Ancient Echoes and Modern Texts: Reexamining the Enoch Parallels in Joseph Smith’s Revelation

What the Dead Sea Scrolls Reveal About Joseph Smith's Enoch

(Because readers approach this question from different theological starting points, I’ve also prepared a companion essay here, written specifically for a Latter-day Saint audience.)

Abstract:

This article reexamines the parallels between Joseph Smith’s nineteenth-century account of Enoch and a body of ancient Jewish literature, most notably the Book of Giants preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rather than arguing from isolated similarities, the study focuses on constrained correspondences—rare names, narrative roles, and structural sequencing—that are absent from the Genesis account and from Enochic texts available in English during Smith’s lifetime. Without attempting to resolve theological questions of canon or authority, the article frames the Enoch parallels as a historical puzzle that invites careful, open-minded consideration.

Introduction

In 1948, the accidental discovery of ancient manuscripts near Qumran transformed modern understanding of Second Temple Judaism. Among the texts recovered were fragmentary writings known collectively as the Book of Giants, which expand on the biblical figure of Enoch. These fragments, composed in Aramaic and preserved for nearly two millennia, contain distinctive narrative elements that were previously unknown to modern readers.

More than a century earlier, in 1830, Joseph Smith dictated a lengthy account of Enoch that departs significantly from the brief biblical references in Genesis. Over time, scholars noted that certain features of Smith’s Enoch narrative appear strikingly similar to material found in the Book of Giants and related Enochic texts. The convergence raises a historical question: how did a nineteenth-century text come to resemble ancient manuscripts that were undiscovered and inaccessible at the time of its composition?

This study examines that question without presupposing theological conclusions. Its purpose is not to prove revelation, but to evaluate explanatory plausibility.

The Inaccessibility Problem

One common explanation for the Enoch parallels is that Joseph Smith drew upon sources already available in his environment. The most frequently cited candidate is 1 Enoch, an Ethiopic text translated into English by Richard Laurence in 1821. While superficially plausible, this explanation encounters significant difficulties upon closer examination.

Comparative analysis by multiple historians has shown that the themes and narrative voice of Laurence’s translation bear little resemblance to Joseph Smith’s Enoch account. Moreover, the most distinctive parallels identified by scholars are not found in 1 Enoch at all, but in other Enochic traditions—particularly the Book of Giants—that were neither discovered nor translated until well after Smith’s death.

The historical challenge, therefore, is not whether Enoch traditions existed, but whether the specific features shared by Smith’s account and the Qumran fragments were available to him through ordinary means.

Methodological Constraints

To avoid overstating similarities, this study adopts several constraints. Parallels are considered significant only when they (1) are absent or marginal in the Genesis account, (2) appear in both Joseph Smith’s Enoch narrative and ancient Enochic texts, and (3) serve comparable narrative functions. This approach distinguishes constrained correspondences from general thematic overlap.

Differences between texts are acknowledged, and no claim of textual identity is made. The issue under consideration is explanatory adequacy rather than literary dependence.

The Mahijah Question

A particularly instructive example involves the figure named Mahijah in Joseph Smith’s account. Mahijah appears unexpectedly as one who approaches Enoch to inquire about his identity. The name later reappears in the variant form Mahujah. Neither spelling corresponds to a well-known biblical character in English translations.

In the Book of Giants, a character named Mahawai (MḤWY) appears in an analogous role: he is sent to question Enoch and to seek interpretation of visions. The functional similarity is notable, but the correspondence becomes more intriguing when considered alongside the Hebrew Bible. Genesis 4:18 preserves the name Mehujael in two distinct Hebrew spellings (MḤWY and MḤYY), a variation invisible in English translations.

Joseph Smith’s account preserves two spelling variants while omitting the divine suffix “-el,” aligning more closely with the Qumran form than the biblical one. There is no evidence that Smith had access to Hebrew texts in 1830. While this correspondence does not compel a single explanation, it raises a legitimate historical question about access and transmission.

Narrative Structure and Sequencing

Beyond individual names, broader narrative patterns also merit attention. Both Joseph Smith’s Enoch account and the Book of Giants present a sequence that includes widespread corruption, the emergence of Enoch as a prophetic figure, emissaries sent to question him, written records as divine witnesses, communal fear and repentance, conflict with enemies, and eventual judgment.

While none of these elements is unique in isolation, their concentration and ordering within a limited narrative space is unusual. The resemblance is best described as architectural rather than verbal.

Probability as a Heuristic

Some scholars have attempted to illustrate the cumulative weight of these correspondences using probability estimates. Such figures are necessarily imperfect and should not be read as proofs. Rather, they function as heuristic tools that highlight the explanatory burden placed on coincidence-based models when multiple constrained correspondences converge.

Probability arguments cannot establish revelation, but they can clarify why certain explanations strain credibility.

Competing Explanations

Several explanations have been proposed: deliberate fabrication, unconscious borrowing, access to unknown sources, or spiritual deception. Each carries strengths and limitations. A revelatory explanation, offered by Joseph Smith himself, lies beyond the scope of historical demonstration but remains part of the interpretive landscape.

What This Argument Does Not Claim

This study does not prove Joseph Smith was a prophet, assert the inspiration of Enochic literature, or require acceptance of Latter-day Saint theology. Its aim is narrower: to examine whether the parallels between ancient Enoch texts and Joseph Smith’s account are adequately explained by existing historical models.

Conclusion

The Enoch parallels present a genuine historical puzzle. They do not compel belief, but they do invite explanation. Whether one ultimately attributes the convergence to coincidence, intuition, or revelation, the data challenge assumptions about the limits of nineteenth-century religious creativity and warrant careful consideration.

References

1- Jed L. Woodworth, “Extra-biblical Enoch Texts in Early American Culture,” in Archive of Restoration Culture: Summer Fellows’ Papers 1997–1999, ed. Richard Lyman Bushman (Provo, UT: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute, 2000), 190, 192.

2- Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 138.

3- Moses 6:40; Moses 7:2.

4- Florentino Garcia Martinez, “The Book of Giants (4Q530),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 261.

5- Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and David J. Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel, In God’s Image and Likeness 2 (Salt Lake City, UT: Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2014), 94; Barry L. Bandstra, Genesis 1–11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 268.

6- Hugh W. Nibley, Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004), 267–269; Gordon C. Thomasson, “Items on Enoch—Some Notes of Personal History,” unpublished manuscript, 25 February 2013.

7- Adapted from parallels documented in Bradshaw and Larsen, God’s Image and Likeness 2, 33–196; Hugh W. Nibley, Enoch the Prophet (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1986), 276–281.

8- See Appendix for detailed probability calculations.

9- Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Could Joseph Smith Have Drawn on Ancient Manuscripts When He Translated the Story of Enoch?” The Interpreter Foundation, 2018.

Appendix: Probability Estimates and Methodological Caveats

This appendix summarizes probability estimates referenced in discussions of the Enoch parallels. These estimates are illustrative rather than mathematically rigorous and are presented to clarify cumulative explanatory pressure, not to demonstrate certainty.

Content Parallels

Individual parallels—such as rare names, preserved spelling variants, and specific narrative roles—have been assigned conservative probabilities representing the likelihood of their occurrence by chance. When multiplied, these estimates yield cumulative odds expressed as an extreme value. It is therefore noted that, according to my calculations, and with the assistance of artificial intelligence, the cumulative odds of Joseph Smith guessing correctly on all the aforementioned variables, is one in 10²² —expressed as 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or a 1 in sextillion.

Sequential Alignment

Additional weight is sometimes attributed to the sequencing of narrative elements. Factorial calculations illustrate how constrained ordering further reduces the plausibility of random convergence.

Caveats

These calculations assume partial independence and involve subjective judgments. Different assumptions yield different results. Even generous adjustments, however, leave coincidence-based explanations under notable strain.

Conclusion

Probability estimates do not prove divine revelation. They function as heuristic tools that complement, rather than replace, historical analysis.

In the interest of transparency, this article was researched and outlined with the assistance of artificial intelligence, then written, reviewed and refined by the author.