Enoch and the Durham E-Theses

[kryoung1983]

I have always had an interest in the Enoch literature and find it one of the most compelling evidences for Joseph Smith. The Mahijah/Mahujah connection seems to be a bulls eye. I know that the literature of the Enoch tradition is broken up mainly into 1, 2, and 3rd Enoch, and also fragments from the dead sea scrolls such as the book of the giants that could be considered 4th or 5th Enoch. There is a thesis that tried to tie the Mahijah/Mahujah connection to 1st Enoch. Something that I find hard since I have always felt that there were strong connections in later manuscripts that were not available In Josephs day. A masters thesis written by Salvatore Cirillo was written at Durham University. I think a Stanford Study was also done that argued for more naturalistic explanations. Has anyone read these papers and what are your arguments against them, or how relevant do you think their arguments are? Has BYU or FAIR ever done anything addressing the issues raised by scholars that are trying to reassess the divine nature of these sections. I know that our scholars can't address every issue, or publication, but I am curious what those that are more learned then me thought of these publications.

 

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, kryoung1983 said:

I have always had an interest in the Enoch literature and find it one of the most compelling evidences for Joseph Smith. The Mahijah/Mahujah connection seems to be a bulls eye. I know that the literature of the Enoch tradition is broken up mainly into 1, 2, and 3rd Enoch, and also fragments from the dead sea scrolls such as the book of the giants that could be considered 4th or 5th Enoch. There is a thesis that tried to tie the Mahijah/Mahujah connection to 1st Enoch. Something that I find hard since I have always felt that there were strong connections in later manuscripts that were not available In Josephs day. A masters thesis written by Salvatore Cirillo was written at Durham University. I think a Stanford Study was also done that argued for more naturalistic explanations. Has anyone read these papers and what are your arguments against them, or how relevant do you think their arguments are? Has BYU or FAIR ever done anything addressing the issues raised by scholars that are trying to reassess the divine nature of these sections. I know that our scholars can't address every issue, or publication, but I am curious what those that are more learned then me thought of these publications.

 

So far it seems you are the only one here with any acquaintance with this material.

It sounds very interesting to me- maybe rather than asking us to help you maybe you could help us with more info and links to material that you know about so that we could learn from you? 

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, kryoung1983 said:

I have always had an interest in the Enoch literature and find it one of the most compelling evidences for Joseph Smith. The Mahijah/Mahujah connection seems to be a bulls eye. I know that the literature of the Enoch tradition is broken up mainly into 1, 2, and 3rd Enoch, and also fragments from the dead sea scrolls such as the book of the giants that could be considered 4th or 5th Enoch. There is a thesis that tried to tie the Mahijah/Mahujah connection to 1st Enoch. Something that I find hard since I have always felt that there were strong connections in later manuscripts that were not available In Josephs day. A masters thesis written by Salvatore Cirillo was written at Durham University. I think a Stanford Study was also done that argued for more naturalistic explanations. Has anyone read these papers and what are your arguments against them, or how relevant do you think their arguments are? Has BYU or FAIR ever done anything addressing the issues raised by scholars that are trying to reassess the divine nature of these sections. I know that our scholars can't address every issue, or publication, but I am curious what those that are more learned then me thought of these publications.

You need to be familiar with at least three key books:

Hugh Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, CWHN 2 (FARMS/Deseret, 1986), online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/enoch-the-prophet/ .

Samuel Zinner, Textual and Comparative Explorations in 1 & 2 Enoch (Interpreter Foundation/Eborn Books, 2014).

James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Doubleday, 1983/1985), I:5-315.

And with a couple of articles:

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and David J. Larsen, “Ancient Affinities within the LDS Book of Enoch Part One,” Interpreter, 4 (2013): 1-27, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/ancient-affinities-within-the-lds-book-of-enoch-part-one/ .

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and David J. Larsen, “Ancient Affinities within the LDS Book of Enoch Part Two,” Interpreter, 4 (2013): 29-74, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/ancient-affinities-within-the-lds-book-of-enoch-part-two/ .  In n. 26, it is clear that Nibley, Zucker, Cirillo, Quinn, Bradshaw and Larsen all missed the simplest parallel for  Baurak Ale as biblical Hebrew Barak'el (KJV Barachel) in Job 32:2,6.

Otherwise, it will make no sense to read the M.A. thesis of Salvatore Cirillo, "Joseph Smith, Mormonism and the Enochic Tradition," Durham Univ., May 2010, online at http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/236/ .  Cirillo cites and discusses the 2009 Stanford University study results therein.  Bradshaw & Larsen reply to these studies.

The book of One Enoch was once part of both the Jewish and Christian Canon (as they remain in Ethiopia), and the intertextual parallels within the Bible alone are tremendous.

 

[boblloyd91]

On October 15, 2016 at 6:10 PM, kryoung1983 said:

I have always had an interest in the Enoch literature and find it one of the most compelling evidences for Joseph Smith. The Mahijah/Mahujah connection seems to be a bulls eye. I know that the literature of the Enoch tradition is broken up mainly into 1, 2, and 3rd Enoch, and also fragments from the dead sea scrolls such as the book of the giants that could be considered 4th or 5th Enoch. There is a thesis that tried to tie the Mahijah/Mahujah connection to 1st Enoch. Something that I find hard since I have always felt that there were strong connections in later manuscripts that were not available In Josephs day. A masters thesis written by Salvatore Cirillo was written at Durham University. I think a Stanford Study was also done that argued for more naturalistic explanations. Has anyone read these papers and what are your arguments against them, or how relevant do you think their arguments are? Has BYU or FAIR ever done anything addressing the issues raised by scholars that are trying to reassess the divine nature of these sections. I know that our scholars can't address every issue, or publication, but I am curious what those that are more learned then me thought of these publications.

 

Thanks for bringing up the Mahijah/Mahujah connection, as it sparked a memory from an institute class I had some years back. If I recall, it was brought to Nibley's attention by a colleague from another university who was aware of Nibley's faith and areas of expertise. I will have to look up what Robert posted.