Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Nibley:" genius or fool?
From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 17 Aug 1992 14:53:51 MDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Brigham Young University

It seems that the methodology of the anti-Mormons is to
attempt to show a case where Nibley made a mistake or self-
contradiction, and then declare to the world that he is
obviously incompetent in *everything* he has ever written.
Can we apply the same methodology to their own writings on
the newsnet?  If I catch them in a mistake are we then allowed
to discount everything else they have ever said or will say?  In
fact, as I will show below, they have almost invariably
misrepresented what Nibley has clearly written.  They have
thus either not read, or not understood Nibley.  My very strong
suspicion about Mark is that he is simply repeating the
Tanners (or some other professional anti-Mormon) on these
issues, and in fact has not read the original documents he
claims to be quoting.  But be this as it may, both Mark and
Glenn have completely misunderstood and misrepresented
Nibley.

But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Nibley has
indeed made mistakes, and later has changed his mind on
certain topics.  Does this prove he is an incompetent fool?  No,
it shows he is a human being, who makes mistakes and
progresses in knowledge and understanding, just like the rest
of us.  What scholar alive has never made a mistake, or has
never changed his ideas and opinions?  This is an integral part
of the scholarly endeavor.

Now to Mark's "arguments."

1.   Mark writes,  "I believe all respected [read: non-Mormon]
Egyptologists are in agreement the papyrus is a pagan funeral
legend and there is no connection between it and the
_PoGP/Book of Abraham_."  Note 1: Mark fails to indicate
which of the eleven JS papyri fragments he is referring to.
Note 2: no Egyptologist believes that JS papyri X and XI (the
probable ones in question) are a "pagan funeral legend."  Rather
they are Egyptian funerary ritual literature -- quite a
different thing.  Nibley absolutely agrees with this
description.  Nibley has never claimed that the JS papyri X and
XI are the source for the Book of Abraham (BOA).  This claim is
made only by anti-Mormons.  See his "Meaning of the Kirtland
Egyptian Papers," BYU Studies, 11/4 (Sum. 1071), p. 350-399,
and _Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri_, pp. 1-3.  The entire
thrust of this latter work deals with the ritual and mythical
background of papyri X and XI.

2.  Mark claims that Nibley's material in the Improvement Era
from 1968-1970 is "twaddling."  I'm sorry, but I reject Mark's
opinion.  If he wants his unsubstantiated opinion given serious
attention he must provide specific examples of the supposed
"twaddling," with exact references, and analysis.  Especially
provide references to authorities who think Nibley's work is
"twaddling."  I am becoming tired of anti-Mormons who don't
seem able to understand, or willfully misunderstand the
Mormon position on the subject.  I have read the material in
question, which Mark apparently hasn't.

3.  Mark claims that "In one of the articles, Nibley seriously
mistranslated the Egyptian and never noted the mistake in the
subsequent series."  Can Mark provide an exact reference
(including page) to this alleged mistranslation, the specific
word or phrase in question, and the authoritative source who
claims it is a mistranslation?  You'll have to forgive me if I
don't believe you without some form of documentation.  Or is
Mark professing to be able to read Egyptian himself and make
this judgement on his own?

4.  I can't deal with Mark's alleged contradiction in Nibley until
he provides me with an exact reference to Nibley's alleged
speech on 20 May 1968.  Nibley's statements must be read in
full context.  I suspect that Nibley is discussing two different
things here.  Let Mark provide the full text of the speech (I
suspect it is a phrase taken out of context by the Tanners.  Am
I right Mark?  The Tanners are notorious for willful
misrepresentation of the LDS position on issues by quoting out
of context; for examples, see Matt Roper, "Review of Tanners
Mormonism: Shadow or Reality" (in Review of Books on the
Book of Mormon, #4, 1992), pp. 172-176.)

5.  Mark writes, "And then there was Nibley's professed ability
to translate what he thought were Egyptian characters, but in
reality were the doodlings of Mark Hoffman."  This is an
absolutely outrageous lie!!  When did Nibley ever claim that he
was able to translate the Hoffman forgery?  Evidence please!
The only man to claim to translate it that I am aware of was
non-Mormon Barry Fell; no Mormon I know accepted Fell's
translation.  I want a printed original source from Nibley, with
context, not some unsubstantiated claim of anti-Mormons.
What utter nonsense!

6.  Nibley claims that the doctrine of JS has never been
altered.  Mark asks why, then, were the "Lectures on Faith"
removed from the D&C?  The answer is, the "Lectures on Faith"
were not revelations.  They simply happen to have been printed
and bound in the same volume with the D&C, which is
considered revelation and scripture.  The "Lectures on Faith,"
are still widely read and considered important teachings by
the LDS; but they aren't and never were considered scripture.
(See introduction by LDS Apostle John Widtsoe, _Lectures on
Faith_, (Bookcraft, n.d., p. 6), "The Lectures on Faith have not
been printed in the current editions of the D&C because they
are not revelations to the Church."  Can Mark show where JS
claimed that the "Lectures on Faith" were revelation, and
therefore should be considered scripture?  So what "doctrine"
has been altered here?

7.  Dee F. Green doesn't like Nibley's work.  What does this
show?  Some scholars agree with Nibley, some disagree.  I
showed half a dozen non-Mormons who think highly enough of
Nibley to write in his commemorative volume.  They may
disagree with him too, but they still respect his work.  This is
the nature of the academic enterprise.  If you take a position
on a controversial issue, you will find people who agree with
you, and those who disagree.

8.  Mark claims, "In fact, after all of Nibley's vacillation on the
Book of Abraham he stated he would not be held responsible for
anything he wrote more than 3 years previous, and that nearly
four fifths of everything he had put down had changed.
_Sunstone, 1979, p. 49-51_."  As noted previously by Willard,
this is again an anti-Mormon misrepresentation of what Nibley
said.  Once again, I must ask Mark if he has read what Nibley
really said, or is he just quoting the Tanners (or some other
similar source)?  What Nibley said is the following:

"Everything in Egyptian is being reappraised.  ... I refuse to be
held responsible for anything I wrote more than three years
ago.  For heaven's sake, I hope we are moving forward here.
After all, the implication that one mistake and it is all over
with -- how flattering to think in forty years I have not made
one slip and I am still in business!  I would say that about four
fifths of everything I put down has changed, of course.  That is
the whole idea; This is an ongoing process." (p. 49)  Is Nibley
here stating that he has changed his mind about the historicity
of the BOA?  Not at all.  In an addendum to his remarks he
states, "Is it (the BOA) a true history?  I believe that it is, and
have always believed it." (p. 51)  What Nibley is really saying
then, is that 1- Egyptology constantly advances with new
information and interpretations, and 2- Nibley himself learns
more on the subject, and so rejects some old ideas and
develops new ones.  Is this bad?  Does this make Nibley a fool?
On the contrary, it makes him a scholar, just like every other
scholar that ever lived.  In fact it makes him far more honest a
scholar than most.  But, in reality, all of this ("three years,"
and "four fifths") is hyperbole on Nibley's part.  Nibley is noted
for humorous self depreciating comments in his oral
presentations.  Nibley is doing a second edition of MJSP, which
indicates he still accepts his ideas in that work.

9.  If Mark feels that "most Mormons read the 'cartoon' books"
it is perhaps only indicative of the intellectual circles in
which Mark moves.

10.  Mark writes that:
"Nibley translated only 2 of the 10 fragments [in the Message
of the Joseph Smith Papyrus]."
Hamblin: that's all his book was about, JS XI and X.  Why should
he translate more?

"... these 2 had already been translated many years previously,"
Hamblin:  Nibley agreed with the previous translation, so
what?  It shows Nibley reads Egyptian well.

"... Nibley failed to discuss the meaning of the hyroglyphics
[sic, read hieroglyphics; need I ask what a person who can't
spell hieroglyphics is doing criticizing Nibley on things
Egyptian?] of 'Facsimile No. 1'"
Hamblin:  his book was not about facsimile no. 1.  However,
Nibley has a new book which is in the final stages of editing,
called _One Eternal Round_, which will deal with these issues.

"... the picture [of the man on the lion couch] in the fragment
[JS papyrus I = fac. 1] is *not* Abraham fastened on an alter [sic],
but an Egyptian man being prepared for burial."
Hamblin:  Note 1: Mark simply asserts his position: evidence
please!  Note 2: Nibley discusses this issue at length in _A New
Look at the Pearl of Great Price_, in the Improvement Era,
Sept. 1968 and the following.  Note 3:  But more important is
a recent papyrus discovery, discussed by John Gee in his article, "Abraham in
Ancient Egyptian Texts," Ensign, 22 (July 1992),
pp. 60-62,
which includes a photograph of an Egyptian magical papyrus
with a lion couch scene (the mirror image of fac. 1) with a
fragmentary text containing the phrase "Abraham who upon" in
Greek directly under the scene.   In other words, some
Egyptians associated Abraham with a lion-couch scene, exactly
as Joseph Smith claims about fac. 1.  Any comments, Mark?
Once again, JS was right on the mark.

11.  Mark critiques Joseph Smith for translating dozens of
words from a single hieroglyphic character.  Note, as Willard
has already demonstrated, Mormons do not believe that these
hieroglyphs from JS papyri XI and X are the source for the Book
of Abraham.  Get it Mark?  We don't believe that Joseph Smith
translated the Book of Abraham from JS papyri XI and X.  It's
you anti-Mormons who think that.  We Mormons think it's silly
and stupid to assert that the Book of Breathings is the source
for the Book of Abraham; so why do you believe it, and then
claim that we believe it?  Willard listed plenty of sources for
you to digest on the subject.  Perhaps you should read them
before you decide to tell everyone what Nibley has said on the
subject.  It all revolves around the question of who wrote the
Kirtland Egyptian Papers, what was their purpose, when and by
whom were the hieroglyphs added, etc.  Nibley's position is
made abundantly clear in _The Message of the Joseph Smith
Papyri_ = MJSP, (pp. 1-3) a book Mark pretends to have read.

12.    Mark writes that "Smith also translated the one Egyptian
word 'Khons' ... into an astounding 177 english [sic] words."  In
addition to the fact that Mark has misunderstood Nibley's
position on Joseph Smith's alleged authorship of the Kirtland
Papers, and over the issue of whether anyone ever claimed they
were supposed to be a translation, Mark then makes another
extremely erroneous statement.  Mark claims that "The
abundandtly [sic] incompetant [sic] Nibley discussed this
problem and explained it away as 'The Egyptian in particular
had an incurable weakness for abbreviations, ...' _Improvement
Era_ Feb. 1968, pp. 14-15.  This is absolutly [sic] laughable.
Nibley is telling us the one word name of the Egyptian moon-
god 'Khons' is actually the abbreviated story:"
     Mark's statement is another outrageous misrepresentation!
First, nowhere on pp. 14-15 (or anywhere in that section) does
Nibley "discuss this problem."  The word Khons is never
mentioned, nor are the Kirtland Egyptian papers, or their
relationship to the Book of Abraham, the papyri, or Joseph
Smith.  Second, Nibley has *never* claimed that JS translated
the Khons character into any part of the Book of Abraham.
Never!!  Indeed, Nibley explicitly states the opposite on several
occasions (sources noted above).  For example, Nibley writes,
"Is the Book of Abraham a correct translation of the Joseph
Smith Papyri X and XI? No, the Book of Breathings is not the
Book of Abraham!  Does it pretend to be? No, it was never put
forward as such." (MJSP, p. 2)
    What Nibley is really doing in this passage is referencing an
anti-Mormon tract, which condemns JS for having supposedly
translated a large part of the BOA from four characters of the
name Khons.  Nibley only critiques one particular phrase from
that pamphlet, the idea that:
     "an Egyptian symbol written with four elements 'could
be no more than a single Egyptian word.'  But ancient languages
have a way of ignoring our modern common-sense rules; the
Egyptians in particular had an incurable weakness for
abbreviations, omissions, transpositions, puns, and
cryptograms, and their writings are full of signs which, even
when we know their meaning (which is by no means always the
case), require at least a sentence or two to explain them."
Thus, Nibley is simply making a quite correct observation
about the nature of Egyptian hieroglyphics.  He is absolutely
not defending the idea that JS translated the Egyptian word
Khons into several verses of the BOA; Nibley thinks this is
clearly impossible, it is only anti-Mormons who maintain the
theory that JS somehow thought a single character could
become dozens of English words.  How does Nibley himself
translate the characters?  As Khnsw = Khonsu, just as any
Egyptologist would (MJSP, p. 19).
    The argument seems to run something like this:
         The anti-Mormons claim that JS translated the BOA from
JS papyri XI and X.
         Nibley thinks this anti-Mormon idea is stupid and
impossible.
         Therefore (Mark asserts) Nibley is defending the idea
that JS translated the BOA from JS papyri XI and X.
   Where do the anti-Mormons get such notions?

13.  On the issue of JS's knowledge of languages, Mark again
distorts Nibley's clear position.  Nibley maintained that when
JS translated the BOA in 1835, he "claimed to know no
language but English."  JS's claims to be able to read foreign
languages such as the texts of the Book of Mormon and Book of
Abraham is always related to translation by "the gift and
power of God," (Testimony of the Three Witnesses in BOM) not
by human agency (cf. D&C 20:8, 135:3).  Thus both statements
are accurate: JS knew no foreign languages in 1835, and could
therefore translate ancient documents only by means of
revelation.  Such a position is perfectly reasonable, and
certainly does not merit Mark's condemnation that "Nibley
ceases to be acting foolishly, and begins to be dishonest."

14.  By the way, I find it impossible to believe that anyone who
has read the MJSP can continue to assert that Nibley cannot
read Egyptian.  Here is Nibley's published statement on his
understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphics in 1967: he claims he
was "not yet confident in Egyptian ..." ("An Intellectual
Autobiography," in _Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless_,
(1978) p. xxvi)  Thus, in 1978 he wrote that in 1967 he was
"not yet confident in Egyptian," which clearly implies that in
1978 he was confident.  In other words, no, Nibley is not an
Egyptologist, but neither he nor I have ever claimed he was.
Nibley was not fluent in hieroglyphics in 1967, but had become
so in 1978, and can now read Egyptian fluently.

I am quite mystified by the behavior of the anti-Mormons.  If
they wish to disagree with Nibley, and reject Mormonism, that
is their right.  If they wish to publicly criticize Mormonism
and Nibley they may also do so.  But they consistently
demonstrate that they do not know the LDS position, and seem
unable to read a plain English text.  They also insist on quoting
from books and articles they haven't read, and inventing
positions for the Mormons which are exactly the opposite of
what the Mormons actually believe. Their behavior is
astounding.  I believe I have clearly shown that all of the
alleged absurdities and mistakes made by Nibley are in fact
the absurdities and mistakes of Mark.

William J. Hamblin
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14538 talk.religion.newage:3972 sci.physics:13342