentally, Jeremiah 8:8 also contains a variation on this theme.

Good morning, Chris, and thank you for your comments.

We should also not forget 2 Thessalonians, which references false writings circulating in Paul's name ("or letter as from us as that the day of Christ is at hand").

Deuteronomy and Revelation are similar in that they are written in order to discourage tampering with their own writings.

Jeremiah and Thessalonians are similar in that they appear to contemplate a current (or past) corruption (or addition) to scripture (or letters).

But the Book of Mormon and 1 Enoch are different from the above, and similar to each other, in that they seem to predict a "future" rewriting or corruption of scripture. In this way, they seem more like each other, and less like the other examples given.

Now, surely you are right that a person who is creating a pseudepigraphical work and setting it anciently might want to talk about the corruption of modern scripture in order to pave the way for the newly created piece of pseudepigrapha.

But I think it is also obvious that the mere inclusion of such a comment in a book of purported scripture does not, ipso facto, necessarily make it spurious.

Your inclusion of the example from Jeremiah 8:8 is instructive, inasmuch as I believe most Bible scholars would hold Jeremiah to be authentic (as opposed to Deuteronomy, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation).

Or would you suggest that the concern about the "lying pen of the scribes" mentioned in Jeremiah 8:8 renders the book of Jeremiah suspect, as well?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Chris Smith]

Hi Consig,

Personally, I consider it suspect anytime a text appears after an event claiming to have been written before the event and to have prophesied that the event would occur. Jeremiah doesn't really fit that category; his text is looking back on textual corruption that is already completed. In his case the basic intent of the observation is the same: to justify the need for a new revelation. The difference is that his revelation is forthright about its newness, whereas the Books of Enoch and Mormon are new works cloaked in pretensions of ancientness (which is why they must disguise their retrospective observations as predictive prophecies).

In any case, my point is just that this "parallel" doesn't particularly strike me as evidence of authenticity.

Best,

-Chris

[Zakuska]

Hi Consig,

Personally, I consider it suspect anytime a text appears after an event claiming to have been written before the event and to have prophesied that the event would occur. Jeremiah doesn't really fit that category; his text is looking back on textual corruption that is already completed. In his case the basic intent of the observation is the same: to justify the need for a new revelation. The difference is that his revelation is forthright about its newness, whereas the Books of Enoch and Mormon are new works cloaked in pretensions of ancientness (which is why they must disguise their retrospective observations as predictive prophecies).

In any case, my point is just that this "parallel" doesn't particularly strike me as evidence of authenticity.

Best,

-Chris

Forthright?

Even his book claims it was burned and then rewritten and added to. The same thing can be said of the book of Deuteronomy that some priest "Magically" found in the rubble of the temple.

[Chris Smith]

Forthright?

Even his book claims it was burned and then rewritten and added to. The same thing can be said of the book of Deuteronomy that some priest "Magically" found in the rubble of the temple.

Deuteronomy obviously is not forthright about its newness. But the scroll of Jeremiah makes no claim to be more ancient than it is.

[consiglieri]

Deuteronomy obviously is not forthright about its newness. But the scroll of Jeremiah makes no claim to be more ancient than it is.

I appreciate the palaver, Chris.

But in the case of Jeremiah, isn't this begging the question of it's authenticity?

I mean, we can say that the scroll of Jeremiah makes no claim to be more ancient than it is, but isn't that really arguing from the conclusion that it is as ancient as it claims to be?

What if Jeremiah were actually written much later by somebody else and merely attributed to Jeremiah? (I doubt there is any conclusive evidence we could point to that such is not the case.)

If this is what happened, then the inclusion of the bit in 8:8 about the lying pen of the scribes would fit in with other such admonitions in Deuteronomy and Revelation, don't you think?

The very fact that we agree Jeremiah is authentic makes it difficult to argue that the mere presence of such a comment necessarily means that the work is pseudepigraphic.

And if Jeremiah 8:8 does not mean that Jeremiah is pseudepigraphic, how can a similar sentiment in 1 Nephi 13 mean the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Chris Smith]

Hi Consig,

The dating of Jeremiah is very well-established, on both literary and archaeological grounds. But in any case, I will merely repeat that in Jeremiah the corruption of scripture is presented as a past event, whereas in Nephi and Enoch it is presented as a future event. That alone is a significant difference and sufficient to place Jeremiah's remark on somewhat different ground. (It still may be said that Jeremiah's remark helps to justify the need for his new revelation, of course, but that revelation is presented as "modern revelation" comparable to the D&C rather than as "ancient revelation" like the Book of Mormon.) I realize that religious conservatives think it horridly naturalistic to doubt all predictive prophecy a priori, but I must admit that since discovering that Daniel was a late pseudepigraphon that retrospectively "prophesies" the invasion of Antiochus I have been unable to help harboring such suspicions. The fact that the scripture-corruption prophecies serve to justify the existence of the pseudepigraphal texts in question only intensifies my suspicions.

No, this does not "mean the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production." But it certainly doesn't mean it's an ancient one, either!

-Chris

[abqfriend]

I am a Catholic and I have noted that many members of the LDS Church quote the Book of Enoch.

Why has not the LDS Church included this book in the official canon of the LDS Church?

I could find it nowhere in my "Triple."

It is not accepted in the Catholic Church, but there are quotes in the NT attributed to it.

I agree that some Christians considered it as scriptural in the early Church.

-Carol

The Book of Mormon prophesies that many "plain and precious" parts will be removed from the scriptures, which will "pervert the right ways of the Lord," "harden the hearts of the children of men," and cause "an exceedingly great many" to "stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them." 1 Nephi 13:26-29.

Imagine my surprise to find the same message in 1 Enoch.

And again,

This is made only more interesting by the fact that 1 Enoch was considered scripture by the first century Christians.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[CMZ]

In any case, my point is just that this "parallel" doesn't particularly strike me as evidence of authenticity.

Especially since nothing strikes you as evidence of The Book of Mormon's authenticity.

[Chris Smith]

Especially since nothing strikes you as evidence of The Book of Mormon's authenticity.

You could not be more wrong. I have written repeatedly on this board about things that strike me as evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity, including "Mulek", if...and conditionals, and the three witnesses. I make a very real effort to be fair in my evaluation of the evidence. I undoubtedly do not always succeed, but I suspect I do better than most.

[CMZ]

You could not be more wrong. I have written repeatedly on this board about things that strike me as evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity, including "Mulek", if...and conditionals, and the three witnesses. I make a very real effort to be fair in my evaluation of the evidence. I undoubtedly do not always succeed, but I suspect I do better than most.

Awesome. What's the final answer?

[Beowulf]

I am a Catholic and I have noted that many members of the LDS Church quote the Book of Enoch.

Why has not the LDS Church included this book in the official canon of the LDS Church?

I could find it nowhere in my "Triple."

It is not accepted in the Catholic Church, but there are quotes in the NT attributed to it.

I agree that some Christians considered it as scriptural in the early Church.

-Carol

Hi Carol,

The answer to your question on why it has not been canonized can be found in D&C 91, which talks about the Apocrypha. Joseph Smith was considering working on a "translation" of the Books of Apocrypha (which are found in the Catholic Bible, btw), but was told by the Lord not to bother, but to go ahead and allow anyone to read it, with the Spirit. In our day, we take this reference to mean ANY ancient work of God that is not in the Canon, which therefore includes the Book of Enoch. I personally very much enjoy the Book of Enoch and (like Consiglieri) read it as Scripture as part of my general scripture reading.

The early Christian Church did indeed accept it as scripture, and it is quoted in the New Testament in multiple places, specifically by name in the Letter of Jude. Plainly, that writer believed that Enoch really did write the work. Since its appearance is quite late, this is unlikely, so we might assume, as Chris Smith infers, that it must be a forgery of some kind.

Hugh Nibley, however (who also loved the book, quoting from it liberally), speculated that it was written by some prophet in the two or three centuries before Christ who used Enoch as a pseudonym because it was the only way that he could get the word out. (Because nobody believed in modern prophets anymore... Sound familiar?)

Another problem with Enoch, of course, is that it was a lost book, only preserved in Ethiopia, and resurfacing in Europe around the 18th century or so. And even then, it was not known outside of esoteric scholarly circles for a long period thereafter. I am not aware that Joseph Smith ever came across a translation of it in his lifetime.

Beowulf

[abqfriend]

So-if I am to read D&C 91:4-5 correctly-each person may interpret in a bit differently-based on how the Spirit gives/manifests truth?

The Book of Enoch is not found in the Catholic Apocrypha as called by non-Catholics. It is not considered a deutero-canonical book.

-Carol

Hi Carol,

The answer to your question on why it has not been canonized can be found in D&C 91, which talks about the Apocrypha. Joseph Smith was considering working on a "translation" of the Books of Apocrypha (which are found in the Catholic Bible, btw), but was told by the Lord not to bother, but to go ahead and allow anyone to read it, with the Spirit. In our day, we take this reference to mean ANY ancient work of God that is not in the Canon, which therefore includes the Book of Enoch. I personally very much enjoy the Book of Enoch and (like Consiglieri) read it as Scripture as part of my general scripture reading.

The early Christian Church did indeed accept it as scripture, and it is quoted in the New Testament in multiple places, specifically by name in the Letter of Jude. Plainly, that writer believed that Enoch really did write the work. Since its appearance is quite late, this is unlikely, so we might assume, as Chris Smith infers, that it must be a forgery of some kind.

Hugh Nibley, however (who also loved the book, quoting from it liberally), speculated that it was written by some prophet in the two or three centuries before Christ who used Enoch as a pseudonym because it was the only way that he could get the word out. (Because nobody believed in modern prophets anymore... Sound familiar?)

Another problem with Enoch, of course, is that it was a lost book, only preserved in Ethiopia, and resurfacing in Europe around the 18th century or so. And even then, it was not known outside of esoteric scholarly circles for a long period thereafter. I am not aware that Joseph Smith ever came across a translation of it in his lifetime.

Beowulf

[Rommelator]

I have to agree with Chris on this one. While there are interesting parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Enoch in this regard, I would not put too much confidence on them for determining Book of Mormon historicity. We need to be careful not to fall into what Hugh Nibley called "Parallelomania".

Interesting, but nothing more in my view.

So-if I am to read D&C 91:4-5 correctly-each person may interpret in a bit differently-based on how the Spirit gives/manifests truth?

I would say that this could apply to all scripture.

[Scottie]

I have to agree with Chris on this one. While there are interesting parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Enoch in this regard, I would not put too much confidence on them for determining Book of Mormon historicity. We need to be careful not to fall into what Hugh Nibley called "Parallelomania".

But... but... but... it's a ..... bullseye!!!

[MormonMason]

I am a Catholic and I have noted that many members of the LDS Church quote the Book of Enoch.

Why has not the LDS Church included this book in the official canon of the LDS Church?

I could find it nowhere in my "Triple."

It is not accepted in the Catholic Church, but there are quotes in the NT attributed to it.

I agree that some Christians considered it as scriptural in the early Church.

-Carol

You won't find it there because the book itself has some interesting interpolations contained therein. Some of these conflict with some of LDS doctrines such as the identity of the Ancient of Days and so forth.

On the other hand, if you want a Bible that contains 1 Enoch, you would need to obtain one from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. It won't be in English, however. But, if you are interested, it is right next to the Book of Job in their Bibles, right near Jubilees.

[abqfriend]

I would agree that it applies to all "Scripture.:-but does the LDS Church officially consider the Book of Enoch as Scripture?

It is not in the Apocrypha-as some non-Catholics call the deutero-canonical books included in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.

Early versions of the KJV till 1885 and other Reformed era Bibles-put them in the back-but they were dropped. The Archbishop of Canterbury removed the Apocryphal books in 1885.

You can still purchase some non-Catholic Bibles including the KJV with the Apocrypha/deutero-canonical books included as an option.

Carol

I have to agree with Chris on this one. While there are interesting parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Enoch in this regard, I would not put too much confidence on them for determining Book of Mormon historicity. We need to be careful not to fall into what Hugh Nibley called "Parallelomania".

Interesting, but nothing more in my view.

I would say that this could apply to all scripture.

[consiglieri]

But... but... but... it's a ..... bullseye!!!

Not only that; it's an "astonishing" bull's-eye!