From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: LDS: Nibley, genius or fool
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:44:34 GMT

In article <92224.154242HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET writes:

I wasn't going to respond to this, as it seemed that you hadn't even read
what I wrote, but I'll give you another chance.

>Glen's response to my posting about Nibley speaks for itself.  There was
>not a shred or evidence or analysis to support his claims, simply his
>unsupported assertions.  Evidence and analysis please, Glen!
>
Let me see.  As I remember, you were saying that I was unqualified to
even respond to Nibley.  I said that I was, and I said why.  What more
do you want?  I'm not going to answer the accusations you only wish you
made.  I pointed out that there had already been examples of Nibley's
error.  Why do it again?  Must I?  Fine, I'll dig up some new ones.

Here we go:  From "Enoch the Prophet"  I'll focus on "The 'Enoch'
of the Dead Sea Scrolls" pp. 276-281.

2nd paragraph on p.276:

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

Paragraph 3.  Delight of Latter day 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.

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 every time he brings that up?
Burried?  What is the evidence?  Please include Millik's example
for why he thinks so.  Burried for the same reason as a sensen?
Unlikely.  Why then?

Para 4.  Why is Genesis 6:1-4 puzzling to Biblical Scholars?  Remeber,
Millik suggesting this passage is an earlier Enoch source, is
a hypothesis.  There is an additional concern, and that which Nibley
does not address.  When did man posess writing?  Surely it dates
AFTER Enoch.  How then do we attribute this writing to Enoch?
Again, Nibley is catering to his LDS audience by assuring that Smith's
Enoch is correct.  More on that leter.

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

Para 2.  Catering to a forgiving audience again.  Couldn't Smith have
gotten his book of Enoch from the book of Enoch???  I don't believe
in Smith's prophetic powers, how can I believe Nibley's dependence on
the fact that I do?

Para 3.  Citing Moses.  Again, this is pandering to an audience that
isn't going to criticize his findings.  What about the non-LDS community?
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....

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.  He seems to
be relying heavily on a friendly audience that already believes anyway.

Rest of chapter:

All the rest of the chapter is a side by side comparison of the fragments
to the Enoch of the Book of Moses.  This is fine, except that the control
is not first established by including the accepted Greek (best choice)
Book of Enoch nor the Ethiopian version.  Also, Nibley states that
the Millik states that the fragments are not necessarily in order.
In reading the side by side comparison, the differences jump out much
more redily than the similarities.  What is significant, is that there
are some similarities, (which w/o a control shows little), and that
most of the similarities are VERY loose.  Also, there is much more
information in the few fragments than in the Book of Moses.  Why is that?
Nibley doesn't explain, and w/o a watchful eye, it could go unnoticed.
Many of the parallels totally escape me.  That's the problem with
comparing to so-called translations to English.  (Refering to Millik's, 
not Smith's).  Comparing original languages where possible would be
more meaningful, but...  All in all, the comparison side by side
is a major disappointment, and really shows nothing.

End of Comparison, p. 281.

Nibley points out much of what I observed, and mentioned above.  Perhaps
he should have done it first?  Ah, a style issue.  He talks about like
themes.  Well, that's takes a LOT of imagination.  He 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.  

Here are some more observations that I noted the last time I read
this particualr chapter:


I found the following information on the Book of Enoch.  The Enoch
referred to in Jude 14, is the Seventh from Adam, not the Enoch in
the line of Cain (Gen 4:17), but the one in the line of Seth (Gen
5:18-24, 1 Chronicals 1:1-3).  He was seventh if Adam is counted as
the first.  The quotation in Jude 14 ifs from the Apocryphal book
of Enoch, which purports to have been written by the Enoch of
Genesis 5, but actually did not appear until the first century B.C. 
the book of Enoch was a well-respected writing in New Testament
times.  That it was not canonical does not mean that it contained
no truth; nor does Jude's quotation of the book mean that he
considered it inspired.  When Jude refers to prophecy in the quote
of the book of Enoch, it is not in the sense of supernaturally
revealing new truth, but merely in the sense of speaking things
about the future that were already known.  (See Daniel 7:9-14, Zec
14:1-5).  (NIV Study Bible, Zondervan)

Dr. Gleason L. Archer indicates that Jude's use of a quote from the
book of Enoch must not be taken as indicating more than it should:

     "...this by no means demonstrates that everything in the book
     of Enoch is historically accurate or theologically valid. 
     Much of Enoch may be quite fictional.  But there is no good
     ground for condemning everything that is written therein as
     false, simply because the book is noncanonical.  Even a pagan
     work could contain items of truth, as is attested to by Paul
     when he quoted Aratus's "Phenomena 6" to his Athenian audience
     (Acts 17:20)."  (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties)

The Revell Bible Dictionary also addresses the Book of Enoch:

          "One of a number of religious writings that appeared in
     Judaism in the centuries before and after Christ.  Although
     these popular writings were not regarded as authoritative
     Scripture, they were read for their many valuable spiritual
     insights. 
          "One of the most popular of these works, the Book of
     Enoch, was actually a lengthy compilation of various religious
     writings.  The contents were ascribed to Enoch, perhaps
     because the Jews, noting that the Enoch of Genesis had been
     taken directly into heaven, felt he must have had special
     knowledge of divine secrets.
          "It is likely that Jude 14,15 either quotes from or
     paraphrases a familiar passage from this popular work, much as
     Paul quoted a will-known pagan poet in his sermon on Mars Hill
     (Acts 17:20).  In each case, an insight from a non-inspired
     source is woven into Scripture and validated as true.  See
     also Apocalyptic Literature, Apocrypha."

I cite the above (which post-date Millik's work on this) merely for
some perspective to show the range of understanding on this topic.

Nibley claims that the fragments from the Dead
Sea Scrolls show that the Book of Enoch was not merely a collection
of writings stuck in one book and attributed to Enoch. 
This seems to be a rather stretched conclusion.  It seems that it could be
impossible to tell the difference, especially of the authors of the
book of Enoch wanted attribution to be that of Enoch. 


>Glen claims (without substantiation, of course) that Nibley says he
>can't read Hieroglyphics.  What Nibley actually said, was that in 1967
>he couldn't deal with demotic and hieractic script well, a very different
>thing.  

Really?  Yet you give him so much credit.  I can read Greek, Hebrew, and
Egyptian with the aid of a Lexicon.  I don't do it well.  I guess I'm
as good as Nibley then.  Who knows, in 25 years (or even 1 year) I won't
even need any lexicons.

>At any rate, that was 25 years ago.  If Glenn has read everything
>Nibley has written, as he claims, then he would have read the "Message
>of the Joseph Smith Papyri" in which Nibley deals with Egyptian extensively.
>
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 things?

>For a complete analysis of Nibley's Egyptological background (he started
>studying Egyptian in 1927), see John Gee's review in REVIEW OF BOOKS ON
>THE BOOK OF MORMON, no. 4 (1992), pp. 96-98, which references favorable
>reviews of Nibley's work by non-Mormon Egyptologists, and Nibley being
>quoted by non-Mormon Egyptologists to support their arguments.
>
Thanks, I will.  It isn't that I don't believe you, I just want to make
sure I have as much information as I need, and I really want to be fair.
I still reserve the right to my own opinion, and I can disagree with
anyone I want, and be vocal about it.  What a country, with that 1.st
ammendment and all.  Keep in mind, that it is not Nibley's secular
wrok that I have a difference with, it is his LDS work.  If the "secular"
peers extole the virtues of Nibley on secular matters, that doesn't
help me much.

>The important thing to note is that Glenn now agrees that Nibley is not
>a fool!  All Glenn has shown is that Glenn disagrees with and doesn't
>understand Nibley.  So what?
>
Wow, you are really good at the misquotes.  You can be very annoying,
but I'll try not to let it get to me.  For those of you who care,
I said that perhaps fool was too harsh.  Deceived is a better word.
However, I went on to explain what foolishness is, and why I chose that word,
and that what Nibley does is foolish, therefore, fool.

>scholar is mere "lookey-see pablum."  What I'd like to know from Glenn is,
>what is one of these difficult questions which the LDS have ignored?  This
>is your chance Glenn; give me your toughest question about the BOM, and I
>guarentee that I can show you printed responses to that question.  Care
>to take the challenge?  (One question at a time please; start with whichever
>problem you feel is the absolute hardest for LDS to deal with.)
>

I figured you'd just go for one of those you dodged a year ago, but...

I'll start with some easy ones.  Take your pick, but please try to
address them all.

The Nephi bunch sailed to the "promised land" in 344 days, with a fierce
wind.  At only 3 knots, they could have sailed around the entire planet
in that time.  (Go ahead and calculate it for yourself).  One knot
is 1.15 statute miles/hour.  Please also address, the amount of food
and water stored for a voyage of that duration for that many people.

Right after Nephi's arrival, he built a temple after that of Solomon.
Hmmm. 15 people, one Temple.  Now, how long did it take for Solomon to
build his?  How many people?  It took Solomon 8 years, 155,000 men, 30,000
overseers.

Where is it now?

In Jeremiah, God forbis writing any scripture in Egyptian.  Why did
Nephi write in Egyptian?  Where is the evidence of this writing in
this society (REformed Egyptian, that is).  Why has no writing that
matches the "reformed Egyptian" has ever been found outside the BoM sales
flyer?  (If you don't know what flyer I'm talking about, let me know).

That should be a good start.  When you're ready for more, let me know.

God Bless,

Glenn


-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc