Talk:Zenock

Untitled
It is also theorized by some that Zenock is the same as Enoch (EE-NOK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.165.192 (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a reliable sources for this? If not, it's just speculation that has no place here at Wikipedia. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Connection between Zenoch and the Teacher of Righteousness
I'm not going to go so far as to delete the entire paragraph without first trying to see if there is some reasoning to this connection. If Zenock was intended to be an Israelite rather than Nephite prophet, which he likely was, it's almost impossible for this to be the same figure as the Teacher of Righteousness, as the Nephites left in the First Temple period and the Qumran community didn't exist until the Second Temple period. All of the above is giving the Book of Mormon the benefit of the doubt, but without doing so, there is no way Joseph Smith could've known about the Teacher of Righteousness. There may be some reasoning to this connecting, so I won't edit it out, but personally I think it's a bit far fetched. GramCanMineAway (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think the paragraph is proposing that Zenock is the same figure as the Teacher of Righteousness, but rather the same figure as Zadok from whom the Teacher is supposed to have descended. At least that's what I'm reading from the paragraph. It took me a few reads of the paragraph before I could parse what it was actually trying to say. The paragraph is poorly written - in my opinion it present the information in nearly the reverse order to what it should. It also does not properly attribute this suggestion to Hugh Nibley or whichever Latter-day Saint scholar has suggested this. The links in ref 8 appear to be no longer functional, so I haven't yet been able to check which parts of the paragraph can be attributed to the source and which are OR. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I have good news for you. It turns out the OpenLibrary/Internet Archive has a digitized copy of Old Testament and Related Studies, so you can see Nibley's content for yourself. See I fixed up the reference and cleaned up the paragraph a little to address what you said about how it read confusingly, but left it largely intact since y'all (Fyzix and GramCanMineAway) are apparently further discussing the content. I would give as my two cents that I am not sure the last sentence really belongs; since it's not clear if Nibley thinks Zadok is Zenock or just that Zenock resembles Zadok, I'm not sure how relevant later work that clarifies who the Zadokites were fits into the page.
 * I also expanded the page and added some sources to have content about Zenock's place in the Book of Mormon narrative, textual history, and reception (the latter is where I left the paragraph y'all are talking about). Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 10:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Very nice! I've got no reservation with you working on the paragraph - the discussion so far has been very preliminary and high level, so have it since you've got the source.
 * I do have a concern about the "Modern Mormon culture" section. Generally Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I also think it's a bit of a stretch to extrapolate from the one authors comments about their own unfamiliarity to the broader Latter Day Saint community. I think it might be good to combine the Modern culture section with the Nibley, Nemelka and Melekin sections. Definitely kudos on finding a RS that discusses the latter two - I had previously excluded Nemelka on another page since I couldn't find strong enough sources to justify due weight. Let me try trimming and tweaking and see how it goes. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I've gone ahead and removed the last sentence about Zadokites.
 * Good point about the Modern culture section. I think you're right to rephrase it and attribute it as a hypothesis. I do think Mansfield's claim that there is just one Zenock in the book and the figure is not frequently mentioned in church-published material. I hope it is alright that I have added to the paragraph to that end. I also reordered the paragraph so the bit about Nibley and etymology is adjacent to the subsections; just seemed to flow a little better.
 * I like your rearrangement so that the subsections are all under the same header; that does seem to make sense. Your other reorganization edits look good as well. And I'm glad to hear the source about Nemelka is of help to you. JWHA Journal and Steven Shields's published research are great for verifiable, due content about Mormonisms beyond the main denominations. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 18:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's funny to me because I had the paragraph cited to Mansfield at the start of the subsection as well for the same reason, and only changed it at the last minute. I think either way works. Again, nice work! --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)