One in a Sextillion: The Ancient Enoch Parallels Joseph Smith Could Not Have Known

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 this companion essay that examines the same evidence using a more neutral historical framework, written for non–Latter-day Saint and critical audiences.)

If you have ever wondered whether Joseph Smith was truly a prophet, the story of Enoch offers an unexpected and intriguing place to look. In 1948, more than a century after Joseph’s death, ancient manuscripts were discovered in caves near the Dead Sea that expanded the biblical account of Enoch in ways previously unknown. What has drawn scholarly attention ever since is that several features of these ancient texts closely resemble elements found in Joseph Smith’s 1830 revelations, recorded in the Book of Moses. These correspondences raise thoughtful questions about history, access, and explanation. The important questions should not be dismissed. They deserve careful and patient consideration for anyone seeking to use both faith and reason to build their testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

In 1948, more than a century after Joseph Smith’s death, Bedouin shepherd discovered clay jars hidden in caves near the Dead Sea. Inside were ancient manuscripts that had been sealed away for two thousand years. Among them were fragments of a text called the Book of Giants, a Jewish work expanding on the story of Enoch.

When scholars translated these fragments, they found something remarkable: detailed parallels to the account of Enoch that Joseph Smith had revealed in 1830, now preserved in the Pearl of Great Price.

For those whose testimonies burn bright, this discovery offers a moment of quiet vindication. For those wrestling with doubt, wondering whether Joseph was truly a prophet or merely a gifted storyteller, the evidence deserves careful consideration.

The Challenge Critics Face

Critics of the Restoration have long argued that Joseph Smith borrowed from ancient manuscripts to create his scriptures. The most common theory points to 1 Enoch, an Ethiopian text that appeared in English translation in 1821. Perhaps, they suggest, Joseph somehow encountered this book and wove its themes into his revelations.

The theory sounds plausible until you examine the texts.

LDS historian Jed Woodworth carefully compared the two accounts and found that “the principal themes of Laurence’s 105 translated chapters do not resemble Joseph Smith’s Enoch in any obvious way.” His conclusion was direct: “Same name, different voice.”^[1] Respected historian Richard Bushman agreed: “It is scarcely conceivable that Joseph Smith knew of Laurence’s Enoch translation.” ^[2]

Here is the problem critics cannot solve: the strongest parallels to Joseph’s Enoch are not found in 1 Enoch. They are found in texts that were completely inaccessible in 1830—manuscripts like the Book of Giants, which lay buried in Qumran caves until 1948, and 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch, which had no English translations during Joseph’s lifetime.

Joseph Smith could not have copied from documents that were yet to be discovered.

Mahijah: A Name That Shouldn’t Exist

Consider one detail that has puzzled scholars for decades.

In Moses 6:40, Joseph introduces an obscure figure named Mahijah who approaches Enoch to ask a simple question: “Tell us plainly who thou art, and from whence thou comest?” The same character appears later as “Mahujah.” ^[3] Nowhere else in the Bible, no where else in scripture does this individual's name appear. He seems to come from nowhere.

Then came the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In the Book of Giants found in Qumran, scholars found a character named Mahawai (MḤWY in Aramaic) who plays an identical role: he is sent by others to question Enoch and seek an interpretation of troubling visions.^[4] The correspondence is striking enough. But it goes even deeper.

In the Hebrew text of Genesis 4:18, the name Mehujael appears in two different spellings—MḤWY and MḤYY—within a single verse. English translations render both identically, making the variation invisible. To notice it, one would need to read the original Hebrew.

Joseph Smith had no training in Hebrew in 1830. There is no evidence he had access to a Hebrew Bible. Yet his text preserves both ancient spelling variants. And his versions omit the “-el” suffix found in the biblical form, matching instead the Dead Sea Scrolls rendering, a text that would not be discovered for another 118 years.^[5]

Matthew Black is a non-Latter-Day Saint Aramaic scholar is recognized as one of the foremost experts on ancient Enoch literature. When learned of this uncanny parallel, he acknowledged the name “could not have come from 1 Enoch.” Unable to explain the correspondence, he could only speculate that some unknown group must have preserved ancient traditions and brought them to Joseph. ^[6] No such group has ever been identified.

More Than Names: A Shared Architecture

If Mahijah were the only parallel, it might be dismissed as coincidence. But the correspondences extend throughout both narratives, appearing in similar sequence:

1. Wickedness, secret combinations, and bloodshed fill the earth

2. Enoch appears as a “wild man” figure among the people

3. Mahijah/Mahawai approaches to question Enoch

4. He is sent by others to consult the prophet

5. A book of remembrance or stone tablets serves as divine witness

6. The people tremble and weep before Enoch

7. Condemnation for moral corruption

8. A note of hope extended through repentance

9. Battle and defeat of Enoch’s enemies

10. The roar of wild beasts following the conflict

11. Prophecy of imprisonment for the wicked^[7]

This is not a scattering of vague similarities. It is structural correspondence; a shared narrative architecture between a nineteenth-century revelation and a text hidden in desert caves since before the birth of Christ.

The Weight of Evidence

What are the odds of Joseph Smith guessing all these details correctly, and in the correct order, by chance alone?

Conservative probability estimates, accounting for both content parallels and sequential alignment, yield odds exceeding one in ten sextillion. That number is written as 1 followed by 22 zeros. (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) ^{[8]  [Appendix]}

To put this in relatable terms, imagine every grain of sand on Earth. All the beaches, all the deserts, every sandbox and riverbed. Now imagine 1,300 Earths, each covered with that same unfathomable quantity of sand. The odds of Joseph Smith guessing these details correctly, in the right order, are like reaching into that collection of sand blindfolded and selecting a predetermined single grain of sand.

As one scholar observed after reviewing the evidence: “It would be thought remarkable if any nineteenth-century document were to exhibit a similar density of close resemblances with this small collection of ancient fragments, but to find such similarities in appropriate contexts relating in each case to the story of Enoch is astonishing.”^[9]

For Those Who Are Struggling with Joseph Smith

If you are wrestling with questions about Joseph Smith, wondering whether he was truly a prophet or whether you have built your life on a fraud, you’re not alone. Doubt is not betrayal. Questions are not apostasy. Some of the most faithful people in scripture wrestled with God about important issues before they found peace.

The evidence presented here is not meant to prove that Joseph Smith was a prophet. This evidence will also not resolve every historical question about the Book of Moses. It cannot. Faith, by its nature, requires more than just evidence. But perhaps these ancient witnesses, emerging from desert caves more than a century after Joseph’s death, can offer a reason to pause before walking away.

The critics have had nearly two hundred years to explain how Joseph Smith produced what he produced. The theories include he was a fraud, a lucky guesser, or had access to some phantom library in rural New York. They all grow less plausible the more we learn. The Book of Giants was dust and fragments in a sealed cave while Joseph dictated the story of Enoch in a small room in Fayette, New York.

There is no naturalistic explanation that accounts for how the Joseph Smith's Enoch portion of the Book of Moses came to be.

There is also no unified theory put forth by critics than can reasonably explain how Joseph Smith was able to generate the Enoch portion of Moses 6-7, and have it reflect so many similarities to the ancient fragments found in the Qumran caves.

Historically, there is strong evidence to support that Joseph Smith did what he said. He dictated these roughly 5000 words over the span of "a few days," occurring sometime between November 30 and December 31, 1830. Scribes and witnesses of this miraculous revelation include John Whitmer, Emma Smith, and Sidney Rigdon. None of the three scribes ever denied the miraculous nature of Joseph Smith's revelations—even after estrangement from Joseph Smith or excommunication from the Church.

If the Book of Moses was fraudulent, then the scribes who sat, listened, and wrote with pen and ink well would have been the first to know. They had both opportunity and motive to expose him when their relationships soured. Their consistent affirmation of his prophetic calling, even unto the time of their death, has to account for some evidence in his favor.

An Invitation

For those whose faith is firm, may this evidence strengthen your conviction that the Restoration is what it claims to be: a work of God, accomplished through an imperfect, fallible yet genuine prophet.

For those who are uncertain, may it offer a reason to stay, to keep seeking, to give the Lord time to answer prayers that may have felt unanswered.

The ancient prophet Enoch once stood before a wicked generation and called them to repentance. Across the millennia, his voice still echoes, preserved in fragments buried in Judean caves and in revelations given to a young man who could not have known what those caves contained.

Perhaps that echo is worth listening to a little longer.

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 Calculations

The following outlines the methodology for estimating the odds referenced in this article. These calculations are illustrative rather than rigorous, as historical parallels do not behave like statistical odds of rolling dice, where mathematics can assign different probability values to each element. The purpose here is to demonstrate the cumulative weight of the evidence, not to claim mathematical precision.

Part 1: Content Parallels

Each parallel was assigned a conservative probability representing the likelihood of Joseph Smith guessing that specific detail correctly by chance. “Conservative” here means erring toward higher probability (making coincidence more plausible).

Parallel	Estimated Probability
Mahijah name matching Mahawai (MḤWY)	1 in 1,000
Preserving both Hebrew spelling variants	1 in 100
Correct narrative role (questioner sent to Enoch)	1 in 50
“Wild man” terminology in appropriate context	1 in 100
Book of remembrance/stone tablets motif	1 in 50
Trembling/weeping response to Enoch’s preaching	1 in 30
“Conceived in sin” through corruption (not original sin)	1 in 50
Note of hope through repentance (unique to both texts)	1 in 100
Battle and defeat of enemies	1 in 20
Roar of lions/wild beasts following battle	1 in 200
Prophecy of imprisonment for the wicked	1 in 50

Calculation:

(1/1,000) × (1/100) × (1/50) × (1/100) × (1/50) × (1/30) × (1/50) × (1/100) × (1/20) × (1/200) × (1/50)

= 1 in 7.5 × 10¹⁸

This equals approximately 1 in 7.5 quintillion for content parallels alone.

Part 2: Sequential Alignment

The narrative elements appear in similar order in both texts. If n elements must appear in a specific sequence, the probability of achieving that specific similar order by chance is 1/n! (one divided by n factorial).

For 11 elements: 11! = 39,916,800

However, some narrative ordering is logically constrained (e.g., wickedness precedes judgment; questions precede answers). Conservatively assuming only 8 elements are genuinely free to vary:

8! = 40,320

Sequential probability: approximately 1 in 40,000

Part 3: Combined Estimate

Multiplying content probability by sequential probability:

(7.5 × 10¹⁸) × (4 × 10⁴) = 3 × 10²³

Rounding conservatively: approximately 1 in 10²² (ten sextillion)

Caveats and Qualifications

1. Selection bias: Critics may argue we are counting “hits” while ignoring “misses.” However, the parallels are concentrated in just three pages of Qumran fragments and follow a coherent narrative arc—not scattered randomly across texts.

2. Independence: Some parallels may not be fully independent events. This is partially addressed by using conservative individual estimates.

3. Subjectivity: Different analysts might assign different probabilities to each element. Even doubling every individual probability still yields odds exceeding 1 in 10¹⁵ (one quadrillion).

4. What this does not prove: Probability calculations cannot prove divine revelation. They can only demonstrate that naturalistic explanations face significant mathematical hurdles. Testimony comes through the Spirit, not through statistics.

The Grains of Sand Comparison

Scientists estimate Earth contains approximately 7.5 × 10¹⁸ grains of sand. At odds of 1 in 10²², correctly guessing these parallels is equivalent to selecting one specific grain from approximately 1,300 Earths—each covered with every grain of sand our planet contains.

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.