Enoch the Prophet

The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley #2

by Hugh Nibley, Stephen D. Ricks (Editor)

n the book of Moses, we find what Joseph Smith entitled "extracts from the prophecy of Enoch." Dr. Hugh Nibley says of these verses: "The excerpts. . . in the Pearl of Great Price supply us with the most valuable control yet on the bona fides of the Prophet. . . We are to test. . . 'How does it compare with records known to be authentic?' The excerpts offer the nearest thing to a perfectly foolproof test — neat, clear-cut, and decisive — of Joseph Smith's claim to inspiration." In Enoch the Prophet, Dr. Nibley examines and solidly defends that claim by examining Joseph Smith's translations in the context of recently discovered apocryphal sources. This second volume in The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley includes four chapters: "Enoch the Prophet," "The Enoch Figure," "The Book of Enoch as Theodicy," and "A Strange Thing in The Land: The Return of the Book of Enoch." Dr. Nibley writes: "We have been told that if we stop seeking, we shall not only find no more but lose the treasures we already have. That is why it is not only advisable but urgent that we begin to pay attention to that last astonishing outpouring of ancient writings that is the peculiar blessing of our generation. Among these writings, the first and most important is the book of Enoch."

Genres: Religion, Lds, Nonfiction, History, Church, Mormonism

309 pages, Hardcover

First published September 1, 1986

About the author

Hugh Winder Nibley was one of Mormonism's most celebrated scholars. Nibley is notable for his extensive research and publication on ancient languages and culture, his vigorous defense of doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and for frankly discussing what he saw as the shortcomings of the LDS people and culture.

A prolific author and professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, he was fluent in over ten languages, including Classical Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian, Coptic, Arabic, German, French, English, and Spanish languages. He also studied Dutch and Russian during World War II.

In addition to his efforts as a scholar, Nibley was well known for writings and lectures on LDS scripture and doctrinal topics, many of which were published in LDS Church magazines. His book “An Approach to the Book of Mormon” was used as a lesson manual for the LDS Church in 1957.

Reviews

[Bryce · Rating 4 out of 5]

The next book to read in my collection of Nibley works is Enoch the Prophet. Enoch is perhaps the most overlooked prophet of the Old Testament, yet perhaps the most important.

From the few verses in Genesis, we learn that Enoch's prophesying led to an entire city-state being "taken up into Heaven" by the Lord. What did Enoch teach that could inspire such righteousness and devotion to the Lord? Can we still learn these things anywhere?

Perhaps one day we will have more of Enoch's writings and will learn and feel those things that will allow us to be taken into heaven and dwell with God. Perhaps this book will be the first step...?

[Leesa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hugh Nibley takes a while to get into his style of writing, but it's worth it. My husband and I read this out loud to each other and it's compairing the dead sea scrolls with the pearl of great price. You learn a ton about Enoch and the great city of Enoch. It's fascinating!!!

[Amanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is definitely old school, myth and ritual Nibley, but it's also a good general introduction into the Enoch manuscripts. I'd like to read an updated book on Enoch literature (Nickelsberg has done phenomenal work on the topic) before critiquing this book.

[thethousanderclub · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enoch the Prophet is the third volume in the collected works of Hugh Nibley. After having read only three volumes, I already feel the immense wait of Nibley's work. The man was truly prolific. As with his other works, Enoch the Prophet is a dive into the deep-end of the academic and theological pool, and I think the water is lovely.

As the title of the volume suggests, Enoch the Prophet is an exploration of the prophet Enoch as found within Latter-day Saint canon and doctrine, as well as found in ancient texts. It is in the ancient text that Latter-day Saints will find the most intriguing comparisons. Enoch is hardly mentioned in the Old Testament—albeit he is referenced by Jude in the New Testament, which I did not realize until reading this book. Joseph Smith revealed additional scripture in the Pearl of Great Price that showcases Enoch and his prophecies. In fact, some of the most empathetic insights into God we have are found in Enoch's words, as revealed by Joseph Smith. Nibley recognizes this and spends a tremendous amount of time comparing some of those most unique doctrines with the writings found in ancient texts. Are the same themes found? Are the same events chronicled? Nibley is enthusiastic in his comparative study and asserts the similarities between the Pearl of Great Price record and the little known and little studied (up to that point) ancient texts is some of the most convincing evidence we have of Joseph's prophetic calling.

Not being a trained theologian, it is interesting to me to read about some of the academic methodologies for studying ancient texts. Furthermore, I didn't know something like theodicy even existed. When discussing the doctrine of Christ, D. Todd Christofferson once said that some "faith traditions" rely on "ecumenical councils of the Middle Ages and their creeds. Other place primary emphasis on the reasoning of post-apostolic theologians or on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis." Reading Nibley has given me some insight into those esoteric corners of human knowledge and study. The finding and studying of ancient documents and how they compare to biblical texts causes contention and debate in the Christian world. Yet, to be frank, the great majority of Christians, and most Latter-day Saints, aren't paying much attention. I'm not suggesting they have to in order to solidify their faith, but I have found this information presented by Nibley to be challenging and affirming. It seems obvious after reading Nibley that the Lord is at work in many ways I hadn't fully appreciated before.

Enoch the Prophet opens several doors I didn't even know existed. I learned more about my own faith and its canon, as well as more about the nature of ancient texts and why they would be relevant and important to us today. This book, like Nibley's other books, is not for the casual reader. These volumes require work and intellectual effort. I highly recommend them but only for those willing to pay the price to understand them.

http://thethousanderclub.blogspot.com/

[Chad · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I moved up to Washington to attend graduate school, I left a massive library of books, including a (near) complete set of the works of Hugh Nibley. I haven't have the chance to read them all the way through as of yet, so I was hoping to find some time between parties and other shenanigans to read one or two volumes. I settled on *Enoch the Prophet* because it was a slim 300 pages, and I was more likely to get all the way through.

*Enoch* started my first adolescent obsession with Nibley. Nibley to me was the first name I associated with Mormon scholarship, and embodied a deeper level of faith and study that I yearned to achieve. During my mission, I made the happy discovery that Nibley had published an extensive series on the lost Book of Enoch in the Ensign between 1976 and 1977 titled *A Strange Thing in the Land*. As these were available online, and were technically appropriate reading material for a missionary, I printed off the whole thing, but wasn't able to successfully read it in its entirely. *A Strange Thing* makes up most of the volume *Enoch the Prophet.*

I have mixed feelings about Nibley now that I have read quite a bit of his writing, as well as much written by other Mormon scholars since. Nibley is an amazing scholar, in the breadth of topics he is able to write about and the number of sources he is able to draw on. But, and perhaps this is my layman perspective, that can also lead to rather drawn-out works that begin to feel repetitive, and quite probably will put you to sleep.

Nibley also is from a different era of Mormon scholarship, one dedicated to a different approach to apologetics that now to me feels forced, at times feeling unimaginative, and at others feeling even a little deceptive. When I learn more about history, I usually feel like I have to do an update, try to regroup what I know because not everything conveniently fits into the Mormon perspective that I grew up with. But for Nibley, it feels like everything he draws upon conveniently fits into Mormonism's grand narrative. From his arguments, you would be surprised that every scholar of history and religion hasn't converted to Mormonism by now, because every discovery seems to support Joseph Smith's revelations!

But Hugh Nibley is definitely a force to be reckoned with, as evidenced by this tribute to him in a publication by an Evangelical seminary I stumbled upon at one point titled *Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?*:

*The few evangelicals who are aware of Hugh Nibley often dismiss him as a fraud or a pseudo-scholar. Those who would like to quickly dismiss his writings would do well to heed Madsen's warning: "Ill-wishing critics have suspected over the years that Nibley is wrenching his sources, hiding behind his footnotes, and reading into antique languages what no responsible scholar would ever read out. Unfortunately, few have the tools to do the checking." The bulk of Nibley's work has gone unchallenged by evangelicals despite the fact that he has been publishing relevant material since 1946. Nibley's attitude towards evangelicals: "We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes."*

https://www.cometozarahemla.org/other...

I wanted to address a few central ideas covered in *Enoch the Prophet* that are simultaneously fascinating, but also don't sit completely will with me in some of their implications. As usual, I am impressed with Hugh Nibley, because of his stalwart faith in the prophet Joseph, taking everything completely at face value. Hugh Nibley doesn't need to try to explain away anything at all, or try to frame it in the proper context. He defends it where he sees it. It is a different temperament and a different approach than my own faith, but one that I appreciate nonetheless.


## Gnosticism and mysteries

First: gnosticism. If you aren't familiar with gnosticism, here's a definition from Wikipedia: *a modern name for the variety of ancient religious ideas and systems, originating in the Jewish-Christian milieux in the first and second century AD. These systems believed that the material world is created by an emanation of the highest God, trapping the divine spark within the human body. This divine spark could be liberated by gnosis. Some of the core teachings include the following:*

1. All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit realm is good.
2. There is an unknowable God, who gave rise to many lesser spirit beings called Aeons.
3. The creator of the material universe is not the supreme God, but an inferior spirit.
4. Gnosticism doesn't deal with sin, only ignorance.
5. To achieve salvation, one needs to get in touch with secret knowledge.

While Mormon doctrine doesn't align completely with these teachings, there are some themes that definitely stick out: the idea of a multitude of gods, and the importance of secret or knowledge only attainable from a correct source (think temple). Nibley finds this idea of secret knowledge one of the key themes of the Enoch literature:

*Part of the book's appeal is its necessary secrecy, "revealed to the Eons in the End-time." It is a secret, a special writing, only for the initiates. "'It is given to you to write it down,'" says the Lord to John, "'and it must be put in a safe place.' Then he said to me, 'Cursed shall be whoever gives it away as a gift or in return for food, drink, clothing, or anything of that nature.'" Then he handed the mysterion to John and immediately vanished. Such writings as are made known are carefully rationed: "Some things thou shalt publish, and some thou shalt deliver in secret to the wise"; or, in another Ezra text, "These words shalt thou publish openly, but those thou shalt hide," twenty-four books being published and sevently withheld.*

*The tradition of secrecy began with Enoch: When Enoch found the Book of Adam and read it, "he knew that the human race would not be able to receive it. So he hid it again, and it remained hidden until Noah." But the practice began with Adam, who received a golden book from Michael, and "hid it in the crevice of a rock."*

I shiver a little when anyone implies the need for such secret knowledge, because it seems that there is no check on such a claim. The approach to truth in the university setting is built into the system, what Jonathan Haidt calls *institutional disconformation*: arguments that can't hold their weight in the literal battleground of academia are discarded, letting bad ideas fall by the wayside. The ultimate test of truth is that it can stand the test of time on its own without any props. But secret knowledge that can't be questioned and can only be attained by the few entering certain rituals seems to counter my experience with truth. It reminded me of a retort by Stephen Fry in a debate over *The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in the World*. In it, Anne Widdecombe accused Stephen Fry of oversimplifying the doctrine of limbo, the spiritual state where, among other people, unbaptized babies go, unable to reach heaven. Fry snapped back:

*I make no apology for apparently not understanding the theology of Thomas Aquinus or Augustan of Hippo or the Council of Trent, and all the others that ruled on limbo. Don't tell me there's some magisterial and mystical reason behind limbo that I'm too stupid to understand! That's not good enough, it really isn't.*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZRcY...

I am going to have to stand by Fry on this one, and not because I want to take a stab at another fellow Christian believer, but because I think we are at times grossly irresponsible with our doctrine, secret or no.

The other curious thing about secret doctrines is the fact that as a Church, Latter-Day Saints seems to be increasingly stepping away from deep and secret doctrines, discussed so in depth in Nibley's book here. I remember reading this article that is clearly in response to the works of Denver Snuffer at a FAIR Conference:

*A spiritual threat is influencing some Church members: the notion that "the Church has lost its way. Church leaders are not inspired or in favor with God, so God has raised up new leaders outside the Church hierarchy whose visions and teachings are important for us to follow..."*

*They embrace a particular set of assumptions and interpretations that I am going to call, for our purposes today, 'gnosticism'... the belief that esoteric knowledge-- hidden, deep doctrine-- is necessary for fulfilling our spiritual potential, and that seeking for it is more spiritually advanced.*

https://www.lds.org/church/news/fairm...

## Conservative authority in the past

Nibley emphasizes the ancient origin of all truth: Christianity didn't originate in AD 33, but rather is part of one great whole gospel of Jesus Christ that has been around since the days of Adam. The Book of Enoch is just one part of this great pattern. Enoch follows the pattern of all prophets in the Mormon tradition: burying a record to come forth at some future day. Of course, the greatest example is the Book of Mormon, but Nibley pulls out many other examples of the importance of writing and having correct records, including Adam's Book of Remembrance, and Christ correcting the Nephite records in the 3 Nephi. It reminded me of Joseph Spencer's analysis of Isaiah, whom he adds to this tradition:

*Isaiah’s task as prophet was (as Isaiah 6 makes clear) to address himself to a people hardened in advance against his message, with the result (as Isaiah 8 makes clear) that he found it necessary to write and then to seal up his prophecies for a later generation that would be prepared to receive them. Because he was called to prophesy, but to a people who couldn’t receive his word, he helped to launch an era during which prophecy was understood to be directed to a later age rather than to the prophet’s own people. And that’s why it was to be written down.*

But the interesting thing about this writing tradition is what I see as again the Mormon impulse to merge the priestly with the prophetic. The importance of preserving tradition was a role of the priest, according to Weber, whom Lowell Bennion quotes here:

*Weber described prophets as men who spoke "as one having authority" out of their own calling. They broke with the existing order; they were critics of the immoralities and religious formalities of their people, such as I've illustrated with Isaiah and Micah. Like Jesus, they were revolutionary in their day: "It is written . . . but I say unto you." Jesus didn't reject the old, but he gave a new thrust and a different emphasis to that which had gone before: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matthew 23:23.)*

*Prophets try to get people to put religion in perspective, to see it in terms of great fundamentals and in terms of ethics as well as theology. Prophets have never been bound by the past. They speak for God afresh in the interest of man, in the light of the great ideals of religion, and in the light of God's purpose and character. The other type of religious leader, Weber calls a priest. By this he means a man in any faith whose primary concern is to conserve the religion of the founder—of a Moses or Christ, for example. The priest canonizes scripture, refines doctrine, establishes tradition, records history, performs sacred rites and sacraments. In this way he builds and maintains the church, welding the believers into a meaningful fellowship.*

The prophets in this tradition are ones who come to tear down incorrect traditions, layers and layers of "good ideas" that have clouded the central aspects of the pure and simple gospel (channeling Uchtdorf here):

*But this may present a problem for some because there are so many “shoulds” and “should nots” that merely keeping track of them can be a challenge. Sometimes, well-meaning amplifications of divine principles—many coming from uninspired sources—complicate matters further, diluting the purity of divine truth with man-made addenda. One person’s good idea—something that may work for him or her—takes root and becomes an expectation. And gradually, eternal principles can get lost within the labyrinth of “good ideas.”*

I think as a tradition that does try to maintain a prophetic aspect is good: but has the prophetic been reduced to merely the priestly?

## Good versus evil

The next idea is the clear separation between good people and evil people that Nibley stresses in the book. Nibley explains the two groups that arose shortly after Adam and Even left in the garden: the camp of the Cainites and the righteous posterity of Adam. Similar splits are illustrated in the Book of Mormon (Nephites and Lamanites). It seems like it should always be easy to identify the camp of the righteous and everyone else (the wicked) if you have on the right spiritual glasses. Enoch himself is associated with the city that was taken up into heaven because of their righteousness.

The redeeming aspect of Enoch that is brought to the fore is Enoch's (and God's) suffering at the plight of the wicked, hitting on the theme of the God who weeps that Terryl Givens has also masterfully written about:

*There is no gloating in heaven over the fate of the wicked world of Noah; it is Enoch who leads in the weeping, but the surprising thing is that God himself weeps! "When God wept over the destruction of the Temple, Metatron fell on his face and said: 'I will weep, but weep not thou!' God answered and said: 'If thou wilt not suffer me to weep, I will go wither thou canst not come and there will I lament.'"...*

*God does not say to the holy man who is afflicted by the fate of the wicked, "Who are you to question what I do?" He does not blast Enoch or Abraham or Baruch or Ezra or the Brother of Jared or Job on the spot for daring to question his mercy, but on the contrary commends each for his concern for his fellowman and he explains in effect, "I known just how you feel; what you fail to understand is not that I had good reason for doing what had to be done, but that I feel much worse about it that you ever could!"*

While I am grateful for this context, it still doesn't feel complete. But wrestling with the existence of evil and suffering in the world isn't an easy not to untie, and it is one that I suppose will always be wrestled with. I wanted to add my appreciation for some insights from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks who actually finds Noah wanting in his response to evil in the world:

*Noah's gift was that, living through a time of widespread evil, he was not affected by it. He was unmoved. But he was also unable to grow. The Jewish sages heard in the phrase 'righteous in his generations' a sublte criticism. Relative to his generation, he was righteous but in absolute terms he was not.*

*What was Noah's failure, according to the classic commentators? Told that there would be a flood and that he should build an ark, he busied himself in the labour. The text goes out of the way to emphasize his obedience, stating no less than three times that Noah did 'exactly as God had commanded him.' Throughout the whole of the narrative-- the warning of the deluge, the building of the ark, the gathering of the animals, the beginning of the rain- Noah says nothing. The silence, in contrast, with the dialogues of Adam and Cain have with God, is unmistakable.*

*Noah's failure is that, righteous in himself, he had no impact on his contemporaries. He does not engage with them, rebuke them or urge them to mend their ways. Nor does he pray for them questioning the justice of the Flood, as Abraham was later to do for the people of the cities of the plain.*

This paints a different view of righteousness that doesn't quite come through in Nibley's writing, and is a model of righteousness perhaps not emphasized in Mormonism in general. We do tend to isolate. We take the model of Zion, of the righteous remnant, standing in holy places, apart of the world, as our model. And this is Nibley's interpretation of Enoch as well.

[Joe Atwood · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tedious after the beginning, especially in its line-by-line comparisons, but if you've the strength to finish (or even give it a good start), you can get two or three philosophy-changing "a-ha!" moments. Do not read late at night.

[Keith · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you can’t get access to the book, there is a series of magazine articles covering Enoch. The magazine articles are readily accessible through the Gospel Library app.

“A Strange Thing In the Land, The Return of the Book of Enoch”

Part 1: Ensign, October 1975
Part 2: Ensign, December 1975
Part 3: Ensign, February, 1976
Part 5: Ensign, April 1976
Part 6:: Ensign, July, 1976
Part 7: Ensign, October 1976
Part 8: Ensign, December 1976
Part 9: Ensign, February 1977
Part : Ensign, March 1977
Part 11: Ensign, April 1977
Part 12: Ensign, June 1977
Part 13: Ensign, August 1977 - the last installment

Another resource is:
https://nibley.lib.byu.edu/tag/book-o...

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fans of Hugh Nibley will love this book, which takes a few verses of the Pearl of Great Price and explains them as the Book of Enoch, with comparisons to many apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls documents, and so on that have been discovered more recently than the ancient Book of Enoch was translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith. This and Nibley's other works have greatly enhanced my understanding and study of the scriptures.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

I cannot believe that I have read this massive volume on the restricted view of my phone screen. It has been a wonderful experience and very enlightening. I enjoy reading Nibley and this is perhaps the fifth volume in the series of his collected works that I have read. I always have to read every page.
I am always in awe of the breadth of abilities demonstrated by Nibley in his writing. The last few pages listing the bibliography showed works of many languages and of hundreds of volumes.

[Erneilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

An insightful look at the Enoch literature which has come to light in the the past century and compared to the Enoch story as recorded by Joseph Smith. I particularly love the counterargument to the "angry God" that so many atheists deplore when addressing the story of the flood. God is indeed the God who weeps.

[T.K. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I like to think I'm pretty smart, but this book challenged that assumption. I'm not sure if it's his writing style or my ignorance of the topic (I really hope it's not the latter), but I can't follow this. It's tortuous. I do like it when other people give me quotes from it, but I just can't slog through it. :(

[Wendy Anglin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book changed my perspective on so much. I love the clarity Hugh Nibley gives to this highly speculated upon subject. I have read this before and it taught me so much that I am ready to read it again.

[Joshua Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Intriguing as always, the scholarship of Dr. Nibley warrants consideration and thoughtful digestion. This work presented many interesting comparisons that showed strange, odd ecchoes of gospel topics through ancient sources. As with any Nibley, I don't regret reading.

[David Hibberd · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Hugh Nibley examines Joseph Smith Jr's writings of Enoch found in the Pearl of Great Price. He compares it to dozens of modern translations of apocalyptic writings. There are many similarities found in these works with that of Joseph Smith's Book of Moses. Of all the modern translations only one was written during Joseph's lifetime but would not have been available to him.
This is an excellent look at the life of the prophet Enoch.

[Dean · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

[Spencer Willardson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really interesting and detailed look at evidence for Enoch that was found after Joseph Smith translated the Book of Moses. Lots of interesting tidbits. Quite detailed in the Nibley way.

[Sariah Hartley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Since this is just a compilation of his notes/works it’s a bit hard to digest, but there were some definite nuggets throughout.

[Collette · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read the second time. Very interesting

[Kristopher Swinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.8. The extent and totality of review, and the intrigue of presentation, were excellent—even more so in the second half. (Though he called it, modestly, on 126, a “dull and sketchy summary.”) My one critique, even if I’m charged with craziness or not having the intelligence to back this audacity, is that not every possible parallel Nibley can draw must therefore be fact. Some connections are striking (including, surprisingly Hesiod, on 50-51), but others really are “too far afield” (48), for “of comparative studies there is no end, but where do they lead us?” (53, and he’s still at it on 155-159). He’s playful about it, which heightens our own entertainment, but I wish he didn’t weave patterns into his narrative with essentially equal weight. Still, the “burden” of Nibley’s vision always was acknowledgment that “ancient records do not, contrary to a once popular belief, simply spring into existence out of wild Oriental imaginations but, as ever-expanding research makes ever plainer, must always be assumed to have some kind of a historical kernel of reality” (255). With the aid of ancient texts, he is prepared to open eyes to the fact that spiritual creation (240), and many other such doctrines, were taught long before people accused Joseph Smith of fabricating it.

Following an extended character sketch, Nibley masterfully not only recounts, but substantiates, the history of Enoch manuscripts from antiquity to present. A plain picture emerges of its rejection first by Jews when Christians accepted it (119), then by Christians (who had initially treated it with considerable warmth) as they turned from truth, and its later ready acceptance only among Latter-day Saints, something warranted further by unexpected discoveries in other quarters (see 116, 124-125, 270). Few men can show up the folly of early church Fathers as resoundingly and wryly as Nibley, and that’s always fun! If any man could put his finger on what ailed ancient scribes, he could. Witness his pinpointing of text which was “offensive to the doctors with their monistic obsession,” which “effectively silenced the old teaching of creation as a process” (237). He skillfully exposes intellectual or clerical dogmatism (102), particularly in those areas where science itself is beginning to take note (193-194). We laugh aloud at the sarcastic, “Perish the thought that Enoch really wrote it!” (more or less expressed between 118 and 123).

One may appreciate his extensive “A Strange Thing in the Land” as more than a backdrop for salvaging Enoch: it is a magnum opus for arguing that sealing records up to the Lord is—far from being a way or even the best way-pretty much the only way (131-132) to preserve truths for future generations (see 148). Nibley demonstrates convincingly, in point after point after point, that in producing an ancient Enoch text, Joseph Smith provided “enough rope to hang any imposter twenty times over” (137). Yet we experience instead the bolstering (106-113) testimony that Joseph Smith could not have been influenced by any Enoch manuscripts—unavailable by every account—but instead produced a work that actually brought sense to the relatively few portions of each that scholars later agreed formed some meaningful core. In this respect, his interlinear columns were exceedingly useful. I, for one, noted how the revealed account gives glory of creation to the Father through the Son (249), whereas the corrupted text invariably (249-250) returns to that monistic obsession of saying the Father did it alone.

The Mahijah connection tacked gleefully onto the end lacks premeditated luster, but is interesting nonetheless. One last thought: I must give Nibley more credit than I once did for wise forbearance. To the astute and genuinely religious reader, there is unending comparison with truths we appreciate through the temple. Our dear author seems to have done us a favor in sometimes shifting text so it could be more apparent to those with eyes to see, but deliberately held his tongue from connecting the dots.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of most fascinating books I've ever read. Using both ancient scriptures and modern revelations, Professor Nibley brings together everything we know about the prophet Enoch, and then some. I took my time reading it, to make sure I didn't miss anything, because tons of info is packed into this book. Hundreds of scholarly works are referenced, and in his discussions about Enoch, he reveals the meat of ancient writings recently discovered, which discuss Enoch. Not a book for the feint of heart. But if you have the courage, you will be guaranteed to learn something new.

[Doris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good. As with Vol. 1, somewhat repetitive, but the intro says to expect this since it's really a compilation of essays on the same topic. I was fascinated by the declaration that early fathers of the church, 400 A.D. or so not only declared the Book of Enoch non-canonical, but actually destroyed many copies because the hedonistic influence on the church from Greek philosphers completely changed their understanding of the gospel. Equally fascinating is that recent findings of fragments of the book all show what a deep understanding Enoch had of the cosmos.

[Margie · Rating 3 out of 5]

As usual, Dr. Nibley has researched and documented his writing to the hilt. Whenever I read his books he surprises me with new information that is there for the taking to anyone who looks, but wouldn't otherwise be common knowledge. I learned some new things about Enoch, Adam, Eve and a few other famous Ancients. Definitely worth reading, though I struggled through some of the lengthy documentation.

[Jake · Rating 1 out of 5]

Although Nibley has a great sense of humor, and is extremely well-read in a number of languages, when he starts talking about proof for Mormon scripture he uses shoddy scholarship.

To understand Nibley's approach to scholarship, see:
Salmon, Douglas F. "Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-day Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Subconscious? Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 129-156.

[Terry Earley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have been reading this on and off for a year or more. Have owned it for more than 20.

Difficult reading, but well worth it.

An important study on the central role Enoch plays in religious literature for thousands of years. Often very surprising. A must read for LDS.

[Max Evans · Rating 3 out of 5]

Of all the Nibley books I've read this one I probably liked the least. It is very repetitive. I believe that all the salient points in this book could probably be made in a long article. The points that are made though are very interesting.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good, if not appolegetic and repetative. Hugh was great for what he was - Modern Mormonism was lucky to have him. Not likely another will ever come along.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Colossal amount of research. Nibley has done his homework.

[Todd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sounds frighteningly familiar.

[Rebecca · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well done. Amazing references to Enoch stories in several ancient civilizations. I had no idea this story was almost as universal as the flood story.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was probably one of my favorite Nibley books so far. I really enjoyed it and learned a lot.