The Book of Moses and the Enoch material
Moses 6-7 is said to match Enoch texts Joseph could not have read; that tradition was already in print and the names come from Genesis.
What the Church claims
The Book of Moses (JST Genesis 1-6, 1830-31) restores ancient text, proven by parallels with 1 Enoch and the Qumran Book of Giants (Mahijah/Mahujah = Mahaway).
Once the evidence is in, this claim: Contested. The Mahijah and Mahaway resemblance is real and has no obvious nineteenth-century route, which is the strongest thing the claim has going for it. Against that, Enoch lore was already in print, the names have a Genesis source, and the surrounding theology belongs to its decade. The claim is neither established nor dismantled.
The record
- Moses 1 was dictated in June 1830 (Cowdery scribe) and Moses 2-8 are the revised opening of Genesis produced 1830-31 as part of the Bible revision; canonized in 1880.
- Jeffrey Bradshaw (Interpreter 48, 2021) argues that the names Mahijah/Mahujah in Moses 6-7 and eighteen thematic elements parallel the Aramaic Book of Giants (found at Qumran, 1948), and that Joseph could not have known this in 1830; he concedes partial alignment, fragmentary evidence and possibly a 'common well' of tradition rather than literary dependence.
- Genesis 4:18 (KJV), which Joseph was revising, reads: 'and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael'. [S24b]
- Colby Townsend (Dialogue 53:3, 2020) shows English excerpts and discussions of 1 Enoch circulated in British and American periodicals from 1801 and 1806, before Laurence's 1821 translation, and that Joseph drew on 'a robust shared tradition about the lost book of Enoch' in early American culture rather than needing Laurence.
- Barney's JST study finds no manuscript support for most JST readings, of which Moses is the largest block.
The moving target
- 1880: Canonized the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price.
- 2021: Enoch parallels are 'remarkable witnesses' of the text's antiquity.
The exchange
Hugh Nibley (Enoch the Prophet, 1986); Jeffrey Bradshaw (Interpreter 48, 2021); Pearl of Great Price Central
Mahijah/Mahujah matches Mahaway of the Book of Giants, unknown until 1948; with eighteen shared motifs this cannot be coincidence.
The answer: The name is sitting in the KJV verse Joseph was rewriting: Genesis 4:18's 'Mehujael' (Hebrew Mehuyael/Mehiyael), the same root the Qumran name shares; a Genesis-derived name in both texts is expected, not miraculous. The motifs (Enoch preaching to giants, a book of remembrance, the earth mourning) belong to the widely known Enoch tradition that Townsend shows was in print in English decades before 1830. Bradshaw himself allows a common tradition rather than dependence, which is compatible with Joseph's access to that tradition through Jude, 2 Peter, Genesis 6 and popular Enoch lore.
What they get right: Bradshaw is candid about the limits; the Mahijah/Mahaway coincidence is the most striking single item in Book of Moses apologetics.
Nibley; Bradshaw
Laurence's 1821 Book of Enoch was rare in America; Joseph's Enoch could not derive from it.
The answer: Townsend's archival work shows the relevant portions were quoted and discussed in periodicals from 1801/1806 and widely known; dependence on Laurence specifically was never required.
Both cases at full strength
The skeptics' case
The Book of Moses is the first product of the Bible revision - an English rewriting of KJV Genesis with no ancient source. Its Enoch chapters use a name drawn from the very Genesis genealogy under revision [S24b] and motifs from an Enoch tradition that Townsend documents in American print before 1830. The best apologetic parallel, Mahaway, is a Genesis name, and its proponent concedes shared tradition rather than dependence. Against this stands Barney's finding that the JST corpus generally lacks manuscript support.
The apologetic case
Moses 6-7 contains a coherent Enoch narrative with details (Mahijah's questioning, gathering of the righteous, Zion taken to heaven, the weeping God) that cluster in 2nd-century BC Enochic texts unavailable in full until the 20th century; that a farm boy produced it in weeks in 1830 is, for believers, better explained by revelation than by a diffuse 'tradition'.
What would change this
A pre-1830 English source for a distinctive Moses 6-7 passage would strengthen the critique; an Enoch-text parallel with no Genesis or published-tradition pathway would weaken it.
Closely related
- The Joseph Smith Translation and Adam Clarke's commentary
- Claimed ancient 'hits': Olishem, Elkenah, astronomy, Kolob
Sources
- Genesis 4 (KJV)
- Visions of Moses, June 1830 [Moses 1]
- Revisiting Joseph Smith and the Availability of the Book of Enoch
- The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible
- Moses 6-7 and the Book of Giants: Remarkable Witnesses of Enoch's Ministry
- Sacred Sites and Historic Documents Transfer to Church of Jesus Christ
An independent project. Not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with any organization cited here. Summaries are written here; short quotations are attributed and linked. Every page names its sources so that it can be corrected, and every page can be challenged.