How Kish Became a Nibley Fan

[Madison54]

I am so glad you enjoyed it. You were in my thoughts while I was making this because you once told me of your connection to the world of Nibley. Anything additional you want to share here about that would be most welcome! I remain keenly interested in all things Nibley.

Both my Mother and brother felt that Nibley was truly a good man. Everything they told me, of course, was seen through their own lense and was their own interpretation. But, here are a few things they told me.

Nibley expressed to both of them that he was very much open to there being multiple lives (reincarnation is what he appeared to mean). This surprised them and I do wonder if he was open to that because he knew he was approaching the end of his life.

I honestly don't know if Nibley ever wanted to be a part of the general church leadership (somehow, I doubt it...but maybe?), but both my Mother & brother felt he had some bitterness towards at least some of "the brethren" near the end....like he'd been used by them and possibly promised things (or at least hinted at) that never happened....who knows though? He definitely had mixed feelings about many of them.

I do believe that the leaders really did use so many scholars and historians. I do wonder how Nibley felt about being asked to write the rebuttal to No Man Knows My History. His No Ma'me, That's Not History was not his best writing, in my opinion....but he was following what the brethren asked him to do and he did his best to combat the truths in her book.
That's just one example where he might have felt used.

But, the leaders used so many historians to do their dirty work because so many of them did not know church history and didn't want their name on any of it.

I do know that my Mother and brother truly respected him and loved their visits with him. He had a brilliant mind and was very humble. They had some great discussions with him!

[hauslern]

Egyptologist Klaus Baer had his opinions of Nibley's work on the Book of Abraham:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BaM ... dbuQg/edit

Baer attended a session at BYU on the Book of Abraham.

Here are Nibley's thoughts on Baer:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lSD ... 8TR_Q/edit

Michael Marquardt attended the conference - Here are his thoughts. Baer was trying to be polite.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-E ... 5vfOE/edit

Now we have scholars like Royal Skousen who thinks the facsimile should be dropped from the Book of Abraham.

To: Noel Hausler <hauslernoel@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Peterson <danielcarlpeterson@gmail.com>, Debbie Peterson <dspegypt@gmail.com>, <John_gee@BYU.edu>

Dear Noel,

I definitely do NOT hold a positive view of Joseph Smith’s “interpretation” of the facsimiles. Here’s what’s on my curriculum vitae, at the end in the section entitled “Fundamental Scholarly Discoveries and Academic Accomplishments by Royal Skousen from about 1970 to 2020; first placed online in 2014”, on page 39:

“The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book.”

Yes, the facsimiles are shameful “reproductions” and have been so from the 1840s when first published in Times and Seasons. Yes, the engraver took a part from elsewhere on the hypocephalus and used it to fill up the missing part. I myself would like to see the Book of Abraham with the two secondary insertions in the first chapter removed that connect the text with the papyri and, in fact, no facsimiles or any connection with the Kirtland papyri. The actual text of the Book of Abraham has many interesting things, but the whole discussion has been hijacked by the papyri.

I am sending on my views to Dan Peterson and John Gee. I give you permission to post online what I have written in the ending section of my vita.

With best wishes, Royal

Back in Nibley's time we did not have such internet access to the holdings of museums. Just Google British Museum hypocephalus and you find exampls similar to facsimile 2 with the exact same registers. One can see false restorations.

[Physics Guy]

Those google docs are images of typewritten letters. When I tried to read them on my phone, the contrast and resolution were too low. On my laptop, however, they're fine. So maybe Google docs makes low-res images for its mobile version, or maybe my phone is just weird.

I have successfully OCR'd the letters into text, and I could post them here, if hauslern will allow it.

[hauslern]

Yes, that's fine with me.

[Physics Guy]

These quotes were generated through optical character recognition, by my phone app, from the photos of original typewritten letters to which hauslern has linked. I then tidied up a few things that I thought were obvious glitches, by hand, but I may have missed some more glitches, and the corrections I’ve made might be wrong.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60637
1155 EAST FIFTY-EIGHTH STREET

28 February 1972

Rev. Wesley P. Walters
Marissa United Presbyterian Church
Marissa, Illinois 62257

Dear Reverend Walters:

A quick answer to your letter of February 24, which just arrived. I must admit that I haven't been keeping up with the flood of LDS publication on the topic of the so-called "Book of Breathings" that has appeared since my article in DIALOGUE. Much of it seems to be obfuscatory in the extreme, tending to pick on asides, quotes out of context, and opinions emitted by the large penumbra of semi-scholarly types (and crackpots) that hang around the fringes of Egyptology -- and are, of course, much attracted by such things as the Book of the Dead.

Among the latter, I would include those that want to see in the Book of the Dead a manual of initiation. That the Book of the Dead has ritual significance in connection with funeral services and that a great deal more can be pulled out of it than has been in regard to ancient Egyptian cosmological and theological views has, of course, nothing to do with the point under consideration.

Just to go over the references in the two pages of Nibley's article that you sent me:

(a) Thausing in Melanges Maspero and elsewhere: Prof. Thausing is the professor of Egyptology at Vienna, but her views on Egyptian religion are not exactly in the mainstream of Egyptian thought. If you are interested, may I suggest, e.g. checking the passage in Mel. Masp. I, 40 and seeing whether the texts there cited sound to someone who comes to the question without preconceptions as though they had anything to do with initiation of a hierophant. They don't to me.

(b) Bleeker, Initiation is not handy at the moment.

(c) Bleeker, Egyptian Festivals, p. 45 discusses the Osirian mystery plays (i.e, in the medieval Christian sense). How about this quote from the page: “there never was a secret doctrine in Ancient Egypt; there were no closed societies of priests and initiates who possessed esoteric knowledge. In popular writings this view is sometimes advanced with much display of pseudo-scholarship …"

(d) The Brandon quote on this page (p. 186): It is not a self-evident leap from the fact that the dead had to go through tests to be admitted to the life in the Netherworld to the existence of initiation in the here and now. Brandon doesn't make the leap, though Nibley implies it.

(e) My copy of Bergman, Ich bin Isis, hasn't arrived yet, but the book in general deals with the Greek Isis cult.

(f) ZAS 57, p. 11: The passage in question (I am quoting from the more recent edition of the Egyptian text, de Buck, Coffin Texts II, pp. 266 #f): "TO KNOW THE SPIRITS OF HELIOPOLIS. TO KNOW WHAT THOTH KNOWS AND KEEPS TO HIMSELF FOREVER. TO KNOW EVERY TEMPLE. TO BE EFFECTIVE ON EARTH AND IN THE NECROPOLIS. TO ENTER AMONG THE LORDS OF HELIOPOLIS. TO GO FORTH TO HEAVEN AND TO PENETRATE THE NETHERWORLD BY A LIVING OR DEAD SPIRIT." This is the title; most copies only have the first phrase. The text continues: "I know the spirits of Heliopolis. I have become great among the great ones; I have come into being among those who have come into being, who see clearly in regard to his one eye (i.e. the injured eye of Horus). Open (the way) for me that I may restore the damaged eye, for I am one of them. I KNOW THE ENNEAD OF HELIOPOLIS, INTO WHICH EVEN THE GREAT OF SEERS (the high priest of Heliopolis) HAS NOT BEEN INITIATED. The point here is that the deceased claims to have secret knowledge that only the gods have and is shared not even by the high priest which points to anything but initiations of living persons into secret knowledge on earth,

(g) The references in Munro etc. in n. 150 deal with the need for intensive study of the ordinary rituals say nothing about mystic intiations.

This should, I believe make my point clear. The article in question is an exercise in LDS apologetics, which has to be judged, like all apologetics, in the light of faith.

To come back to the question in your second paragraph: I see no need for major changes in my treatment of the š't n snsn text. How you want to mention it in your own paper is another question. Perhaps I am not the best person to ask whether "my article still presents generally accepted conclusions" or not, though obviously I think it does.

At the moment, I wouldn't even want to propose minor changes. I've been working on other things in recent years and don't have the material at my fingertips at the moment.

One minor matter: I would appreciate your checking with me before quoting me in your article. Far too many of my letters (including some to you) have appeared in print without any sort of advance warning. Not all were written under the assumption that they would be published; and I think that you will understand that you will find it difficult to get cooperation if people feel that they have to send you publishable manuscripts instead of letters.

Hope that this is of some help.

Sincerely yours,
Klaus Baer
Professor of Egyptology

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE
CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60637
2155 FIFTY-EIGHTH STREET

10 April 1972

Dear Reverend Walters,

Many thanks for your letter of April 3, which just got here. Under separate cover, I am returning to you the photocopies of Nibley's articles in the IMPROVEMENT ERA; I have the whole set, and you might be able to use the copies. I must confess that I haven't actually managed to read the thing from one and to the other. As you say, it is virtually impossible to refute what Nibley writes as fast as he produces it and quite difficult, since what the LDS would demand is the proof that something wasn't the way Nibley says it is, when often all the conscientious scholar can say is that the evidence doesn't support a conclusion of any kind.

To put it briefly and in general form, the problem facing us with the study of Egyptian religion is one (probably) common to all polytheistic religions. The Egyptians were essentially pantheistic, believing in one divine substance that could manifest itself in a great many different ways. While for the common believer (and for purposes of the cult) each image was a separate entity (and thus there were many Amons, who could even disagree with one another), at the same time that each god could be seen as many gods (from one point of view), many gods could be seen as one (from another aspect). There may well be a train of thought leading to the trinitarian theology of the Alexandrians here. One even finds identifications of gods across the sex line (which isn’t supposed to happen according to theoreticians of religion). One result, of course, is that symbols can have a most confusing application. Just for the lotus, for instance, we have (Morenz, Schubert, DER GOTT AUF DER BLUME: the primeval lotus that arose from the primeval waters at creation (hence creator), the lotus at the nose of Re (the creator) (hence creation), god of perfume, hence Nefertem, Harsaphes, Harsomésus, Re, Horus, King, etc. etc. Thus there is nothing that says (by the kind of free association indulged in by the Egyptians in this sphere) that they could not have associated a lotus with a lion that guards the frontiers and hence meant Abraham - unfortunately there is also no shred of evidence that they actually did so, and that is the important thing. In a world where anything can be anything, the outsider who wants to prove something must do more than simply say that such and such is possible within the framework of Egyptian thought. He must prove that it actually happened, something much harder. Similarly Heyerdahl's mistake: Even without the Ra trip, I would have been delighted to agree that the Egyptians could have crossed the Atlantic with their (substantial) wooden ships. The question is: did they? If there were evidence (and there isn't), then even the failure of Heyerdahl's trip wouldn't prove
anything. As it is, the his success is equally meaningless.

In regard to the quotes from my letters; don't mention it to Tanner. There's no point in warming up ancient history, and I am, after all, in contact with them (may have mentioned it when I visited then in Salt Lake some years ago).

Sincerely,
Klaus Baer

THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE
1155 EAST FIFTY-EIGHTH STREET
CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60637
20 March 1972

Dear Reverend Walters,

Many thanks for your letter of March 14 and the copy of Nibley's article, which I found here upon returning from Toronto. Just one brief remark: Nibley cites an awful lot of scholarly literature, but it seems noteworthy that certain recent publications that just possibly might have a closer bearing on the subject under discussion are ignored. Also no acknowledgment on p. 173; to my knowledge it wasn't Nibley who discovered the original location of the mismounted fragments. But then, as I have said before, most of what is being written is religious apologetics, which usually has different standards than one would expect in scholarly work.

In regard to quotations from letters: most of the citations from unnamed Egyptologists on p. 135 of THE CASE AGAINST Mormonism, vol. I come from letters I wrote - cf. e.g. the top of p. 2 of my letter to you written September 2, 1967. Even though the Egyptologist is anonymous (and few people that know me personally are likely to see the book), I think you will admit that the page in question was something of a shock to me. Things would have been worded very differently if I had at that time anticipated publication. But this is past history.

In any event, I have said what I had to say in regard to the papyri, and am just as happy I don't have to follow the twists and turns that the LDS argument seems to be taking. I must admit that I wonder how some of the more learned early Mormons would have reacted on being told that their religion was closer to Gnosticism than Christianity. But then, if Nibley can find religious comfort in the endless reams of boring rubbish that the Coptic Gnostic texts tend to consist of (I am not interested in Ghosticism, obviously), more power to him.

Sincerely,
Klaus Baer

[Dr. Shades]

. . . both my Mother & brother felt he had some bitterness towards at least some of "the brethren" near the end....like he'd been used by them and possibly promised things (or at least hinted at) that never happened....who knows though? He definitely had mixed feelings about many of them.

I read that he told people in private that the brethren were corrupt because he donated the journals of one of his deceased relatives to the church archives, then the church turned around and denied him access to those same journals.

[hauslern]

Thanks, Physics Guy.

[Kishkumen]

Both my Mother and brother felt that Nibley was truly a good man. Everything they told me, of course, was seen through their own lense and was their own interpretation. But, here are a few things they told me.

I think he was a good man, too. Not perfect, but definitely good and in some ways very admirable.

Nibley expressed to both of them that he was very much open to there being multiple lives (reincarnation is what he appeared to mean). This surprised them and I do wonder if he was open to that because he knew he was approaching the end of his life.

There is some evidence that Joseph Smith came to a similar view. He is on record saying something very negative about reincarnation, but I think was principally in response to the claims of Robert Matthews. Seehttps://www.josephsmithpapers.org/perso ... t-matthews on Matthews, who believed he was "God the Father reincarnated in the body of Matthias the ancient apostle." Eliza R. Snow claimed that Joseph believed in reincarnation "but not the way the world teaches it."

This suggests to me that Smith did believe in some form of reincarnation but was in disagreement with popular ideas and the specific teachings of Robert Matthews.

I honestly don't know if Nibley ever wanted to be a part of the general church leadership (somehow, I doubt it...but maybe?), but both my Mother & brother felt he had some bitterness towards at least some of "the brethren" near the end....like he'd been used by them and possibly promised things (or at least hinted at) that never happened....who knows though? He definitely had mixed feelings about many of them.

I do believe that the leaders really did use so many scholars and historians. I do wonder how Nibley felt about being asked to write the rebuttal to No Man Knows My History. His No Ma'me, That's Not History was not his best writing, in my opinion....but he was following what the brethren asked him to do and he did his best to combat the truths in her book.
That's just one example where he might have felt used.

But, the leaders used so many historians to do their dirty work because so many of them did not know church history and didn't want their name on any of it.

I do know that my Mother and brother truly respected him and loved their visits with him. He had a brilliant mind and was very humble. They had some great discussions with him!

Well, I am jealous. I was definitely one of a sea of students. I did well in his classes, and I spoke to him a few times to get his advice or ask questions. The answers I got were brief and to the point, but I have known people who had a much more casual and intimate friendship with him, and he sounds like a neat person to know personally.

I wonder whether he ever got his second anointing. I wonder whether he was promised the second anointing and never got it. I have a hard time believing he never got it, but then there were much fewer extended in the span of his lifetime. Did he expect to become a leader? I don't know. I never see him as the kind of person who wanted to be a leader, but he was certainly not egoless. According to Martha, he got a kick out of the fact that people looked to him for wisdom, and I don't imagine that is completely untrue. It may be totally true. It kinda comes with being an admired professor of Nibley's stripe.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks for sharing the letters from Baer! Yes, I have no doubt that Baer was not impressed by LDS scholarship on the Book of Abraham. Neither am I, and Gee would say I am hardly qualified to have an opinion as a non-Egyptologist. Well, Baer was an Egyptologist. Ritner was an Egyptologist.

Now, in the broad strokes, however, I view one of the big questions to be the connections between 19th-century Joseph Smith and the esoteric tradition that ultimately comes out of Hellenic and Hellenistic views of ancient Egypt. There is a kind of Egyptianism that really is not isolated from actual Egyptian religious currents. These days scholars have started to argue that what we have long seen as a kind of early pyramidiocy in Hermeticism that goes back to Greek romanticization of the Egyptians is actually, in Hermetism as seen in the Corpus Hermeticum, Egyptian religion in Greek garb. In the details, of course, Joseph Smith is doing his own thing and was completely unequipped to understand any of this, but he did have sufficient tools to draw on the esotericism in his environment, which had already been shaped by Hermetic, magical, and Masonic material.

The Book of Abraham fits the esoteric framework perfectly. It is not ancient Egyptian, but it does transmit something of the spirit of Late Antique views on the Egyptian "mysteries" because it comes out of an esoteric stream of culture. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, and, in fact, I find it pretty cool. Is it what apologists claim it is? No! But there is nothing wrong with that. There are people out there who argue with a straight face that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. The fact that they are wrong makes the texts no less important.

[Physics Guy]

Has there been any study of any Mormon texts from this point of view, seeing them as examples in early 19th century America of the long tradition of western esotericism that attributed all kinds of advanced wisdom to pre-Classical cultures?

That tradition may seem weird to many of us now, but it seems to have been—and still be!—incredibly robust. There are plenty of "pyramidiots" among New Agers today, and there have been plots about how ancient Egyptian gods were really advanced aliens in Doctor Who and Stargate. Memes well-known enough for TV and movies are signs of subculture that takes the ideas more seriously. Helena Blavatsky entitled her theosophical opus Isis Unveiled in the early 20th century. I'm sure the stream can be traced continuously back further still, though. Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy was wildly popular around the world from 1760, and Hermeticism was evidently a big enough meme at the time that one of its first jokes could be about how Tristram was supposed to have been christened Trismegistus.

One modern element in the tradition seems to be an attempt to push back against science by claiming that those ancient people knew some much better stuff. I wonder whether this fringe tradition may have drawn some support from the long mainstream debate between "ancients and moderns".

I wasn't aware that the stream went back even into Classical times, as you say. But why not? The Great Pyramid was older when the Colosseum was built than the Colosseum is now, so since people still care about imperial Rome today, the Romans were probably fascinated with Egypt. And I don't know how much we know about actual ancient Egyptian religion, but it seems perfectly plausible that the ultimate source of the pseudo-Egyptian stream was genuinely ancient Egyptian, if perhaps supplemented and modified by projections of foreigners who used Egypt to frame their own thoughts. Maybe it all really does come from ancient Egypt, evolved through the ages and still thriving now.

(Pseudo-)Egyptian esotericism may be one of the most durable human ideas of all time. It has apparently outlived several languages. Why has it held people's attention so long? Probably not because it is true. But that only makes the question more intriguing.

It's an amazing thought, now you raise it. A study of how Smith's work was part of that stream, in his own place and time, would indeed be cool.

Another thing I wonder is whether part of the American fork in the stream might be an inclusion of ancient Americans along with Egyptians. A lot of the New Agers who rave about ancient Egypt today are also similarly enthused about medieval Mayans. They had lots of cool gods, they wrote glyphs, they built pyramids—see, it all hangs together. The Book of Mormon makes the connection explicit, with its ancient American records written in "reformed Egyptian". Although I don't think the Book of Mormon itself really identifies its transplanted Middle Eastern culture with Central American civilization, maybe the modern "limited geography" theory of LDS apologists is not a desperate dodge after all, but a natural step in the grand old tradition.

Remaining obsessed with ancient Egypt specifically does seem parochial today, when most people are more aware of other ancient cultures around the world. Perhaps the more eclectic concept of Indiana Jones, finding marvelous ancient relics all over the world, is an evolution of the tradition for which it is about time.