Book of Mormon Evidence: Historical vs. Fictional Names

The following was originally published at Scripture Central. To visit their website, CLICK HERE.

Introduction

Proper names are a notable feature of the Book of Mormon. Many of these appear to have authentic roots in the ancient Near East.1 Some readers, however, claim that the Nephite text is a work of fiction and that its names were merely invented by Joseph Smith or some other modern writer. One way to explore this issue is to examine how writers of fiction typically go about creating names and then to compare those tendencies with patterns of naming found in the Book of Mormon.

Naming Practices Used by Writers of Fiction

Authors of fictional works use a variety of methods to invent names for the characters in their stories. Typically, this is not a random process. In a study published in 2011, Sharon Black and Brad Wilcox gathered information from popular contemporary fiction authors, collected from interviews and other published sources, who explained how they created names for characters in their stories.2 Several common themes and tendencies emerged within this data:

• The authors expressed the importance of the names of characters in their stories and were deliberate in their choice of names.
• Names should be accessible to the reader, meaning that the reader should not have to spend much time reviewing them and keeping them straight.
• Names should fit the characters in the stories and reflect appropriate background.
• Inventing a large number of names often required that the authors go to sources beyond their own imagination for help in order to generate names that were believable for their characters and that would accurately reflect the culture and background.
• Authors tended to choose names that were personally significant to them or which were associated in some way with their acquaintances or experiences.3

It is enlightening to compare these common tendencies or informal “rules” with the naming patterns found in the Book of Mormon.

Deliberate Choice of Names

Authors indicate that names should be chosen with care and require deliberate choices and consideration. According to author Chris Crowe, “The names I give are not just deliberate choices, they are very deliberate choices.”4 Inventing names that will suit a story can be a laborious process. Michael O. Tunnell states that while some names that seem right come to his mind quickly, he has to work hard on most of the names he creates.5 Keeping track of a large number of names in a story can be daunting for an author. Writers may change the names of characters several times during the process of writing before the story is complete.6 According to Chris Stewart, an author of techno-military novels, when writing, “character always precedes the name” and “sometimes I have named a character ‘X’ because I didn’t want to throw a name in and get used to it.”7 Some authors assign a name spontaneously to a character as a temporary place holder in initial drafts of the story but then go back later to give a name to the character that is more fitting.8

The Book of Mormon, which contained 588 pages of published text in the original 1830 edition, was dictated in around sixty working days.9 It contains 337 proper names, 188 of which are original (in the sense that they aren’t also found in the Bible). “Unlike successful fiction writers,” write Black and Wilcox, “Joseph Smith appears not to have spent time considering or revising names.”10 In fact, evidence from the Book of Mormon’s original manuscript suggests that the initial spelling of names was often dictated by Joseph Smith one letter at a time, a conclusion that is supported by statements from various witnesses to the translation.11 Although scribes introduced minor variations in the spelling of names, we get no indication that Joseph Smith ever systematically renamed or fundamentally altered the name of any characters.12

Accessibility

Fictional writers commonly state that it is important to create names that will be easy for the reader to remember and that are easy to pronounce. Citing Cynthia VanRooy, Black and Wilcox note that readers will “be calling this character by name in their heads as they read […] Every time the unpronounceable name comes up, the reader will halt, then stumble over it.”13 While the writer may choose an exotic sounding name for an exotic fictional setting, the name should not be so exotic that it would be hard for the reader to recall. An author does not want the reader to get lost and lose interest in the story.

According to author Scott Nicholson, although names are not the only factor in creating a story, they are an important element. “You don’t want the name to throw up a speed bump for a reader.”14 Authors Shannon Hale and Brandon Mull both stated that they try to avoid having two characters in their stories that have names beginning with the same sound.15

In contrast, the Book of Mormon has many examples of characters with names that seem to break these tendencies or informal “rules.” Some names, such as Giddianhi and Gidgiddoni, can easily be confused and are not easy to pronounce or remember without practice. Names with initial sounds that are similar include Alma, Amgid, Aminadab, Aminadi, Ammon, Amaron, Ammaron, Amoron, Amulon, Ammon, Ammonihah, Amlici, Amaleki, Amalickiah, Antiomno, Antion, Antionah, Antionum, Antiparah, Antipas, Antipus, Antum, Corianton, Coriantor, Coriantum, Coriantumr, Corihor, Korihor, Corom, Cumeni, Cumenihah, Cumom, Cumorah, Gad, Gadiandi, Gadianton, Gadiomnah, Gid, Giddonah, Giddianhi, Gideon, Gidgiddonah, Gidgiddoni, Helam, Helem, Helaman, Helorum, Jacob, Jacobite, Jacobugath, Jacom, Jashon, Josh, Joshua, Kish, Kishkumen, Kumen, Kumenonhi,  Laban, Laman and Lemuel, Limhah, Limher, Limhi, Limnah, Lamah, Lamoni, Lachoneus, Lehi, Lehonti, Mathoni, Mathonihah, Moriancumer, Morianton, Moriantum, Mormon, Moron, Moroni, Moronihah, Mulek, Muloki, Nehor, Neas, Nephi (multiple characters), Nephihah, Nephite, Neum, Nimrah, Nimrod, Omer, Omner, Omni, Onidah, Onihah, Onti, Paanchi, Pachus, Pacumeni, Pagag, Pahoran, Riplah, Riplakish, Ripliancum, Sam, Samuel, Sariah, Seantum, Sebus, Cezoram, Seezoram, Senine, Senum, Shared, Shazer, Shelem, Shem, Shemlon, Shemnon, Serem, Sherrizah, Sheum, Shez, Shiblom, Shiblon, Shilum, Shilom, Shim, Shimnilon, Shiz, Shule, Sidom, Sidon, Teocum, Teomner, Zarahemla, Zerahemnah, Zeram, Zoram, Zerin, Zeniff, Zenephi, Zenock. In several cases—such as Alma, Ammon, Lehi, Moroni, Nephi, etc.—multiple characters share the same name, adding further opportunity for confusion.

Names with Fitting Characteristics

Authors of fiction often try to give names to characters in their stories that sound authentic and believable for the invented cultures they try to represent. According to Stewart, “names convey something about characters, and I try to use that for all it is worth.”16 Author Chris Crowe wrote a historical novel set during the 1950s. He named one of his characters “R. C. Rydell.” He took the first initials of the name from R. C. Cola, a soft drink of the time, and Rydell was the name of a popular brand of tennis shoes. Shannon Hale wrote a novel inspired by Mongolian culture. Yet, because Mongolian names tend to be long, she generated shorter names based on root words in that language.17

Black and Wilcox observe, “Unlike Crowe, Joseph Smith could not create a name from a specific drink or footwear. Unlike Hale, Joseph Smith could not look up ancient Hebrew and Egyptian word roots, as those were yet to be discovered …. This kind of projection would be very difficult to make in a realistic work.”18 This makes the attestation of many names in recently discovered ancient inscriptions particularly notable, since they lend authenticity to those in the Nephite text.19

Help from Sources

Contemporary writers of fiction often consult resources to help them generate names that might fit within their invented cultures. According to Brandon Mull, “When you have to come up with name after name, you just can’t do it on your own without them sounding alike.”20 When they want to give their names an authentic ring, writers often look for convenient lists with appropriate names for relevant cultures. These could be derived from telephone books, obituaries, internet lists of names in various languages that would fit the character in the story, and so forth. Names might also be created from variations in the names of family, friends, and others that held special importance to the writer.

Unlike contemporary novelists today, Joseph Smith’s information environment was comparatively restricted. There were no internet lists or telephone books available at that time. There were newspapers, but these would not have been particularly helpful in generating Hebrew or Egyptian names. The most useful and available resource for one such as Joseph Smith would have been the Bible which he read. A Bible, however, would not have been particularly helpful in generating many of the non-biblical names in the Book of Mormon, including some attested at archaeological sites long after the Book of Mormon was published.21

Personal Significance to the Author

Black and Wilcox state:

Personal associations were also an important part of name selection for the authors included in this study, and the serendipity behind many of these name choices provides clear insights about the author’s personalities. Many characters are named after people from the author’s personal lives—family members, friends, or acquaintances who happened to have a useful name.22

According to writer Yvonne Bertills, “The author’s own personal background and intentions form one significant criterion for name formation and selection of literary characters.”23 Author J. K. Rowling named Harry Potter, the titular character in that series, after several close friends she knew in her youth whose last name was Potter.24 Brandon Mull states that when trying to decide on a name that needs to sound strange in a story, “I just talk nonsense until something sounds good, or I start with a familiar word and change endings or beginnings.”25

Some have argued that Book of Mormon names point to the origin of the text in an early nineteenth century environment. Walter Franklin Prince, for example, claimed that that text could only have been written in upstate New York between 1826 and 1829 due to what he argued were echoes of Masonic and anti-Masonic words and names in the account.26 However, this particular claim has fallen flat, even among those skeptical or dismissive of the Book of Mormon’s divine origin.27

Others have attributed names to other sources, such as the Bible, arguing that names were generated by adopting biblical names or rearranging parts of biblical names into new combinations.28 While this could be argued for some unique Book of Mormon names, upon closer examination, many examples have been dismissed as nonsense, modern, or inauthentic, have been attested in ancient Near Eastern inscriptions discovered long after 1830. This is the case, even with some of the more complicated examples such as Gidgiddoni.29

Conclusion

There are some caveats to this type of analysis that need to be addressed. First of all, most modern authors of fiction are not trying to pass their works off as genuine ancient documents. Thus, some of the tendencies or “rules” followed by such authors might be different if their primary goal were to fabricate a believable historical record rather than to create entertaining and accessible fiction.

Another thing to consider is that not all writers strictly follow these informal guidelines or rules. For instance, well-known fantasy authors such as J. R. R. Tolkien and Robert Jordan have many named characters in their works that start with the same letter or sound, or that are spelled similarly, or that are rather long, or that may be difficult for readers to pronounce. Thus, authors involved in more realistic and immersive worldbuilding endeavors may approach names differently than authors of other types of fictional works.

That being said, it is not insignificant that the naming conventions in the Book of Mormon are indeed on the more realistic and complex end of the spectrum. They look like they could easily belong to a genuine historical document and are inconsistent with the kinds of names or naming patterns that many writers of fiction might come up with. The constraining factors of the Book of Mormon’s dictation—involving no notes, no reference materials, no revisions, and so forth—make its consistent presentation of names especially remarkable.30

While this certainly doesn’t prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, it adds another set of data that is aligned with that conclusion. This feature of the text complements the already impressive evidence for the Semitic and Egyptian origin of many Book of Mormon names, which is based on individual name elements, a growing number of unique Book of Mormon names attested in the archaeological record after 1830, and a large number of proposed Semitic and Egyptian wordplays.31

Further Reading  

Sharon Black and Brad Wilcox, “188 Unexplainable Names: Book of Mormon Names No Fiction Writer Would Choose,” Religious Educator 12, No. 2 (2011): 119–130.

Sharon Black and Brad Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity: Some Ways Fiction Writers Choose Character Names,” Names 59, no. 3 (September 2011): 152–163.

Brad Wilcox, Wendy Baker-Smemoe, Sharon Black, Bruce L. Brown, “Book of Mormon Names: A Collection that Defies Expectation,” in Perspectives on Latter-day Saint Names and Naming: Names Identity and Belief, ed. Dallin H. Oaks, Paul Baltes, Kent Minson (Routledge, 2023), 268–299.

Endnotes

1. See, for example, John A. Tvedtnes, John Gee, and Matthew Roper, “Book of Mormon Names Attested in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 1 (2000): 40–51, 78–79.

2. Sharon Black and Brad Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity: Some Ways Fiction Writers Choose Character Names,” Names 59, no. 3 (September 2011): 152–163; Sharon Black and Brad Wilcox, “188 Unexplainable Names: Book of Mormon Names No Fiction Writer Would Choose,” Religious Educator 12, no. 2 (2011): 119–133.

3. Black and Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity,” 155–156; Black and Wilcox, “188 Unexplainable Names,” 120.

4. Black and Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity,” 156.

5. Black and Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity,” 156.

6. Black and Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity,” 156.

7. Black and Wilcox, “188 Unexplainable Names,” 121.

8. Black and Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity,” 156.

9. See Scripture Central, “Book of Mormon Evidence: Rapid Translation,” Evidence 13 (September 19, 2020).

10. Black and Wilcox, “188 Unexplainable Names,” 122.

11. This appears to have been the case when names were first introduced during the dictation. See Scripture Central, “Book of Mormon Evidence: Earliest Manuscripts,” Evidence 2 (September 19, 2020).

12. There are some names that have been altered or revised in the Book of Mormon. For instance, an editor (presumably Joseph Smith) in 1837 changed the name of Benjamin to Mosiah in Mosiah 21:28. This then led to another instance of this type of change in Ether 4:1 which occurred in 1849. However, this does not appear to be an actual effort to change the name of a major character, which would require a consistent and systematic revision effort. Instead, this appears to have been an effort to correct what seemed to modern editors to be a textual discrepancy, perhaps one that was embedded in the ancient document itself. Various solutions have been proposed to explain the text and the efforts to amend it. See Scripture Central, “Which Nephite King Had the Gift of Interpretation? (Mosiah 21:28, 1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon),” KnoWhy 99 (May 3, 2017). Another possible mix-up of names, likely due to scribal variation (rather than to an effort to systematically change the name of a character), involves the relationship between the Amlicites and Amalekites. See Scripture Central, “How Were the Amlicites and Amalekites Related? (Alma 2:11),” KnoWhy 109 (May 15, 2017). For another perspective, see Benjamin McMurtry, “The Amlicites and Amalekites: Are They the Same People?” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 25 (2017): 269–281.

13. Black and Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity,” 157; brackets in original.

14. Black and Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity,” 153.

15. Black and Wilcox, “188 Unexplainable Names,” 122.

16. Black and Wilcox, “188 Unexplainable Names,”  124.

17. Black and Wilcox, “188 Unexplainable Names,” 124–125.

18. Black and Wilcox, “188 Unexplainable Names,” 125.

19. See, for example, John A. Tvedtnes, John Gee, and Matthew Roper, “Book of Mormon Names Attested in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 1 (2000): 40–51, 78–79. For a sampling of this research, see “Linguistics” under the “Themes” tab, online at scripturecentral.org/evidence.

20. Black and Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity,” 158.

21. Some have argued that Joseph Smith’s indeed derived some Book of Mormon names from his environment, but these arguments have been proven to be fundamentally flawed. See Scott Gordon, “Proof or Propaganda,”  2019 FAIR Conference; “Did Joseph Smith Base Book of Mormon Names on His Local Geography?” Saints Unscripted, September 19, 2019.

22. Black and Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity,” 159.

23. Yvonne Bertills, Beyond Literalism: Proper names in Children’s Literature (Abo Akademi University Press, 2003), 46.

24. Black and Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity,” 159.

25. Black and Wilcox, “Sense and Serendipity,” 160.

26. Walter Franklin prince, “Psychological Tests for the Authorship of the Book of Mormon,” American Journal of Psychology 28, no. 3 (July 1917): 373–389.

27. See Theodore Schroeder, “‘Authorship of the Book of Mormon,’” American Journal of Psychology 30, no. 1 (January 1919): 66–72.

28. Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 72.

29. See Scripture Central, “Book of Mormon Evidence: Attestation of Gidgiddoni,” Evidence 123 (December 15, 2020).

30. See Scripture Central, “Book of Mormon Evidence: Many Names,” Evidence 384 (December 12, 2022).

31. For a sampling of this research, see “Linguistics” under the “Themes” tab, online at scripturecentral.org/evidence.

Book of Moses Evidence: Enoch the “Wild Man”

The following was originally published on Scripture Central. To visit their website, CLICK HERE. 

After Enoch received his prophetic commission in the Book of Moses, the following details are reported concerning his preaching efforts:

And it came to pass that Enoch went forth in the land, among the people, standing upon the hills and the high places, and cried with a loud voice, testifying against their works; and all men were offended because of him. And they came forth to hear him, upon the high places, saying unto the tent-keepers: Tarry ye here and keep the tents, while we go yonder to behold the seer, for he prophesieth, and there is a strange thing in the land; a wild man hath come among us. (Moses 6:37–38)

Wild Gibborim

Because of the limited context, it is difficult to determine precisely what is meant by the phrase “wild man” in this passage. One possibility is that the label corresponds to the early conception of the gibborim (mighty ones), a term that is famously used to describe giants in Genesis 6:4. According to Brian Doak, “As human-like embodiments of that which is wild and untamed, the biblical giant [gibbor] takes on the role of ‘wild man,’ ‘freak,’ and ‘elite adversary’ for heroic displays of fighting prowess.”1

With this backdrop in mind, Jeffrey Bradshaw proposes that Enoch was given the label “wild man” in an ironically pejorative way. Nothing in the text indicates that he was an elite warrior or a brawny man, and, in fact, Enoch described himself as being “slow of speech” and “but a lad” (Moses 6:31).2 Bradshaw thus argues that Enoch was sarcastically labeled a “wild man” by his detractors precisely because he was nothing like the gibborim of his day.3

One advantage to this interpretation is that it sets up an interesting narrative inversion. Immediately after Enoch was labeled as a “wild man” the text reports that when the people heard him, “no man laid hands on him; for fear came on all them that heard him” (Moses 6:39). The Book of Moses later indicates that Enoch indeed transformed from a reluctant lad into something of a prophetic military leader:

And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him. (Moses 7:13)

Like an archetypical gibbor, Enoch attained prowess in battle and was feared among his enemies. He also tamed the wild and raw power of nature itself. Mountains trembled and fled at his word, rivers turned their course, and even apex predators of the wilderness roared, apparently in distress at Enoch’s power over nature.4 Thus, if Bradshaw is correct, then the presumed joke about Enoch being the antithesis of a “wild man” was turned squarely on its head.5 The key difference, of course, is that Enoch’s power—by which he was able to overcome even the wildest of the gibborim of his day—didn’t derive from his own physical strength but was instead facilitated by God.6

Another advantage of this interpretation comes from a remarkable parallel with an early Enochic text known as the Book of Giants. Although the extant manuscripts of this text are fragmentary, they seem to portray a leader of the gibborim who laments that his opponents could not be overcome in battle:

4. […a]ll flesh, and I made war against them, but [I was] not

5. [strong enough, and] I was [not] able to prevail against them, because my adversaries

6. [are angels who] dwell [in heave]n, and they reside in holy places. vacat And [they have] not

7. [been defeated because the]y are stronger than I.     vacat

8. […]rh of the wild creature has come, and a wild man (they) call (me).7

While it appears that the “wild man” label is given to a different character in the Book of Giants than in the Book of Moses (the fragmentary nature of the text makes it difficult to be certain), it shows that this peculiar motif is at home in a very early Enochic tradition.8 The connection doesn’t stop there, though. Although the portion of the manuscript right before the mention of the “wild creature” has been challenging to translate, some scholars have offered an interpretation that is very much aligned with the Book of Moses. Bradshaw explains,

The puzzling phrase about the “wild beast” immediately follows the description of the battle. The first part of line 8 was left untranslated by Edward Cook and has proven difficult for other translators to reconstruct as well. … However, two translators, Florentino García Martínez and Józef Milik, were confident enough to make a conjecture. They understand the phrase as, respectively, “the roar of the wild beasts has come” and “the roaring of the wild beasts came.”9

If valid, these translations further strengthen Bradshaw’s thesis that the “wild man” epithet in Moses 6:38 was connected to gibborim culture. For it is precisely when Enoch (the “wild man”) exerted control over men and nature that “the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness” in Moses 7:13, just as the “roaring of wild beasts” and “wild man” phrases are paired together in connection to the defeat of the gibborim in the Book of Giants. As concluded by Bradshaw, “This phrase, placed in analogous post-battle settings in both texts, is one of the most striking and unexpected affinities between the Book of Moses Enoch story and [the Book of Giants].”10 It should also be pointed out that these details show up as part of a remarkable convergence of many parallels between these two works, which also to a “surprising degree” parallel one another in sequence.11

Wild Prophets

It is also quite plausible, however, that the description of Enoch as a “wild man” was given for other reasons. For one thing, his listeners may have viewed Enoch as something of a backwards or unsophisticated stranger or foreigner. This could explain the description of there being a “strange thing in the land” immediately before the “wild man” label (Moses 6:38).

Bradshaw suggests that Enoch being “slow of speech” (Moses 6:31) may not have been due to a speech impediment but from the possibility that, as a foreigner, he was not entirely fluent in the language of those he was teaching.12 This would be analogous to the Greek term barbarian, which originally denoted a cultural or linguistic outsider but later came to hold strong connotations of being wild or uncivilized.13 Doak explains, “In the pre-modern world, … ‘wildness’ was a very potent category, encompassing all that ‘was uncanny, unruly, raw, unpredictable, foreign, uncultured, and uncultivated. It included the unfamiliar as well as the unintelligible.’”14

At the same time, Enoch’s status as a “wild man” could be partially due to the venue of his preaching. The fact that the people had to leave their tents and “go yonder” to the “high places” in order to hear his message suggests that he may have preached in relatively remote locales. If so, he would not be dissimilar to figures such as Elijah or John the Baptist—archetypal wild prophets who had coarse clothing and lived on sparing diets in wilderness settings.15 Interestingly, some ancient traditions closely associate Enoch with these wild prophetic counterparts. As pointed out decades ago by Hugh Nibley, “the sectaries of the desert believed John the Baptist, ‘the Wild Man,’ to be the returned Enoch.”16 Nibley also noted that the prophet Elijah is “more often paired with Enoch than any other figure.”17

It may even be that Enoch was something of a prototypical wild prophet, a figure emulated by later holy men who dwelt in remote or wilderness settings. Support for this thesis comes from a statement made by Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew who lived during the time of Jesus. Specifically referencing Enoch’s being translated into heaven, Philo explained,

For this reason, it is also said that Enoch has been translated, that is, that he was removed from his home country and set out on migration from the mortal life for the immortal one.

[chapter break]

Those people just described are sages who have gone wild, crazed by the divine madness. But there are others who are companions of the tame and gentle wisdom. Piety for them is practiced differently and does not overlook human affairs. (§§38–39)18

Commenting on this passage, Michael Cover explains, “At the opening of the second chapter, Philo shifts his focus away from the company of sages wildly possessed by God—entirely pleasing to him, but rare upon the earth, such as Enoch—toward a more cultivated and common kind of sage, possessed of reason and typified by Abraham.”19 Cover further explains that “Enoch and Abraham are said to be ‘devotees’ (ἑταῖροι) of two kinds of wisdom, the wilder and the gentler.”20

Philo’s description is significant because, unlike the passage in the Book of Giants, he directly associates Enoch himself with a class of wild prophets or sages. The fact that Philo connects Enoch’s wildness with his heavenly ascent is also fascinating. This is because a similar association immediately follows Enoch’s description as a wild man in the Book of Moses: “and there is a strange thing in the land; a wild man hath come among us. And it came to pass when they heard him, no man laid hands on him; for fear came on all them that heard him; for he walked with God” (Moses 6:39).

Thus, the label “wild man” in the Book of Moses may, at least in part, be attributed to Enoch’s status as an otherworldly traveler, one whose “divine madness” (which, in Philo’s vernacular, meant something along the lines of “ecstatic piety”) was sufficient for God to extract him from the mortal realm and situate him in a heavenly abode—a place truly alien to earthly sojourners.21 Enoch being “clothed upon with glory” (Moses 7:3) may also have played a role in the perception of him being a “strange thing” in the land (Moses 6:38).22 An analogous idea turns up in ancient texts in regard to Moses, whose transfiguration appears to have rendered him as a quasi-stranger among his own people.23 An even more striking parallel is present in the story of Abinadi, who was judged to be “mad” by Noah and his priests (Mosiah 13:4).24

Finally, it could simply be that the people felt that the message preached by Enoch was strange, far-fetched, or unbelievable. He may have come across as being deranged or demented, a man filled with wild delusions and untenable prophecies. This wouldn’t be dissimilar to the way that Noah’s detractors viewed him in the Sibylline Oracles: “When they heard him they sneered at him, each one, calling him demented, a man gone mad.”25

Conclusion

With all of these details in mind, there may be a number of reasons that Enoch was called a “wild man” in the Book of Moses. Enoch was perhaps given this label due to his status as a foreigner, or because he preached a strange prophetic message, or because he preached in remote wilderness settings, or because of his extraordinary visions, or because he claimed to tour the heavens and walk with God. Or he may have been sarcastically called a “wild man” because he seemingly didn’t measure up to the ideal gibborim of his day, leading to a notable narrative inversion. Importantly, these potential explanations should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. It may be that Enoch was labeled as a “wild man” for several of these reasons simultaneously.26

Whatever the case may be, it is significant that Enoch’s status as a “wild man” aligns well with ancient traditions which Joseph Smith almost certainly knew nothing about. The Book of Giants, for instance, wasn’t discovered or translated until the mid-20th century. It is virtually impossible that Smith could have known that the specific phrase “wild man” was used in that early Enochic text, much less that it was paired with the phrase “wild beast”—and perhaps even the “roaring of wild beasts”—in a post-battle context, in connection with gibborim culture and Moses 7:13. Nor does it seem reasonable to suppose that Joseph Smith had access to an English version of Philo’s On the Change of Names. Before Philo’s complete works were translated into English by Charles Yonge in 1854, his writings were only available in Latin or Greek, languages that would not have been readable to Joseph Smith in 1830.27

Traditions connecting Enoch to Elijah and John the Baptist are likewise obscure, and these relationships are more tangential anyways.28 It is possible that Smith may have noticed parallels between Enoch and Elijah in scripture itself or in biblical commentaries, due to these figures both being taken up to heaven. But there is nothing in the Bible that suggests Enoch was a wild prophet in the way that Elijah and John the Baptist were. As stated by Bradshaw concerning Moses 6:38, “The rare term ‘wild man’ fairly pops out at the reader. It is used only once elsewhere in scripture, as part of Jacob’s prophecy about how Ishmael will live to become everyone’s favorite enemy (Genesis 16:12). Such a label hardly feels appropriate for Enoch.”29

Nevertheless, ancient sources affirm that Enoch was indeed seen as a wild prophet and that the phrase “wild man” is at home in one of the earliest Enochic traditions. These remarkable parallels add to a growing list of elements in the Book of Moses which have surprising corroboration in the ancient world, supporting Joseph Smith’s status as a prophet and the genuine antiquity of his revelations.30

Further Reading

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion: The Witness of Ancient Texts for Modern Scripture (Interpreter Foundation, with Scripture Central and Eborn Books, 2021), 58–64, 110–111, 248.

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Moses 6–7 and the Book of Giants: Remarkable Witnesses of Enoch’s Ministry,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 48 (2021): 95–312.

Relevant Scriptures

Moses 6:37–38

Moses 7:13

Endnotes

1. Brian R. Doak, “The Giant in a Thousand Years: Tracing Narratives of Gigantism in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences, ed. Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano (Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 24; brackets in original.

2. See Scripture Central, “Book of Moses Evidence: Enoch the Lad,” Evidence 480 (February 6, 2025); Scripture Central, “Book of Moses Evidence: Slow of Speech,” Evidence 496 (May 28, 2025).

3. See Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion: The Witness of Ancient Texts for Modern Scripture (Interpreter Foundation, with Scripture Central and Eborn Books, 2021), 57–63.

4. It seems plausible that the moving of mountains and turning of rivers are connected events, as such a large displacement of earth might naturally redirect any flowing water that it encountered. The fact that they are paired together on two separate occasions strengthens that possibility (Moses 6:34; 7:13). If that is the case, it would imply that the roaring of the lions, described immediately afterward in Moses 7:13, is part of the same event. With this in mind, there have long been reports of animals acting bizarrely in connection to earthquakes, including reports of them making an unusual amount of noise. According to US geological survey published in 2004, an earthquake rattled the state of Indiana in 1940, disturbing circus animals in the area: “At Peru and Rochester, circus winter headquarters, elephants trumpeted, lions and tigers roared, as the earth shook. It took two hours to quiet the animals.” W. H. Bakun and M. G. Hopper, “Catalog of Significant Historical Earthquakes in Central United States,” USGS (U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Geological Survey, 2004), 133.

5. Enoch’s apparent ability to cause the lions to roar (presumably in fear) is interesting in light of the fact that gibborim of the ancient world were often known as hunters who exhibited their prowess over predators. As noted by Doak, “Ancient Mesopotamian kings routinely bragged of their hunting exploits, the prey being exotic animals in faraway lands; the Assyrian royal lion hunt represents the apex of this tradition insofar as it has been passed down to us visually.” Doak, “The Giant in a Thousand Years,” 24.

6. See Moses 7:14–16: “There also came up a land out of the depth of the sea, and so great was the fear of the enemies of the people of God, that they fled and stood afar off and went upon the land which came up out of the depth of the sea. And the giants of the land, also, stood afar off; and there went forth a curse upon all people that fought against God; … The fear of the Lord was upon all nations, so great was the glory of the Lord, which was upon his people.” See also Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Moses 6–7 and the Book of Giants: Remarkable Witnesses of Enoch’s Ministry,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 48 (2021): 61–62, 111–112.

7. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The Aramaic Book of Giants,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 2, ed. James R. Davila and Richard Bauckham (William B. Eerdmans, 2025), 81.

8. On the possible identification of this wild man as Gilgamesh, see Joseph Angel, “Reading the Book of Giants in Literary and Historical Context,” Dead Sea Discoveries 21 (2014): 336.

9. Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion, 111.

10. Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion, 111.

11. Bradshaw, “Moses 6–7 and the Book of Giants,” 198.

12. Enoch went on a journey away from his homeland in order to preach (Moses 6:41). See Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion, 43–44.

13. See “Barbarian,” online at britannica.com.

14. Doak, “The Giant in a Thousand Years,” 24. Doak, here, is quoting from Richard Bernheimer.

15. See 1 Kings 17:6; 2 Kings 1:8; Matthew 3:3–4.

16. Hugh Nibley, Enoch the Prophet (FARMS and Deseret Book, 1986), 33. As backing for this claim, Nibley cites Iesous Besileus, Iesous Besileus ou Basileusas, ed R. Eisler (Heidelberg: C. Winter Verlag, 1930), 2:18ff.

17. Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 33. On the same page, quoting from several different sources, Nibley further explains, “‘The angel containing the name Yahweh referred to in Exodus 23:20—21 is … ‘Metatron Prince of the Face,’ and is identified with the prophet Elijah.’ As the Lord approaches the gates of hell in the drama just referred to, Beliar asks Hades, ‘Look carefully who is coming, it looks like Elijah or Enoch or one of the prophets to me!’ Yet it is Jesus—so much are the three alike. In a related source, after Christ leads the procession up out of hell and the righteous dead are redeemed with the help of Enoch and Elijah, those who live on ‘until the end of the world, at which time they will be sent down to earth by God during the rule of the Antichrist to be put to death by him and rise after three days to be caught up into the clouds and meet the Lord.’ Other sources report the same tradition but include the Lord in the holy trio who are slain and ascend to heaven in their respective times. John the Baptist, too, was identified with Elijah—‘this was Elijah to come if ye can receive it.’” Enoch is also often paired with Elijah because, in various traditions, both were translated and taken up to heaven. See, for example, Shaul Bar, “Enoch and Elijah: Ascent to Heaven?” Jewish Bible Quarterly 51, no. 4 (2023): 237–244.

18. Michael B. Cover, Philo of Alexandria: On the Change of Names: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Brill, 2024), 78–79.

19. Cover, Philo of Alexandria, 191.

20. Cover, Philo of Alexandria, 193.

21. See also Cover, Philo of Alexandria, 192: “Philo alludes to Plato’s account of ‘love’ (ἔρως) as a kind of divine madness in Phaedr. 244a. He attributes this ecstatic form of divine possession especially to followers of Enoch. Both Platonic and Enochic ascents are attributed to the love of God alone, which (to invoke a Platonic image) raptures them like Ganymede from the normal duties of life and elevates them to the exclusive service of God. Philo thus recognizes an implicit differentiation between Enochic and Abrahamic patterns of religion.”

22. Scripture Central, “Book of Moses Evidence: Enoch Clothed with Glory,” Evidence 500 (June 25, 2025).

23. Commenting on the parallel transfigurations experienced by Enoch and Moses, Andrei Orlov writes, “A similar change of the visionary’s identity might be discernible in the Exagoge [a famous Jewish play which recasts Israelite history], where the already mentioned designation of Moses as ξένος occurs. Besides the meanings of ‘friend’ and ‘guest,’ this Greek word also can be translated as ‘stranger.’ If the authors of the Exagoge indeed had in mind this meaning of ξένος, it might well be related to the fact that Moses’ face or his body underwent some sort of transformation which altered his previous physical appearance and made him appear as a stranger to Raguel. The tradition of Moses’ altered identity after his encounter with the Kavod is reflected not only in Exod 34 but also in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities 12:1, when the Israelites failed to recognize Moses after his glorious metamorphosis on Mount Sinai.” Andrei A. Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 107 (Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 267.

24. For more context, see Mosiah 13:4–8 “And again, because I have spoken the word of God ye have judged me that I am mad. Now it came to pass after Abinadi had spoken these words that the people of king Noah durst not lay their hands on him, for the Spirit of the Lord was upon him; and his face shone with exceeding luster, even as Moses’ did while in the mount of Sinai, while speaking with the Lord. And he spake with power and authority from God; and he continued his words, saying: Ye see that ye have not power to slay me, therefore I finish my message. Yea, and I perceive that it cuts you to your hearts because I tell you the truth concerning your iniquities. Yea, and my words fill you with wonder and amazement, and with anger.” It may be that something similar happened with Enoch. Of him, the people declared: “there is a strange thing in the land; a wild man hath come among us. And it came to pass when they heard him, no man laid hands on him; for fear came on all them that heard him; for he walked with God” (Moses 6:39). Enoch would not have been able to walk with God without being transfigured.

25. J. J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., ed. James H. Charlesworth (Doubleday, 1983–1985), 1:339. Korihor’s critique of the believers in his day also skirts along these lines: “But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers” (Alma 30:16).

26. This is especially plausible when one considers that the reason the people called Enoch a “wild man” may not fully align with the narrator’s reasons for including this detail, or with the way it may have been viewed by any subsequent redactors or audiences. Because ancient texts often have complicated histories of production, transmission, and translation—and because the history of the Book of Moses hasn’t been revealed in this regard—it seems wise to keep one’s options open to multiple interpretive frameworks.

27. See Charles D. Yonge, trans., The Works of Philo Judaeus: The Contemporary of Josephus (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854). See also Charles D. Yonge, The Works of Philo: New Updated Edition, Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), vii: “A major reason [for this publication] stems from the relative lack of availability of Philo’s works. The only other English text of Philo exists in ten volumes plus two supplementary volumes in the prestigious (and expensive) Loeb Classical Library published by Harvard University Press.” Because the Loeb publication of the series began in the early 20th century, this statement indicates that no English translation of Philo’s works existed before Yonge’s 1854 translation. Although Latin and Greek versions of Philo would have been potentially available to Joseph Smith, they would undoubtedly have been unreadable to him in 1830. His formal studies of Greek and Latin didn’t begin until years after he had translated the Book of Moses. And even then, John W. Welch describes Smith’s Greek as likely having been “rudimentary,” and he doubts whether Smith could ever “pick up a Greek Bible and sight-read it with ease.” As for Latin, Smith’s “awareness was mostly limited to technical legal terms and popular political phrases that he undoubtedly encountered on his numerous occasions in court and in public discourse.” John W. Welch, “Joseph Smith’s Awareness of Greek and Latin,” in Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H. Hedges (BYU Religious Studies Center; Deseret Book, 2015), 303–304.

28. See notes 16–17 earlier in this article.

29. Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion, 57. By this, Bradshaw simply means that there is nothing in the Bible itself that suggests this label should apply to Enoch.

30. For many other such elements, see Bradshaw, Enoch and the Gathering of Zion.

To visit Scripture Central’s website, CLICK HERE. 

Did Book of Mormon Peoples Wear Silk and Linen?

View the original post on Scripture Central. 

How Was Abinadi a Prophet “Like unto Moses”?

To view the original post on Scripture Central, CLICK HERE.