Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

[_Lemmie]

Kish, I had always assumed that some of the issues with Nibley's methods, etc. were allowed, maybe even exacerbated by the lack of a more typical university, peer review-type environment and publishing process in his religious work. When you mention 'place [and] circumstances,' was that what you meant?

Obviously, I reject this way of treating the ancient evidence. If one's point is to understand the past on its own terms instead of calling upon the past to bolster a predetermined end, then this is irresponsible scholarly practice.

What I think we have seen from our interactions with a few LDS scholar-apologists, however, is that they view this as unexceptionable.

I know you were responding to kairos' post with the above, but if I am reading you correctly, it sounds like elements of Nibley's scholarly practice that were irresponsible were allowed through the LDS version of peer review and publishing process, or what I think of as the foregone conclusion driving the research.

Nibley did, sometimes inadvertently, stumble upon interesting and valuable things. He did publish some pieces in normal scholarly venues, and those things were deemed useful by his non-LDS peers.

Your knowledge of his writings are clearly vastly superior to mine, Kishkumen, so I hope you or one of the other scholars here who is more familiar with Nibley's work don't mind a couple of (probably pretty dumb) questions--can I assume that Nibley was subjected to normal peer review standards in his non-lds work? Would you say his those elements of his methodology that may have been questionable were limited to his LDS scholarship?

You mentioned his non-lds peers being satisfied so I'm pretty sure of your answer here, but it would be interesting to hear your perspective on his relative reputation within the two groups, LDS and non-lds.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish, I had always assumed that some of the issues with Nibley's methods, etc. were allowed, maybe even exacerbated by the lack of a more typical university, peer review-type environment and publishing process in his religious work. When you mention 'place [and] circumstances,' was that what you meant?

The question is whether someone finds this problematic or not. Nibley chose to devote his time to the LDS community as a booster of that community. He largely turned his back on the broader intellectual discussion of antiquity. Antiquity was there to use as Joseph Smith had used it before him. The revelatory Truth trumped the ephemera of scholarly fashion. Of course that will inevitably doom most of Nibley's work to obscurity. It is really only pertinent to understanding Mormon history of the 20th century, and in the rather marginal discussion of Western esotericism's impact on American religions.

I know you were responding to kairos' post with the above, but if I am reading you correctly, it sounds like elements of Nibley's scholarly practice that were irresponsible were allowed through the LDS version of peer review and publishing process, or what I think of as the foregone conclusion driving the research.

What was the LDS peer reviewing process in Nibley's day? Who was initially qualified to judge Nibley? Who could keep up with him? He lent a veneer of scholarly respectability to Mormon claims and thus was allowed to do what he did as a partisan of the community. If anyone knows of Nibley's LDS peer review in the 1950s and 1960s, I would like to hear about it. Perhaps I should go back and refresh my memory.

Your knowledge of his writings are clearly vastly superior to mine, Kishkumen, so I hope you or one of the other scholars here who is more familiar with Nibley's work don't mind a couple of (probably pretty dumb) questions--can I assume that Nibley was subjected to normal peer review standards in his non-lds work? Would you say his those elements of his methodology that may have been questionable were limited to his LDS scholarship?

You mentioned his non-lds peers being satisfied so I'm pretty sure of your answer here, but it would be interesting to hear your perspective on his relative reputation within the two groups, LDS and non-lds.

He has written a couple of things that are cited now and again. He is a tiny footnote in non-LDS scholarship. He is a legacy figure in LDS scholarship. I think the entire conversation has moved away from Nibley, including the Mormon one.

[_Lemmie]

Fascinating, Kishkumen, rhank you.

What was the LDS peer reviewing process in Nibley's day? Who was initially qualified to judge Nibley? Who could keep up with him? He lent a veneer of scholarly respectability to Mormon claims and thus was allowed to do what he did as a partisan of the community. If anyone knows of Nibley's LDS peer review in the 1950s and 1960s, I would like to hear about it. Perhaps I should go back and refresh my memory.

Point taken. I told you I had dumb questions! I only meant peer review in a generic, structured, university-wide academic sense, which of course was not really his audience, as you point out. It's so unlikely, at least in my field, to see books being published that aren't preceded by multiple peer-reviewed article publications, but as you point out, who were his peers in his chosen audience at the time?

I am coming late to the apologetic world as I left the church decades ago and only recently had an interest in reading up on it-- triggered mostly by the intelligent and fascinating conversations I've read here, by the way. As such I'm beginning to get a much more fleshed-out sense of the history of LDS scholarly publications; I simply didn't realize the extent to which it seems that peer review (in-house or not) was not the hurdle to publication as it has been elsewhere.

I'm sure Nibley's early success with his market partially explains why some LDS apologists continue to be so reluctant to trust peer reviewed systems. It seems to me that Lds-marketed scholastic work simply hasn't had that push-back that's such a significant part of the peer review process in the non-lds based academic world. After the wind-fall benefit of not having to deal with it for decades, it's understandable that there may be a reluctance by some to pay the price of taking it on now.

To me, this puts into perspective a lot of Hamblin's odd responses to Dr. Jenkins in their debate last summer. Hamblin seemed mortally offended at times, while Jenkins simply considered it status quo. I especially like the respect he showed for Hamblin as a fellow academic in one of his final comments:

We have both said some quite harsh-sounding things, but always aimed at each other’s ideas, rather than personalities. His words about me, for instance: “It is hard to imagine a more toxic combination of utter ignorance, arrogance and contempt in scholarship.” Ouch! And I have responded in kind. But it’s good having people who are both experienced academics free to discuss ideas in a robust and adult way. Professional speaks to professional, and we learn in forthright debate. Non-academics tend not to understand those exchanges, seeing them as way more personal or even malicious than they are. Hamblin has his sense of humor in debate, I have mine. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... of-debate/

[_kairos]

When Nibley was chosen to undertake the translation of the egyptian papyrus to confirm the brethren's hope that a match existed with the Book of Abraham, Nibley probably realized quickly this was a disaster waiting to happen. What did he do then? what he always did -try to find some ancient data point to "confirm" some point in the Book of Abraham linked to the found papyrus or a parallel papyrus.
Perhaps this took him totally off the rails, but then again his Approach to the Book of Mormon was certainly not a tight defense- it was like "i'll throw in the kitchen sink to come up with something that seems right but which is just a pile of horse manure, and the TBM's will believe me". how often have i heard "if brother nibley believes the Book of Mormon is historical and he is such a brilliant scholar, i will believe too".

maybe brother nibley was a pious fraud the same as dan vogel labels Joseph Smith.

[_Markk]

OK, so how well did you know Nibley and those who worked with him? Did you spend a lot of time in the Ancient Studies Library at BYU? Did you chat with Nibley's research assistants? I am trying to get a sense of how well you know Nibley's work and the people with whom he worked. I can tell you I heard the grumbling of his research assistants. I talked with his secretary, who assisted him as he put together his articles. I actually happen to know from the people who worked with him how he worked and why he could be frustrating. Some of these things are related to overconfidence in his memory, some are related to the way he burdened others with chasing down his references. Some of the frustration also resulted from his idiosyncratic interpretations. I don't recall, however, that he simply made up s***. Did he massage the sources aggressively, misremember, and interpret things in a Mormo-centric fashion? Yes.

And you wonder why ..."I have to confess that I really don't get the hostility to Nibley" ?

[_Markk]

[

NIbley's paraphrase isn't that far off, and it is certainly much closer than Google Translate.

Nibley used this and other such examples that Jesus secretly went through the temple with his apostles, seventy, and GA in the 40 days after his death to teach LDS temple ceremonies...and used the word garment and not robe... come on Kish, his agenda was clear and skewed and invented a history of the 40 day ministry of Christ? i was discussing this with a TBM that believed this, just because Nibley wrote it and no other reason

"The fourth was the main thing he came to do. He took them through the temple, he taught them temple ordinances. Only the apostles and the general authorities, the seventies, were instructed in these-things to be handed down, not divulged to the public. Though they were very carefully kept from the public, we have these ordinances now as they are described here, and this I have talked about in the temple on occasion. I just mention here these generalities, the importance of these documents, what they meant to those people. The person who receives these becomes a son. He both gives and receives...the signs and the tokens of the God of Truth while demonstrating the same to the Church, all in the hopes that these ordinances may some day become realities." (Hugh Nibley, Old Testament and Related Studies, edited by John W. Welch, Gary P. Gillum, and Don E. Norton [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1986], 159-160.)

[_Kishkumen]

:lol: Point taken. I told you I had dumb questions!

I didn't think it was dumb. I was just reacting with surprise to the answer to your question. I thought to myself that he couldn't have had very good peer review at BYU in the early days.

I simply didn't realize the extent to which it seems that peer review (in-house or not) was not the hurdle to publication as it has been elsewhere.

Yep! The apologists have always remarked on the necessity of relying on their own LDS peers for peer review. Of course, I think this was abused, and the dodgy results are there for everyone to see. Nibley probably had even less oversight in his early days.

[_Kishkumen]

When Nibley was chosen to undertake the translation of the egyptian papyrus to confirm the brethren's hope that a match existed with the Book of Abraham, Nibley probably realized quickly this was a disaster waiting to happen. What did he do then? what he always did -try to find some ancient data point to "confirm" some point in the Book of Abraham linked to the found papyrus or a parallel papyrus.
Perhaps this took him totally off the rails, but then again his Approach to the Book of Mormon was certainly not a tight defense- it was like "i'll throw in the kitchen sink to come up with something that seems right but which is just a pile of horse manure, and the TBM's will believe me". how often have i heard "if brother nibley believes the Book of Mormon is historical and he is such a brilliant scholar, i will believe too".

It seems to me that he really did believe in these connections, although I am sure he also understood that they would be difficult to illustrate in a straightforward way. He did what he could to follow the traces he saw in the sources that might help others be convinced of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. What he came up with was dubious and would not cut it outside the LDS community. I don't think that makes him a pious fraud, however.

[_Kishkumen]

And you wonder why ..."I have to confess that I really don't get the hostility to Nibley" ?

Yes, I do.

[Guest]

Oh, to a milquetoast Protestant view of things--a version of Christianity that stripped as many traditions and symbols as it could in a quest to lift the Bible to the status of Deity--I am sure this all looks very weird indeed.

It is important for me to clarify this. I am not condemning all Protestant views as "milquetoast" and this is really a caricature anyway. I should say that, on the whole, there are a number of aspects of Mormonism that are less compatible with Protestant Christianity (generally speaking) than other forms of Christianity. But, even in Protestant Christianity there is a lot of variety. Indeed, Mormonism is an offshoot of Protestant Christianity, but one that has a large admixture of esotericism and heresy.