Book of Moses Evidence: Intertextuality with 1 Enoch and Psalm 85

In Moses 7:62–63, readers encounter an instance of strong multi-layer intertextuality with Psalm 85:10–11.1 These relationships, which include near-quotes and allusions, are color-coded in the following chart:

Setting aside the issue of textual dependency or direction of influence, one will notice that the phrases “Truth shall spring out of the earth” and “righteousness shall look down from heaven” in Psalm 85:11 are inverted and rendered slightly differently in Moses 7:62.2 For instance, instead of merely stating that righteousness will “look down” from heaven (Psalm 85:11), the Lord says he will “send down” righteousness (Moses 7:62). Considering the flood context of the Book of Moses, this evokes the imagery of righteousness falling down like rain (in ironic counterpoint to the destructive rains of the flood). This irony is further solidified in the prophecy that soon follows in the same verse: “righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood.”

In addition, whereas Psalm 85 personifies abstract concepts (“mercy” and “truth,” as well as “righteousness” and “peace”) by having them meet together and kiss, Moses 7 has actual groups of beings—Enoch’s heavenly Zion community and the righteous earthly Zion community—that meet and greet one another with a kiss. In the Book of Moses, these Zion groups from heaven and earth mirror the depiction of “truth” (from the earth) and “righteousness” (from heaven) that were coupled together at the beginning of verse 62. There can thus be no doubt that Moses 7:62–63 is interacting with Psalm 85:10–11 on a sophisticated and intentional level.

What is so remarkable about this relationship is that 1 Enoch subtly interacts with these same passages from Psalm 85 in a very similar context:3

Several scholars, in their commentary on 1 Enoch, have noticed this textual relationship.4 George Nickelsburg explains, “As an appropriate conclusion to this section [1 Enoch 10–11], the author draws on the language and imagery of Psalm 85:10–13, where reference to blessing and fertility is combined with agricultural metaphor applied to the virtues of steadfast love, righteousness, truth, and peace.”5

At the same time, Moses 7 has its own unique set of relationships with 1 Enoch 10–11, as seen in the following chart (which utilizes Ephraim Isaac’s 1983 translation):6

In some respects, certain parallels between Moses 7 and 1 Enoch 10–11 are even stronger than they are between Moses 7 and Psalm 85. For instance, in Moses 7:62 the Lord states that “righteousness will I send down out of heaven.” While Psalm 85:11 states that the righteous “look down” from heaven, in 1 Enoch 11:1 the Lord declares that he will “send down” blessings from heaven—which is obviously a better match with Moses 7:62. Likewise, the concepts of resurrection and the gathering of the righteous in Moses 7:62 don’t have a clear counterpart in Psalm 85. They do, however, parallel 1 Enoch 10:17, in which the righteous will “become the living ones until they multiply and become tens of hundreds” (cf. 1 Enoch 20:21). Also of interest is the imagery of the earth being cleansed in 1 Enoch 11:20. The same topic arises in Moses 7:48 but isn’t found in Psalm 85. 

Thus, we see that in some respects the content in Moses 7 aligns more closely with Psalm 85, while on other points it is closer to 1 Enoch 10–11. What emerges in Moses 7, then, is an entirely unique—and, in several respects, quite complex—blending of elements from both texts.

Limitations of Early Translations of 1 Enoch

One might ask how those skeptical of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling might explain these relationships under naturalistic assumptions. If the parallels were simply between Moses 7:62–63 and Psalm 85:10–13, the default theory would surely be that Smith simply derived these details directly from the Bible, which we know he had access to at this time.7 While the integration of the content is fairly sophisticated, it isn’t too much to assume that someone, even of Smith’s limited education, might be able to pull it off.8

Things get more complicated, though, once it is recognized that passages in 1 Enoch 10–11 are interacting with these very same biblical verses. Even more startling is that Moses 7 has numerous parallels with the relevant passages in these same chapters of 1 Enoch, including some relationships that are closer to one another than they are to Psalm 85. When separate Enoch texts simultaneously interact with the same psalm and also with one another in an exceedingly similar context, it is very hard to explain away the three-way relationship as a mere coincidence. The question then arises: how would Smith possibly have known to quote from Psalm 85 in this particular context in his own Enoch account?

For the skeptical observer, the seemingly obvious solution would be to just assume Smith encountered the relevant passages in 1 Enoch, which were themselves interacting with Psalm 85. In that scenario, the three-way relationship could be reasonably accounted for, as the 1 Enoch material would naturally lead to Psalm 85. There are, however, some problems with this theory.

One concern is that, unlike the Bible, there is no historical evidence that Joseph Smith was even aware of 1 Enoch in 1830, much less that he had intimate knowledge of its contents or possessed a copy of it. While it had been translated into English and was potentially available in his environment, there are good reasons to doubt that he had direct access to this work.9

Much more significant, however, is the fact that the versions of 1 Enoch potentially accessible to Smith in 1830 significantly obscure the relationship with Psalm 85. The most likely source would seem to be Richard Laurence’s 1821 translation of 1 Enoch. The significant differences in translation are illustrated in the following chart, which places Ephraim Isaac’s 1983 translation next to Laurence’s 1821 translation, both of which are compared to Psalm 85. Words and phrases in Laurence’s translation that replace key elements in Isaac’s translation have been underlined, signaling key differences that obscure the textual connection.  

As can be seen, the connection between 1 Enoch 10–11 and Psalm 85:10–11 is far less discernable in Laurence’s translation. Even when the two texts are placed side by side, the textual relationship is hardly apparent. This stands in contrast to Isaac’s more modern translation. Its close pairing of the key terms “truth” and “righteousness” (1 Enoch 10:16) and then “peace” and “truth” (1 Enoch 11:2) are significant, as these terms are also found close together in Psalm 85:10–11. The fact that Laurence’s translation doesn’t use the term “truth” obscures the relationship in both passages. The clinching piece of evidence, however, is the way that “peace” and “truth” are viewed as “partners together” in 1 Enoch 11:2, which strongly resonates with the pairing of attributes in Psalm 85:10. This is likely the most distinctive element that might clue someone into the textual allusion. Yet, once again, this concept does not come through in Laurence’s translation, where the emphasis is instead on “peace” and “equity” (rather than “truth”) belonging to the “sons of men.”

Another English translation containing these passages of 1 Enoch was published in 1801 in a London newspaper called the Monthly Magazine.10 However, not only is it unlikely that Joseph Smith would have accessed this specific extract of a foreign magazine nearly 30 years after it was first published, but its wording is even less clearly related to Psalm 85 than Laurence’s translation.11

Thus, even if Smith had been intimately familiar with the psalms—and with Psalm 85, in particular—it seems highly doubtful that he would have ever made a connection between its contents and 1 Enoch 10–11, as the key components of the relationship would have been virtually undetectable in the English translations available in his day.12

Conclusion 

This situation presents a valuable opportunity to test the antiquity of one of Joseph Smith’s revelations. Typically, the more unique or rare a parallel is, the less likely it is to randomly arise in shared contexts. In this case, Moses 7:62–63 and 1 Enoch 10–11 both clearly interact with one another and with the very same biblical verse—namely Psalm 85:10–13—in a very similar context. Because there are many thousands of biblical passages that could be either quoted or alluded to in any given context, and because there are no other passages with the unique combination of elements in Psalm 85, this type of parallel has unusual specificity and therefore unusual significance.

One must also consider the fact that there is nothing mandating, in the first place, that these separate texts (Moses 7:62–63 and 1 Enoch 10–11) must substantively interact with any biblical passage at these parallel junctures. They could just as easily have presented content unique to themselves in these contexts, which could pertain to just about any topic one might imagine. It therefore seems highly improbable that these separate texts would mutually interact with one another and with the very same biblical passages by chance alone.

For believing Latter-day Saints, this relationship can be explained by the theory that these texts each stem from the same ancient tradition or set of traditions. In other words, if one is open to the possibility that the Book of Moses may be a genuinely ancient text, then such a connection can be reasonably accounted for. This is because other known Enochic traditions often have well-recognized parallels to one another of a similar nature. Nothing about these connections, or their degree of specificity, would be unexpected or problematic under that theory.

In contrast, these textual relationships seem very difficult to explain under naturalistic theories. One would have to assume (1) that Joseph specifically came across an English translation of 1 Enoch 10–11, (2) that he was able to discern that these passages allude to Psalm 85:10–13, and (3) that he then had the literary skill to integrate an original three-way intertextual relationship in his own Enoch account.

While each of these assumptions is questionable for different reasons, the second point is particularly problematic. Perhaps if Smith had access to a more modern translation of 1 Enoch, the connection may have been reasonably detected, assuming he had the requisite familiarity with Psalm 85. But, as demonstrated previously, the versions of 1 Enoch potentially available to him in English significantly obscure the textual relationship. Other than appealing to sheer luck—which seems entirely out of the question in this context—the data leave naturalistic theories without a plausible alternative explanation.

These findings considerably strengthen the case for the antiquity of the Book of Moses while also supporting Joseph Smith’s status as a prophet of God. They also push back against the idea that Smith could have derived the entirety of his revelations about Enoch from the English translations of 1 Enoch potentially available in his day. Not only does the Book of Moses contain many parallels with Enochic sources that weren’t accessible in 1830 (such as with 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, the Book of Giants, etc.), but some of the parallels with 1 Enoch itself could not have been reasonably discerned at that time, due to limitations in that text’s available translations and underlying manuscripts. The intertextual relationships between Moses 7, 1 Enoch 10–11, and Psalm 85 provide a striking example of this limitation.