Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Nibley: genius or fool?
From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 17 Aug 1992 15:14:19 MDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Brigham Young University

Glenn's critique of Nibley is so confusing that I'm sure most
people had a very difficult time making the slightest sense out
of what he says.  It is not worth responding to, and if his level
of discourse does not improve, I shall stop wasting my time.
If Glenn wishes the discussion to continue I insist that: 1- he
reads the material before declaring it to be wrong, and 2- that
he provides evidence to support his assertions.

The major problem with Glenn is that he has no idea what
Nibley is really talking about.  Nibley is assuming: 1- that his
audience has a basic familiarity with Biblical studies, and 2-
if they don't have sufficient background they will attempt to
learn more.  Unfortunately, it seems that Glenn possesses
neither of these qualities.

What Glenn has basically done is to ask questions of Nibley and
Milik.  He provides no evidence for ANY of his assertions.  Not a
single piece of evidence!!!  We can therefore reject Glenn's
comments out of hand until he provides some substantiation.
I'm sorry, but from previous dealings with Glenn I have ample
reason not to trust his unsubstantiated assertions.

Now, to Glenn's comments:

1.  Glenn:  "Critics?  Who!  Citation please?  Natually [sic] there
was a book of Enoch. What was it?  How does this chalenge
[sic] the "critcs [sic]?"  When was the Book of Enoch ever
Scripture?  Citaion [sic] please."

Bill:  Nibley is stating that the discovery of the Dead Sea
Scrolls (DSS) Aramaic Enoch demonstrates that the Enoch
tradition does not date from the fifth century AD, as many
scholars believed before the discovery of the DSS, but dates
from at least the second century BC.  Thus it is not a late
Christian pseudepigrapha, but a much earlier Jewish work.
That's how it challenges the critics.  Nibley is not talking
about critics of Joseph Smith here, but critics of the antiquity
of the Enoch tradition.  Glenn is apparently unfamiliar with the
history of the text and interpretation of the Book of Enoch.
This is not Nibley's fault, and it is not my fault.  It is Glenn's
fault.  There is only one way for Glenn to remedy this
situation.  It is not by asking me to prove things which
everyone familiar with Biblical studies knows. It is for Glenn
to go out and read about it.  Glenn's critique of Nibley
essentially amounts to the following:  Glenn lacks sufficient
background to understand Nibley's arguments, therefore, Nibley
is incompetent.  I find it very difficult to take any of this
seriously.

2.  Glenn:  "Paragraph 3.  Delight of Latter day [sic] Saints?
RED FLAG!!!  I am now on my guard even more.  What about the
rest of us? Could Nibley have an axe to grind?  Watch for
begging the question. His audience has been identified as a
group that will believe anything he says anyway, so he will try
to get away with... well, let's see."

Bill:  All of the same could be said about Glenn.  He certainly
has an axe to grind.  But Nibley has never claimed to be
unbiased.  He is simply making a case for the position he thinks
is correct, the LDS position.  Does this make him automatically
wrong?  No.  Nibley provides evidence and analysis to support
his position.  Evidence must be provided to demonstrate Nibley
is wrong, not simply an assertion that he is begging the
question.  Glenn's implication that the LDS are a bunch of
gullible imbeciles who will swallow anything Nibley says is
simply an unsubstantiated gratuitous insult, based on the anti-
Mormon perception that anyone who could be a Mormon must be
a fool.  That is the essence of Glenn's position, and it is wrong.

3.  Glenn:  "More of paragraph 3.  So what?  Please establish the
Smith text. Book of Abraham?  Hasn't that already been totally
discredited? Hasn't Nibley been riticuled [sic] every time he
brings that up?"

Bill:  I have read the Nibley paragraph 3 twice, and have
absolutely no idea of the point Glenn is trying to make here.  I
can say that: no the Book of Abraham has not been totally
discredited, and no, Nibley is not ridiculed every time he
brings it up.  Can Glenn show his assertions are true?  Evidence
and analysis please!

4.  Glenn:  "Burried [sic]?  What is the evidence?  Please
include Millik's [sic] example for why he thinks so.  Burried
[sic] for the same reason as a sensen? Unlikely.  Why then?"

Bill:  Does anyone have any idea what Glenn is talking about
here?  Glenn wants ME to include evidence why Milik thinks a
particular DSS document was designed to be buried with the
dead.  Go read Milik yourself, Glenn!  I'm not your research
assistant.  If Glenn wants to deal with the issues, he needs to
go read the evidence for himself.  Glenn, a non-specialist,
thinks that Milik, a non-Mormon and one of the leading scholars
on the DSS in the world, is wrong.  He wants me to provide
evidence to support Milik, when Milik provided all the
necessary evidence and analysis in his own book, but Glenn is
unwilling to go to the library and look it up.  Glenn finds Milik's
conclusion, "Unlikely," but has not even read Milik!  I can't
believe it!  Are we really supposed to take Glenn seriously?
This is outrageous!  Now not only is Nibley wrong because
Glenn says so (with no evidence or analysis), but Milik is also
wrong because Nibley agrees with Milik.  Are we to assume
now that the alleged Nibley intellectual cancer spreads to
everyone that Nibley quotes?  Glenn's "logic" seems to run as
follows:
     Nibley is absolutely wrong on everything.
     Nibley agrees with Milik.
     Therefore, Milik must be wrong.
If Milik is right, then Nibley is right, and a strong case can be
made for the authenticity of the Enoch material in the Book of
Moses.  But since Glenn has already decided that the Book of
Moses can't be authentic, then it follows that Nibley is wrong,
and therefore, Milik must be wrong.  Who is begging the
question here?  The burden of proof lies with Glenn.  Milik may
in fact be wrong, but Glenn must prove it.  Prove (don't just
question) that Milik is wrong.  In order to do that you have to
read Milik first.

5.  Glenn:  "Why is Genesis 6:1-4 puzzling to Biblical Scholars?
Remeber [sic], Millik [sic] suggesting this passage is an earlier
Enoch source, is a hypothesis."

Bill:  If Glenn is unfamiliar with Biblical studies it's not my
fault.  Go read Milik's arguments and evidence, Glenn, and then
we can discuss it.  Here's a hint, Glenn, it's on pages 28-32.  By
the way, what Milik is saying is that Gen. 6:1-4 derives from
and is an abridgement of the Enoch tradition, the opposite of
what Glenn seems to think.

6.  Glenn:  "There is an additional concern, and that which
Nibley does not address.  When did man posess [sic] writing?
Surely it dates AFTER Enoch.  How then do we attribute this
writing to Enoch?"

Bill:  The real question is when do we date Enoch.  You tell me
when Enoch lived (and why you think so), Glenn, and then we
can discuss whether writing existed at that time.

7.  Glenn:  "P. 277, para 1.  Please give examples.  How so, why?
Please support this with evidence."

Bill:  Glenn, this is incredible.  Nibley is simply summarizing
Milik in this paragraph.  Nibley is agreeing with Milik, so that
Milik is the source for the evidence.  The discussion can not
move forward unless you are willing to read Milik.

8.  Glenn:  "Para 2.  Couldn't Smith have gotten his book of
Enoch from the book of Enoch???"

Bill:  The answer is no, Smith couldn't have gotten his Enoch
material in the Book of Moses from the Ethiopic Book of Enoch,
as Nibley makes clear on p. 278 of his material you claim to
have read.  Note that Glenn provides absolutely no evidence to
indicate that his claim is possible.  Nibley discusses why JS
couldn't have derived his material from the Ethiopic Enoch in
_Enoch the Prophet_, (1986, CWHN 2), pp. 91-113 (esp. pp.
104-113); note that Michael Quinn, not known as a Mormon
apologist, agrees with Nibley (Mormonism and the Magic World
View, p. 150).  But even if JS somehow got a hold of a Book of
Enoch, the material under discussion in this section is unique
to the DSS Enoch, which was not discovered until 1946.

9.  Glenn:  "Smith COULD have gotten the name Mahujah from
Genesis, Enoch, etc., that Nibley compares it first with Moses
proves nothing.  This sheds doubt on the whole thing, it does
not reinforce Moses, since it is the product of Smith.  The
parallel is meaningless.  Now, if we could look at the original
text of Moses, predating Smith, then it would be compelling.
But...."

Bill:  Once again I find it very difficult to figure out exactly
what Glenn is talking about, and once again he provides
absolutely no evidence to support his assertions.  First, where
is the name Mahujah in the Book of Genesis, and where is it in
the Ethiopic Book of Enoch?  It exists in neither, so how is JS
supposed to have gotten the name from those texts?  It is
found only in the Aramaic fragments of the Book of Enoch in
the DSS which were not discovered until over 100 years after
Joseph Smith died.  Maybe Joseph Smith snuck off to Palestine,
dug up the DSS, read the relevant fragments in Aramaic,
reburied them in a state that would make it appear to
archaeologists that the scrolls were undisturbed, and then
returned to America, all without his absence of several months
being noticed by anyone.  But, of course, Glenn has it wrong as
usual.  The personal name in question is Mahijah, not Mahujah
(Moses 6:40).   (By the way, the name Mahijah does not occur in
Genesis or Ethiopian Enoch either.)

10.  Glenn:  "P. 278, para 1 (previous 3 continues to this page)
Nibley makes a very good point here.  (So What).  I'd like much,
much more support for Nibley's claims in this paragraph."

Bill:  Here is the real issue, and Glenn admits that Nibley
makes a good point.  The text in question from Moses 6:40
reads:

"And there came a man unto him [Enoch], whose name was
Mahijah, and said unto him: Tell us plainly who thou art, and
from whence thou comest?"

Here is the parallel text from 4QEnGiants(b)1.20 (= the fourth
Qumran Enoch fragments from the DSS):

"they [the Giants = mighty men] summoned MHWY and he came
to them: And the giants asked him and sent him to Enoch...
saying unto him: Go then ... and under pain of death you must ...
and listen to his voice; and tell him that he is to explain to you
and to interpret the dreams." (the ellipses represent damaged
and unreadable text)

Nibley's argument runs as follows:

A-  This passage was only made available in 1976 when Milik
published his study on the Enoch material in the DSS
discovered in 1946.  JS obviously could not have had access to
it in the early 1830s when he published the Book of Enoch.
B-  The Aramaic name MHWY (no vowels are provided in the
original manuscript), can be read Mahujah or Mahijah (the W in
Hebrew is almost exactly the same as the Y, and is probably
the most frequent misspelling in Hebrew/Aramaic).  Note that
the J in OT names is derived from the Hebrew Y, and is
correctly pronounced Y.  It has to do with the shift in
pronunciation of Latin from Roman times until the seventeenth
century.  The Latin J was always pronounced Y (i.e. Julius was
pronounced Yulyus).
C-  Nibley's conclusion: "So what? [Glenn's exact response]  A
coincidence -- a giant or a Watcher called Mahujah or Mahijah.
But far more than a coincidence when taken in its context.  The
only thing the Mahijah in the Book of Moses is remarkable for
is his putting of bold direct questions to Enoch ... And this the
exactly the role, and the only role, that the Aramaic Mahujah
plays in the story.  The name is found in none of the other
Enoch texts and neither is the story: it is peculiar to the
version Joseph Smith gave us and the oldest Enoch
manuscripts." (p. 278)
D-  JS claimed to have produced by revelation an authentic
ancient text of Enoch which had existed in antiquity, and which
formed the basis of, or was in some other way related to, the
Biblical account found in Genesis.  The LDS claim that it was a
real text, but that it was later lost by loss of manuscripts,
textual corruption, purposeful destruction, etc.  In the JS Book
of Moses, Enoch is questioned by a man name Mahijah (Moses
6:40).  In 1946 a document was found in the DSS which also
claims to be the Book of Enoch, telling an expanded version of
the story of Enoch found in Genesis.  In that document, a man of
almost exactly the same name also questions Enoch.
    In other words, what this proves, beyond any doubt, is that
the ancient Jews had stories of Enoch being questioned by a
man named Mahujah/Mahijah, which is precisely what Joseph
Smith claimed.  Now how did JS do this?  Is it just by chance
that he got it exactly right?  Glenn may believe whatever he
wishes, but this example provides good reason for rational
people to consider that Joseph Smith may have actually
received a revelation from God concerning the contents of a
lost ancient document.  That certainly is one way to explain
the evidence, and is not inherently irrational nor inferior to
other explanations.

11.  Glenn:  Nibley "also talks about obvious changes and
vicissitudes in the ancient texts, but doesn't support it with
evidence.  What changes, how, when did they occur, by whom,
and why?  He doesn't say.  This may be one of the most
significant problems in this chapter.  If these changes are
significant, then we need to establish a basis from which to
work.  If they are not significant, then why bring them up?  He
doesn't elaborate.  The intended audience probably won't care.
All in all, watch out for Begging the Question when Nibley
makes assertions about changes in ancient texts."

Bill:  Nibley doesn't talk about the changes in the text of the
Enoch tradition because it is absolutely common knowledge to
anyone who knows anything about the Enoch tradition.  A major
theme of the introduction of Milik's book (pp. 4-135) is the
vast array of transformations that the Enoch tradition has
undergone in Christian, pagan, and Jewish tradition.  Nibley
does not provide full details becuase he assumes that anyone
interested in the subject will look up Milik's book to which
Nibley referes.  Glenn's questions simply reflect the fact that
he knows very little about the subject, and has not read Milik's
book.

12.  Glenn criticizes me for stating that he claims to have read
everything Nibley has written:  "Wow.  I am amazed at the
things you have me saying.  So, I have read everything Nibley
has written?  Hmmm you said that was about 10,000 pages.
That's quite an accomplishment.  I should be proud.  Too bad you
only say I said that.  Where else to you have me saying strang
[sic] things?"

Bill:  I base my conclusion that Glenn claims to have read
everything that Nibley has written on the following exchange.
I asked:  "Does Glenn know Nibley personally?  Has he read
everything Nibley has written?"  Glenn responded: "in answer,
No, and Yes."  Now to me Glenn is saying that, no, he does not
know Nibley personally; but yes, he has read everything Nibley
has written.  I don't know any other way to interpret Glenn's
statement.  It seems abundantly clear from Glenn's writing
that he feels he is above paying attention to such minor details
as grammar, syntax, spelling, logic, analysis, and evidence.  It
is also clear that he feels confident in criticizing material he
has never read.  Now it seems that Glenn is going to start
misinterpreting material which he himself has written.

Glenn's three criticisms of the Book of Mormon will be dealt
with in another posting.

William J. Hamblin