Joseph Smith and 1 Enoch

[J Green]

As for the subject of what books JS owned and could have referenced, I'm still waiting for a methodology to the madness other than publication date and possible location in the Dartmouth library, or something similar. He might have accessed the Enoch literature in the mid 1820s that was starting to appear but apparently ignored the Deutero-Isaiah arguments from the German school washed through Gesenius and others into UK and US at the same time period. He is crafty enough to avoid terms like 'tomahawk' and 'canoe' when "poaching" from early Indian-as-Israelite literature but not smart enough when "poaching" from KJV NT sources in an OT time frame. Other than a few arguments that attempt to correlate one-to-one correspondences between restoration texts and books that JS indisputably owned or read, there just doesn't seem to be any holistic theory of what is going on from the critics.

[Joseph Antley]

Thanks to all those who've commented thus far in the thread.

I'm writing a paper for the forthcoming Sperry symposium on divine council imagery in Nephi's tree of life vision. I'm really excited about the paper. But this is just a minor point. Most of the comparative sources I'm using derive from the ancient Semitic world. I am intrigued, however, by the connection with 1 Enoch and will no doubt include the issue in my analysis.

Has anyone pointed out before that during his celestial ascent and vision of a tall mountain, Enoch interacts personally with the angel Michael through a question and answer session in which the angel serves as an interpretive guide. In essence, the angel asks Enoch what is wanted, and Enoch responds,

[MCB]

IMHO, the answer is no, if one follows in strict adherence to the stated topic, JS Jr was not very literate. He, by himself, probably had no access to I Enoch. That is the reason why he was chosen by his co-conspirators to take credit for the book.

If you add Hiram Smith, who had had access to the Dartmouth library, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and others, most certainly the authors of the BoM had access to it. It would have made excellent material for replacing the lost 118 pages. Although, personally, it makes more sense to have moved Ether to the front of the book. Unless their goal was to change the meaning of some nebulous other source that never existed, according to certain people.

Once we expand the terms of the discussion, it is no longer an impossibility, it becomes a distinct probability.

George, your rational discussion gave me the push to dip my toes into these piranha-infested waters again. Maybe, after so much time, the piranhas are gone.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

IMHO, the answer is no, if one follows in strict adherence to the stated topic, JS Jr was not very literate. He, by himself, probably had no access to I Enoch. That is the reason why he was chosen by his co-conspirators to take credit for the book.

Once we expand the terms of the discussion, it is no longer an impossibility, it becomes a distinct probability.

Merely comming up with a theory does not mean it is true. All I see here is naked assertion by you. Can you back them up that Hiram did indeed go to dartmouth and research these things?

So JS was the idoit=savant that just duped everyone. You realise the SR and OC never once denied teh BoM to be authentic. If they were in on it why would then never deny it when they had several oppertunities to do so. They evidence is so scant that this is just some research elaborate hoax. I look forward to your responce.

[consiglieri]

If you add Hiram Smith, who had had access to the Dartmouth library, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and others, most certainly the authors of the BoM had access to it.

Is it your position that the Book of Mormon was written by committee?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "just a little piranha")

[David Bokovoy]

If you add Hiram Smith, who had had access to the Dartmouth library, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and others, most certainly the authors of the BoM had access to it

Have you checked to make sure that Darmouth had a copy of the Laurence translation?

[MCB]

JS may have lacked an education, but he did not lack the ability to dupe people. He had honed that ability to a science in his previous attempts as a seer and treasure-digger.

And you present naked assumptions in saying that the BoM is sacred scripture.

My research is extensive, but I do not need to present the entirety of it here. I am sure that you are familiar with Dale's research base. You can go there and take a look at all the information for yourself.

We have differences in belief. I am presenting my own beliefs, based on my research, having started only with my own cultural heritage, and a stubborn, and misplaced indifference to the subjects involved. I have a right to my beliefs, and that cultural heritage, just as you do to yours. So long as you do not try to impose your beliefs on me, I will leave you be. That is one reason why I hesitated to re-enter this forum.

[MCB]

Is it your position that the Book of Mormon was written by committee?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "just a little piranha")

Yes, it is. I can deal with little nibblers, friend.

[MCB]

Have you checked to make sure that Darmouth had a copy of the Laurence translation?

I understand that there is ongoing research on that. However, that is only one option.

[USU78]

I understand that there is ongoing research on that. However, that is only one option.

Well . . . good luck with that, MCB.

BTW: thanks for acknowledging that you have no evidence to support your bald assertion, such that we may safely give it the weight it so richly deserves.

[consiglieri]

JS may have lacked an education, but he did not lack the ability to dupe people.

It sounds like you are adding a number of people to this category if the Book of Mormon was produced by committee.

I think you may want to keep the conspiratorial cognoscenti to a minimum as history shows the likelihood of somebody blowing the whistle goes up exponentially with each new confederate.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

And you present naked assumptions in saying that the BoM is sacred scripture.

The BoM is sacred scripture to LDS, regardless of whether or not what is in it is true.

[MCB]

Aww-- Volgadon and Consig, such civil responses. Both very reasonable ones.

[maklelan]

IMHO, the answer is no, if one follows in strict adherence to the stated topic, JS Jr was not very literate. He, by himself, probably had no access to I Enoch. That is the reason why he was chosen by his co-conspirators to take credit for the book.

If you add Hiram Smith, who had had access to the Dartmouth library, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and others, most certainly the authors of the BoM had access to it.

But this theory leaves you to explain why these co-conspirators cowed to Smith throughout their time in the church and continued to assert the reality of his calling even when they became enemies of the church. You're throwing pure conjecture into the face of all the evidence that has been preserved to us just because you can't reconcile a number of facts with Smith's authorship.

It would have made excellent material for replacing the lost 118 pages. Although, personally, it makes more sense to have moved Ether to the front of the book. Unless their goal was to change the meaning of some nebulous other source that never existed, according to certain people.

Once we expand the terms of the discussion, it is no longer an impossibility, it becomes a distinct probability.

You've expanded the terms of the discussion well beyond the extent of the evidence, though. There isn't a shred of evidence that the English translation of 1 Enoch came anywhere near any of the men you've mentioned. All we have is an advertisement appearing in a Palmyra publication for a book that makes very brief mention of 1 Enoch, which you can read on pp. 66-67 here. This can hardly be asserted to be the source of the type-scene as found in the Book of Mormon. "Distinct probability" is quite an exaggeration.

[MCB]

I don't think it is a distinct probability that any of these happened:

Joseph discovered some gold plates

Angels helped him translate them

Joseph was able to write the BoM by himself with either divine or demonic assistance.

So be careful about what you call a "distinct probability"

Your assumptions presume too much, just as you say that I presume too much.

[Joseph Antley]

The question of whether Joseph Smith had direct access to 1 Enoch is irrelevant. It's clear that regardless of whether or not 1 Enoch was in reach of him, it wasn't read by him. The Book of Mormon contains limitless allusions to the KJV of the Bible. Aside from the extensive quotations of Isaiah, Malachi, Exodus, and Matthew, there's also numerous quotations (often with interpolations) of other parts of the KJV, including especially Revelation and 1 Corinthians. If Joseph had been familiar with 1 Enoch, we would expect to see similar obvious allusions (and certainly some mention of Enoch). The fact that similarities between the Book of Mormon (and JST) and 1 Enoch are so superficial is evidence enough for most (whether believer or non-believer) that Joseph Smith was uninfluenced by the book.

[maklelan]

I don't think it is a distinct probability that any of these happened:

Joseph discovered some gold plates

Angels helped him translate them

Joseph was able to write the BoM by himself with either divine or demonic assistance.

So be careful about what you call a "distinct probability"

Your assumptions presume too much, just as you say that I presume too much.

I don't believe I called anything a "distinct probability." I did point out rather serious methodological problems with your claims, and those remain unaddressed.

[MCB]

I don't believe I called anything a "distinct probability." I did point out rather serious methodological problems with your claims, and those remain unaddressed.

There are rather serious methodological problems with any study of the BoM that presumes supernatural intervention.

[Kevin Christensen]

There are rather serious methodological problems with any study of the BoM that presumes supernatural intervention.

Just as there are with any study of the Book of Mormon that rules out supernatural intervention. The trick is to be able to fully define the problem that the Book of Mormon represents (something that I never seen any skeptic do) and then to provide a genuinely better explanation. "Better" meaning an approach that generates testable claims, provides accurate predictions, manages the most comprehensive and coherent explanation of text, context, and individual and community actions, has a satisfying simplicity and beauty, is fruitful, and has the most promise for the future. And note that all of the values count in weighing a paradigm. Saying, "He was a fake," or "a front man for a complex conspiracy whose members behaved in ways unmatched in the annals of human experience" may seem simple, for example, but fall short on the "comprehensive and coherent end," as well as the "generates testable claims" end.

When "better" means, "it may not explain much, but it does a bit and at least it doesn't involve angels," we see ideology posing as method.

The only way to fully define the problem that the Book of Mormon represents is to take it seriously, which means, considering Jerusalem 600 BCE, the Arabian Journey, and the New World context. Carefully, systematically, across a wide range of disciplines, accounting for what is now a formidable body of work. And not treating it like a soap bubble that disappears the moment that you come up with something like "King James quotations!" The King James issue is just a relatively small part of the problem that the Book of Mormon represents, and it has some surprising complexities. (See Welch on 3 Nephi, for example, or Ben McGuire on the allusions to the David story, for example.) Until we have a more comprehensive definition of the total problem that the book represents, we have no grounds for deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved?" (T. Kuhn).

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Mike Reed]

The fact that similarities between the Book of Mormon (and JST) and 1 Enoch are so superficial is evidence enough for most (whether believer or non-believer) that Joseph Smith was uninfluenced by the book.

Are you calling the parallels that David Bokovoy has found superficial?

[maklelan]

There are rather serious methodological problems with any study of the BoM that presumes supernatural intervention.

Another poor attempt at deflection, and again aimed at something that I have not said.

[Joseph Antley]

Are you calling the parallels that David Bokovoy has found superficial?

In a literary sense, absolutely.

[maklelan]

Are you calling the parallels that David Bokovoy has found superficial?

I think Bokovoy's point isn't that there's influence, but that there's a shared ideological matrix from which both authors are drawing.

[Joseph Antley]

I think Bokovoy's point isn't that there's influence, but that there's a shared ideological matrix from which both authors are drawing.

Agreed. Literarily, there is little in common between the two. But they do share this interesting biblical motif of the celestial ascent, which isn't due to direct influence between the two, but instead to a shared ancient Near Eastern heritage.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

JS may have lacked an education, but he did not lack the ability to dupe people. He had honed that ability to a science in his previous attempts as a seer and treasure-digger.

And you present naked assumptions in saying that the BoM is sacred scripture.

My research is extensive, but I do not need to present the entirety of it here. I am sure that you are familiar with Dale's research base. You can go there and take a look at all the information for yourself.

We have differences in belief. I am presenting my own beliefs, based on my research, having started only with my own cultural heritage, and a stubborn, and misplaced indifference to the subjects involved. I have a right to my beliefs, and that cultural heritage, just as you do to yours. So long as you do not try to impose your beliefs on me, I will leave you be. That is one reason why I hesitated to re-enter this forum.

Predictable. Unable to produce anything but assertions. I remain unconvinced and unimpressed.