<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting insight into a debate among Mormons
Review: Not being a member of the the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) I find myself a little at sea with this material, but for an outsider the book does present some interest in that Nibley is a respected Mormon scholar who advocates that the Book of Mormon (Hellaman 13:33) quotes Book of Enoch. As such Nibley is one of the main points of reference for the many members of LDS who respect the Book of Enoch. However in reading outside this book one finds that other Mormon scholars (notably Kent Jackson of BYU) reject both the Book of Enoch and Nibley's arguments.As to the book itself, it is probably of very limited utility to anyone with an interest in pseudepigrapha - anyone wanting to know about Enoch outside the LDS context would go to an academic writer (Nickelsburg, Vanderkam) or editor (Charlesworth) - but it does shed light on why some Mormons consider Book of Enoch semi-inspired. Personally I find Nibley's evidence for traces of Enoch in the book of Mormon extremely weak - nothing more than a very vague similarity. The first translation in English of 1Enoch, by Richard Laurence, was published in 1821 but was not widely available in America - and appears not to have been known to early Mormons.
Rating: 
Summary: The loss and rediscovery of Enoch and comparisons to LDS
Review: This erudite study includes essays discussing various Enoch texts, their suppression and loss, and more recent recovery, and even more recent appreciation in New Testament and Judaic studies. He includes essays on The Book of Enoch as a Theodicy (justification of the ways of God to man), a wide-ranging comparison of the themes of the Enoch literature with some of the oldest Egyptian, Greek, and Babylonian myths. Finally, he extensively compares the contents of the recently recovered Enoch texts from Ethiopia, Qumran, Slavonic, etc. with the Enoch material produced by Joseph Smith in 1830. Altogether mind-expanding and provocative.
<< 1 >>
| 
