Enoch quoted in the Book of Mormon??

[Bill the Cat]

A few months ago, someone asked me to review a Mormon Q&A (http://www.geocities.com/promormon/FAQ.html) that has been posted on several pro-Mormon sites. It was a large undertaking to be sure, and it took me a few months to research and complete the analysis. Below is a portion of that Q&A and my response...



Ancient Book of Enoch text quoted in Book of Mormon.

(From the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.2, Ch.1, Pg.8)

A quotation from an Enoch text occurs in the thirteenth chapter of Helaman. "Ye have trusted in your riches," Enoch tells the people. "Ye have not remembered the Lord in the day he gave you your riches." (Cf. Helaman 13:33.) This is also Samuel the Lamanite speaking, an expert in the scriptures; he knew all about these things. He had access to the plates of brass and other records. And here Enoch speaks in a writing not discovered until 1888: "Ye have not remembered the Lord in the days he gave you your riches; ye have gone astray that your riches shall not remain, because you have done evil in everything. Cursed are you and cursed are your riches."


Nibley was wrong. "Enoch" does not "tell the people" anything. The Book of Mormon doesn't say what Nibley writes here at all. Enoch's name isn't even mentioned in Helaman. Second, the quotations "Ye have trusted in your riches" and "Ye have not remembered the Lord in the day he gave you your riches" do not appear in Helaman 13:33. That verse reads


O that I had repented, and had not killed the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out. Yea, in that day ye shall say: O that we had remembered the Lord our God in the day that he gave us our riches, and then they would not have become slippery that we should lose them; for behold, our riches are gone from us.

In other words, Nibley changes: "O that we had remembered the Lord our God in the day that he gave us our riches" to "Ye have not remembered the Lord in the day he gave you your riches." But he doesn't say that he was changing anything. He says "cited from Helaman 13:33." And what about: "Ye have trusted in your riches"? The word trust is not even in Helaman 13:33. In fact, the phrase “trusted in” is not found anywhere in the entire book of Helaman (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/m/mormon/mormon-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=trusted+in&restrict=THE+BOOK+OF+HELAMAN&size=First+100).


NOTE: Nibley's citation, above, raises three interesting issues:
1. The text discovery took place in 1888. The Book of Mormon provides the citation in 1830. If the author of the Book of Mormon was not an ancient historian, how did know this?

Internal and external evidence fixes the origin of the Book of Enoch in the late Hellenistic or early Roman period. This would be sometime between 200 and 100 BC. How did “Samuel the Lamanite” get a hold of it if they came to the Americas in 600 BC?



2. The Book of Mormon has been criticized for using New Testament language before New Testament times. But the New Testament abounds with quotations from Enoch and other ancient writers. When the New Testament and the Book of Mormon both quote (without attribution, in the ancient style) from lost, ancient writings, it's going to look like the Book of Mormon is (to quote mark Twain) "smouched from the New Testament, and no credit given."

Enoch was written just before the NT era, and was widely read in the Palestinian area, as evidenced by the use in Jude’s epistle. But it was not written before 600 BC, so could not have been available for any supposed trans-oceanic voyage. As seen above, Nibley grasps at straws, which is par for the course with him.



3. I claimed earlier that it can be proven that the Book of Mormon repeatedly flies in the face of the best knowledge and belief of the 1800s, only to be proven exactly right by subsequent discoveries. This is a prime example. No one would be so stupid in an 1800's forgery as to expect a Bible-reading public not to recognize Bible phrases. But the ancient author of the Book of Mormon blythly cites his ancient sources (as Enoch, above) without attribution, thus ignorantly putting Joseph Smith's reputation in jeopardy.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the proof offered here is that the author didn’t bother to check on Nibley’s incorrect citation and that Enoch is not the source of this quote from the BOM.

[Sparko]

rats. foiled again.
--snidely whiplash.

[Krusader]

The riches being slippery is a reference to Smith's money digging exploits - it was believed that the riches would slip away from the diggers due to a spell.

[sjones10]

In other words, Nibley changes: "O that we had remembered the Lord our God in the day that he gave us our riches" to "Ye have not remembered the Lord in the day he gave you your riches." But he doesn't say that he was changing anything. He says "cited from Helaman 13:33."
"Cf." doesn't mean "cited from," it means "compare to." If it was meant to be a direct citation, only the scripture would be in the parentheses.

[OtherCheek]

Most of Nibley's works are directed toward members of the Church, Having read Nibley, don't see what you seem to see here. As I read it, he is pointing out a parallel between the events during Enoch's time and the events in the Book of Mormon at the time of Helaman.

Nibley is not attempting to make the case that BoM prophets are quoting Enoch. But he is making the case that the message is the same---that the riches of the people have become accursed because of the glory and pride they take in their great riches.

It is the parallel message that is the focus here. Now, is Samuel the Lamanite aware that there was an ancient prophet named Enoch? I am sure he was. Does he understand that these type of issues repeat themselves with the Lord's people? Sure he does.

And no. I don't buy into the idea that the records of Enoch were first written just before the Christian era. That would be a bad assertion.

[Bill the Cat]

"Cf." doesn't mean "cited from," it means "compare to." If it was meant to be a direct citation, only the scripture would be in the parentheses.

Regardless, Nibley says "A quotation from an Enoch text occurs in the thirteenth chapter of Helaman" Not a comparison, a quotation. If it were meant to be a comparison, then why call it a QUOTATION?

http://hughnibley.org/enoch-the-prophet-explained-by-hugh-nibley/2008/10/14/

[Bill the Cat]

Most of Nibley's works are directed toward members of the Church, Having read Nibley, don't see what you seem to see here. As I read it, he is pointing out a parallel between the events during Enoch's time and the events in the Book of Mormon at the time of Helaman.

That's not what was said. Nibley says that Enoch is QUOTED in Helaman 13:33. In fact, as he usually does, he says that Enoch is quoted "all over the Bible" which is utter nonsense. Captain parallel sees quotes where none exist.


Nibley is not attempting to make the case that BoM prophets are quoting Enoch. But he is making the case that the message is the same---that the riches of the people have become accursed because of the glory and pride they take in their great riches.

Sorry, OC, but you have to redefine "quotation" to make this statement true. And I must apologize for not citing the source of this OP for this thread.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/nibley.shtml



It is the parallel message that is the focus here. Now, is Samuel the Lamanite aware that there was an ancient prophet named Enoch? I am sure he was. Does he understand that these type of issues repeat themselves with the Lord's people? Sure he does.

Then Nibley should not have said that Enoch was QUOTED here.


And no. I don't buy into the idea that the records of Enoch were first written just before the Christian era. That would be a bad assertion.

It isn't assertion. It is dated the same way all ancient documents are. Unless you have scholarly evidence that it predates the Hellenistic period, yours alone is the bad assertion.

[OtherCheek]

It isn't assertion. It is dated the same way all ancient documents are. Unless you have scholarly evidence that it predates the Hellenistic period, yours alone is the bad assertion.

"riches shall not remain" "riches have become slippery". I see a parallel. I don't know if Samuel is "quoting" Enoch, but I do think he is echoing the same message.

I think this is one of many cases where common sense prevails over scholarship. Enoch wrote his own record like all prophets have.

[Bill the Cat]

I think this is one of many cases where common sense prevails over scholarship. Enoch wrote his own record like all prophets have.

Yet the Jews were ignorant of it until late in the second temple period? Sorry, but what you claim as "common sense" is nothing more than a desire to vindicate Nibley's error. Enoch did not write his own record, nor did anyone else. The books of Enoch are fiction.

[OtherCheek]

Yet the Jews were ignorant of it until late in the second temple period? Sorry, but what you claim as "common sense" is nothing more than a desire to vindicate Nibley's error. Enoch did not write his own record, nor did anyone else. The books of Enoch are fiction.

"riches shall not remain" "riches have become slippery". I see a parallel. I don't know if Samuel is "quoting" Enoch, but I do think he is echoing the same message.

Sorry. Apocryphal, yes. But not fiction.

[Bill the Cat]

"riches shall not remain" "riches have become slippery". I see a parallel.

Of course you do. you are desperate to support Nibley. Sorry, but the better parallel is the one Krusader showed where Joseph Smith's con of treasure digging would produce "slippery treasure".


I don't know if Samuel is "quoting" Enoch, but I do think he is echoing the same message.

Which begs the question that the Books of Enoch existed in 600 BC.



Sorry. Apocryphal, yes. But not fiction.

You have proof that any of the books of Enoch existed before the Hellenistic period?

[digits]

Of course you do. you are desperate to support Nibley. Sorry, but the better parallel is the one Krusader showed where Joseph Smith's con of treasure digging would produce "slippery treasure".



Which begs the question that the Books of Enoch existed in 600 BC.



You have proof that any of the books of Enoch existed before the Hellenistic period?

OC opens mouth and inserts foot.

[OtherCheek]

Of course you do. you are desperate to support Nibley. Sorry, but the better parallel is the one Krusader showed where Joseph Smith's con of treasure digging would produce "slippery treasure".



Which begs the question that the Books of Enoch existed in 600 BC.



You have proof that any of the books of Enoch existed before the Hellenistic period?

Common sense. Common sense and a little discernment tell me that the Book of Enoch has much inspired material in it, and it is not a piece of fiction. Common sense tells me that prophets have always kept records of their own prophecies, or that others have for them.

Enoch lived long before 600 B.C. btw.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Common sense tells me that Christ's church did not fail and needed to be restored in the 1800's. Common sense tells me a man cannot become God. Common sense tells me a teaching either is from God or it isn't.

Do you want to keep playing this Common sense game?

[Sparko]

OC, tell us what "common sense" is and why you refuse to use it in seeing that Smith was a false prophet because so many of his prophesies failed?

[Cow Poke]

Common sense. Common sense and a little discernment tell me....

Why is it that "common sense" seems always to vindicate Smith or various Mormon points of view, but the same "common sense" finds fault with the the biblical prophets and patriarchs, including Jesus?

[wonbyone]

OC, tell us what "common sense" is and why you refuse to use it in seeing that Smith was a false prophet because so many of his prophesies failed?

:hehe:

[Bill the Cat]

Common sense.

Sorry, but no.


Common sense and a little discernment tell me that the Book of Enoch has much inspired material in it,

Only the material that validates Joseph Smith's teachings, I'm sure... :ahem:


and it is not a piece of fiction.

Yes it is. It was written several hundreds of years after Enoch lived.


Common sense tells me that prophets have always kept records of their own prophecies, or that others have for them.

Prove Enoch was a prophet. Biblical sources only.


Enoch lived long before 600 B.C. btw.

Which is why I know that the Books of Enoch are fiction. They were written well after 600 BC, which is more evidence that Nibley was a cherry picking parallel-happy buffoon.