© 2025 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
In response to Zosimus (who doesn’t dare use his real name): As I stated, there is a single reference in a footnote but this work was not in any of the sources or libraries that I cited that would have been available to Joseph Smith or anyone in the tortuous chain created by Nielsen. Here is that single reference:
“Daniel Guilford Wait’s 1823 ‘Jewish, Classical, and Oriental Antiquities,’
>states on page 277: The Book of Ibn-Nephi has the following verse:
>’And God appointed him [Enoch] a prophet, and caused to descend to
>him thirty books; and he inherited the books of Seth, and the Ark of Adam…
>Ibn Nephi writes, ‘But Adris [Enoch], who is Hermes (peace be unto him!)
>was the first after Seth who wrote with a pen, and Adris was deeply imbued
>with piety and religion from his youth upwards… And God appointed him to
>be a prophet and delivered to him thirty books. He inherited also the books
>which Seth composed and the Tebet [ark] of Adam.
But such a reference in a footnote has not been shown to even have been available to Joseph Smith. There are no references to this source in any of the other sources I cited.
I don’t agree with Nielson’s conclusions, but came here to comment that Kircher’s Ibn Nephi was known in English publications in the decade previous to the publication of the Book of Mormon. For example, Daniel Guildford Wait’s ‘Jewish, oriental and classical antiquities, etc.” (1823)
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Jewish_oriental_and_classical_antiquitie/2v1iAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
Wait seems to have picked up the reference in Johann Christoph Wolf’s Bibliotheca Hebraica.
There were also discussions about Wait’s reference to Kircher’s Ibn Nephi and Nephi’s comments on Enoch in English publications through 1830, as can be seen here:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Jewish_oriental_and_classical_antiquitie/2v1iAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
Nice to see Blake at work again. Thanks for sharing the enlightenment and the resources. I am sure this will prove useful.
It is kind of you to read through the book and explain it. Based on your description it does not appear the book is sincerely trying to be accurate so much as flamboyant.
Based on your outline 390 pages is a lot. I assume there is a lot of repetition and people are convinced by the sheer amount of repetition. This book seems more of a commentary on human nature. Thank you for the outline.
Wonderful! So glad that someone of Ostler’s caliber has wriiten a review of Nielsen’s awful book and theory! Hopefully even the lazy learners will see thru it.
Very informative review. Thanks.
There were actual attempts by a couple of Medieval Muslim scholars to decipher ancient Egyptian: Ahmad ibn Abi Bakr ibn Wahshiyya, and Dhul-Nun al-Misri. On that, see https://www.bibalex.org/learnhieroglyphs/Home/Page_En.aspx?name=ArabScholarsEfforts .