Customer Reviews

Enoch the Prophet (Collected Works of Hugh Nibley)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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.

This book is an excellent introduction to Enoch, for it elaborates on why he is an important figure in Christianity. The Books of Enoch have been suppressed for various reason by ancient Christian Fathers, as they were offended by the astronomical visions of Enoch. Also, modern scholars discount these writings as mere fables, but it seems that early Christian writers espoused them as doctrine: Luke, John, Jude, etc. For in the New Testament alone, Christian writers referenced Enoch's prophecies 128 times. Enoch's righteousness afforded him the opportunity to be taken up to heaven, along with the city of Zion that he erected through the implementation of God's Law. Nibley's presentation of this material is eloquent and well elucidated. His documentation of sources is superb.

However, this text suspects that the audience understands the revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, concerning Enoch. These can be found in Moses 6-8 in the Pearl of Great Price. Nibley compares various Enoch texts with what has been revealed to Joseph Smith. It is eye opening and inspirational. This book is edifying and instructive in comparative literature, as Nibley expounds on constant patterns seen throughout the scriptures and their meaning for us. I enjoyed this book and hope to continue my study of Enoch.

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.

This author has an great deal of knowledge. His book is wonderful. I'm not quite sure why people are quoting Lewis in fiction, when they have a giant in knowledge to quote from with Nibley.

As a RastafarI I have an interest in an Ethiopian prophet who got virtually expunged from the Bible by the European churches, but who still features canonically in the Ethiopian Bible. Sin-ce then, it has become known via the discoveries of various sources that the New Testament alone is actually still referencing/quoting the lost Book of Enoch 128 times. I knew this book would write from a Mormon perspective. In fact, in few instances, the author makes disadvantageous comments towards the Ethiopian version compared to some remaining Western ones. Underall, he writes very Western-centered, e.g. elaborating exclusively on the history of ancient and modern Western views and rediscoveries of Enoch. Including the 1830 revelation about Enoch to the young Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church), who the author reasons could not have known from any source about Enoch, the way he got confirmed later, e.g. by the Dead Sea Scroll find of 1945. The Mormon revelation text gets compared to ancient non-Christian and Christian texts about Enoch, e.g. the Ethiopian, Slavonic, Greek and Hebrew-Aramaic ones.

Hugh Nibley differentiates the personified from the conceptual Enoch. The former is the prophet who is - according to the holy texts - a 6th generation descendent of Adam, father of Methusaleh and great grandfather of Noah, whose story he prophesied. Enoch, "the first human not to die", but to ascend to God. The conceptual version is both, identified with many other holy figures like Adam, Seth, Melchisedek, Noah, Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist and so on, as well as a symbol, which had been known in many ancient countries; also to get projected onto anyone who was like him. The book provides several meaningful translation possibilities of the name Enoch.

As someone who didn't know a thing about Enoch, the book is well worth to read. Despite its general flaws and some others specifically to my perspective. It is very footnote ridden, with only part of them meant to be read. Published originally in 1986 it is comprised of four texts of varying length which had been written from 1974-77 for different purposes. As such, they are both, overlapping and somewhat incoherent, i.e. some things are missing, which would have been included, if written for a single purpose. Occasionally I thought that I had already read some parts and must have misplaced my bookmark accordingly, this involuntarily repetitive it gets from "chapter to chapter". Also, the comparisons between the various sources lead to repetitions, as the same text pieces are compared to various sources in different contexts. However, I have read much worse repetitions elsewhere.

Nibley avers, Enoch would be unpopular among gnostics. Personally, I wouldn't know about that, most certainly Hyam Maccoby thought differently in THE MYTH-MAKER. However, as a mystic myself, I find Nibley's assertion surprising. True is that he isn't seeing Enoch in a mystic way, even though some probably involuntary descriptions of mystic elements are found in his book - interpreted non-mystically. For example, he is reporting that according to Enoch, humans are creloved as a lesser unit within the greater. Being God (as an "individual") equals an Enoch. Zion (which would be Ithiopia in Iyaric) is a place, where Iveryone of one heart and one mind is living in vast distances from each other, but through God/Jah share common awareness of each other. Whereas the others (i.e. those living in Babylon) are plagued with continual wars and bloodshed. Enoch would be against separations, whereas those who are divided are scattered by the Lord. Yet, Nibley writes all of this, but doesn't get it. For example writing that the flood would have been absolutely necessary, for all manner of perversions among humans. Referring (only) to men dressing like women and vice versa. To begin with, I seriously doubt that the tenth generation of humans were wearing clothes at all yet. But then again, I also seriously doubt that the Adam concept is really referring to the first human. But that is the parameter of the author, who takes everything literally, i.e. not mystically. If I may comment in addition, I don't think Jah would have been interested to send the flood to enforce a dress code. (Especially, as in some pre-colonial African lands, gender-based clothing was the custom within a group - but occasionally reversed in neighbouring communities.) In fact, diametrically opposed, blinding separations such as of "genders" is exactly one of the things, the flood (for real or metaphorically) was sent for. (Compare to the Gospel According to Thomas, in which those find the kingdom of God, who make of two one, specifically of women and men.) In a similar vein, Nibley doesn't see the mystic purpose of the animals getting flooded along with the humans. It's not really, because they have sinned. (After all, the flood was sent for the humans who didn't listen to Enoch and Noah. How could animals?) But to symbolize the connection, i.e. non-separation between animals and humans, if that makes any sense to the non-mystics at this point of a condensed review.

The bottom line is: This book provides good basic information on the Enoch concept, embedded in Western, "orthodox" perspectives. For an Africancentered perspective read Enoch the Ethiopian: The Lost Prophet of the Bible : Greater Than Abraham, Holier Than Moses. However, I have to report sadly, this doesn't automatically make for a better book. As the cohesive text(s) of Enoch are not included in either version, read The Lost Book of Enoch: Comprehensive Transliteration of the Forgotten Book of the Bible.