Nibley -- Again

[_Doctor Steuss]

Thank you so much Blixa!

He was more than I'll ever hope to be.

More what? It matters. Please specify.

More of a man, dreamer, scholar, intellect, humorist, linguist, political analyst, theologian, philosopher, etc. He was also much more than the sum of his articles; for a brief look at the “human” aspect, see “What I Learned about Life, the Church, and the Cosmos from Hugh Nibley” by Boyd Petersen (I believe it’s located on FAIR… I can hunt down a link if needed).

Kurt Vonnegut was also more than I’ll ever hope to be… as are/were many, many more.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Well, not entirely correct. I'm a professor of literature [...]

*Swooning*

[_Daniel Peterson]

1. What class did you take from Nibley? Egyptian grammar?

Middle Egyptian hieroglyphics, using Gardiner's standard text.

2. Is going through a text twice as fast equivalent to learning twice as much?

All other things being equal? Essentially, yes.

Or does that mean you simply skimmed it, while the Harvard class studied it thoroughly, even though they went slower?

Even after all these years, the suggestion that we were merely "skimming" Gardiner makes me laugh. Nervously. The class was hellish in its intensity. We held it twice a week. I became almost physically ill twice a week, starting the night before.

Incidentally, one of our small group -- five, as I recall -- went on to do graduate work in Egyptology, at the Freie Universität in Berlin and at Johns Hopkins. Another could have, but, as far as I can tell, flipped out and disappeared. I myself fell away and did a doctorate in Arabic and Persian.

3. How does your experience in class with Nibley in any way impact what Baer (an honest to goodness professor of Egyptology) says about the text?

It doesn't. Directly. And wasn't intended to. The Egyptological discussion is being conducted over many scattered publications. It's rather technical, and I don't plan to try to summarize it here.

[_Blixa]

I had supposed "the other side" would be a fuller explanation of how his characterization of scholarly study as shoddy or wrong was correct (perhaps you meant that and I misunderstood), or a better contextual interpretation of the quote itself.

That is, in fact, the other side. But it would take many hours for me to flesh it out. I don't have it at my fingertips, it's not a primary interest of mine, and it's already available in scattered partial printed treatments (e.g., among other places, in Boyd Petersen's award-winning biography of Nibley). So I used the question of how long Nibley had been studying Egypt and how well he knew Egyptian as . . . well, a synecdoche.

Ok. In fact, synecdoche is a fittingly Nibley-esque trope.

[_harmony]

So Nibley knew exactly what the text said. He didn't have to have Baer read it to know exactly what he was looking at. He knew Joseph hadn't translated the text. He knew.

Oh. My. Gosh.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What an astonishing discovery you've just made, harmony. Notify the press!

[_Brackite]

Hi,
Was Hugh Nibley was wrong with his missing papyrus roll theory ofor the Book of Abraham? Here is what Hugh Nibley wrote back in the 1970s:

Q. How do we know that?

A. Because Smith explicitly describes another Egyptian manuscript which he says was the real Book of Abraham. It was, he reports, (a) perfectly preserved, (b) beautifully written, and (c) containing rubrics—passages in red ink. On each of these points the Book of Breathings manuscript fails conspicuously to qualify.

Q. Then where is the other manuscript?

A. That is one of those questions that should have been asked the moment it became apparent that nobody could have taken the Book of Breathing connection seriously. The fact is that the manuscripts at present in the possession of the church represent only a fraction of the Joseph Smith papyri. As President Joseph F. Smith stood in the front doorway of the Nauvoo House with some of the brethren in 1906, the tears streamed down his face as he told how he remembered "as if it were yesterday" his "Uncle Joseph" down on his knees on the floor with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him, peering at the strange writings and jotting things down in a little green notebook with the stub of a pencil. When one considers that the eleven fragments now in our possession can be easily spread out on the top of a small desk, without straining the knees, back, and dignity, it would seem that what is missing is much more than what we have. Another indication of this has recently come forth. In the summer of 1979, there was brought to light an old legal document transferring ownership of the Joseph Smith Egyptian effects, in which it was stated that the original materials were divided into four parts, one part being kept in a box, and the rest divided into three portions that went to three different parties. Now what the church obtained in 1967 was one facsimile out of three, and the Book of the Dead fragments that would seem to represent about a third of the standard text; this was the portion that went to the son of Major Bidamon's housekeeper, it being her share from the Major, who had the whole lot from his wife Emma, who had it from the Prophet—a fair estimate is that we have here but tattered remnants of some of the three (equal) parts not kept in the box.


( http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table= ... ipts&id=48 )

Is Hugh Nibley right about the 'perfectly preserved, beautifully written, and containing rubrics—passages in red ink' is really the Egyptian Papyrus that contained the Book of Abraham and that was the one that Joseph Smith really translated from? The Answer to that Question is an absolute No! The 'perfectly preserved, beautifully written, and containing rubrics—passages in red ink' is really the 'Egyptian Book of the Dead for the lady Ta-shert-Min, daughter of Nes-Khensu.' The Following is from the Book Titled, 'By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri,' Written By Charles M. Larson:

The answer is yes. In fact, there is every indication that the scroll Joseph Smith identified as the "Book of Joseph," was in fact the "Egyptian Book of the Dead for the lady Ta-shert-Min, daughter of Nes-Khensu."

Joseph Smith apparently never produced any "translation" material for the "Book of Joseph" (as he did with his Book of Abraham),2 but fortunately we do have Oliver Cowdery's observations on the scroll that the Prophet identified as the Book of Joseph. Cowdery, longtime associate of Joseph Smith and one of the principle scribes involved with the papyri, gave an excellent description of this scroll in a letter that appeared in a Mormon publication of the day. He writes:

The language in which this record is written is very comprehensive, and many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking. The evidence is apparent upon the face that they were written by persons acquainted with the history of creation, the fall of man, and more or less the correct ideas or notions of Deity.

The representation of the god-head -- three, yet in one, is curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the writer's views of that exalted personage.* The serpent, represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of, and near a female figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper, or a writing substance; and must go so far towards convincing the rational mind of the correctness and divine authority of the holy scriptures . . . as to carry away, with one mighty sweep, the whole atheistical fabric . . . Enoch's Pillar, as mentioned in Josephus, is upon the same roll . . . The inner end of the same roll, (Joseph's record,) presents a representation of the judgment: At one view you behold the Savior seated upon his throne, crowned, and holding the sceptres of righteousness and power; before him are assembled the twelve tribes of Israel and all the kingdoms of the world; while Michael the Archangel holds the keys to the bottomless pit in which Satan has been chained . . . (From a letter of Oliver Cowdery to William Frye, dated December 25, 1835, and published in the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate of the same month.)

A comparison of Cowdery's descriptions with scenes found on the recovered fragments of the Book of the Dead for Ta-shert-Min appears on the following pages. In addition, an important section of this scroll which is now missing, but which would surely have been included in the last part (inner end) of the Book of the Dead, is the scene from Chapter 125, where the deceased is led into the presence of Osiris (compare photo and examination of Papyrus Joseph Smith IIIA and IIIB on pp. 70,71; see also the color foldout on p. 34, which shows a large section of the Book of Joseph scroll). Cowdery's description of "the Savior seated upon his throne, crowned, and holding the scepters of righteousness and power," along with the other details he mentions associated with this scene, correspond very well to the major elements found in numerous similar scenes depicting the Court of Osiris.

It is quite apparent from the evidence Cowdery left us that he was indeed describing a typical scene from the Egyptian Book of the Dead rather than a story penned by the patriarch Joseph, as he had been led to believe. Still, Cowdery's interpretation should not be considered unusual for the period, as he was dealing with then indecipherable manuscripts of undetermined origin and date (there being no true understanding of Egyptian mythology or funerary texts available during Joseph Smith's lifetime). Cowdery's impressions are merely common-sense speculations by a person with no expertise regarding the esoteric subject matter at hand. Joseph's scribe could easily have been describing almost any Book of the Dead scroll. Joseph Smith's papyri collection included at least one other Book of the Dead manuscript (that of Amon-Re Neferirnub)3 and possibly still another (according to notes made in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar material). But he was most likely referring to one that had been made for Ta-shert-Min. The picture of the ''serpent with legs standing near a female figure,'' for example, that had so impressed Cowdery, had been copied from Papyrus Joseph Smith V into the pages of a small notebook (included among the Grammar material) bearing the handwritten title "Valuable Discovery of hidden records that have been obtained from the ancient burying place of the Egyptians," followed by the signature of Joseph Smith, Jr.4

Also significant is the presence of rubrics on the Ta-shert-Min scroll. Again, it is Cowdery who identifies this feature for us in the article previously cited:

Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph, I may say a few words. This record is beautifully written on papyrus with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation. (emphasis added)

Cowdery's understanding that two of these "records" were the "writings of Abraham and Joseph" must be attributed to the fact that Joseph Smith identified them as such, since the Mormon leader never felt it was necessary to correct Cowdery's published descriptions. However, it should also be noted that some of the key phrases in Cowdery's description were derived from the published placard Michael Chandler used to help promote his traveling mummy exhibition. According to a statement by several prominent Philadelphia doctors who had viewed Chandler's exhibit, the placard read in part:

The features of some of these Mummies are in perfect expression. The papyrus, covered with black or red ink, or paint, in excellent preservation, are very interesting.5 (emphasis added)


( http://www.irr.org/MIT/Books/BHOH/bhoh3.html )

The evidence Proves beyond any reasonable doubt overwhelmingly that the 'Egyptian Book of the Dead for the lady Ta-shert-Min, daughter of Nes-Khensu' is what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery believed contained the text for the Book of Joseph.

[_Brackite]

In Regards and Rsponse to Hugh Nibley basically mentioning Joseph F. Smith's 'reminiscence of the Nauvoo House' from at least a second hand account about there being a lot more Egyptian papyrus manuscript, then there is today, that has already been responded to.

Brent Metcalfe has a while ago responded to the Joseph F. Smith's 'reminiscence of the Nauvoo House' when he (Joseph F. Smith) was just only about five years old. Here is what Brent Metcalfe wrote several years ago, on the Zion Lighthouse Board:

Joseph F.'s reminiscence most closely resembles what Nibley describes in Dialogue. If I'm correct, then we can conclude that in Dialogue Hugh misidentified the Nauvoo House as the "Mansion House" and mistakenly depicted the papyri running through two rooms rather than scattered on the floor of one room. If I'm not correct, then I have no idea what Nibley is referring to in his undocumented remark.

In the Improvement Era, Hugh informs readers that Preston Nibley had supplied the Joseph F. Smith account. Preston published his 1906 encounter with Joseph F. in the early 1940's (if memory serves), but omitted the recollection about the BoAbr papyri. According to Preston, in 1906 Joseph F. was recalling an event that occurred over six decades earlier when Smith was 5 years old, or younger. Four years later, in 1910, Hugh was born. Before Preston died (in the mid 1960's?) he related Joseph F.'s recollection to Hugh. Finally, Hugh published the reminiscence in the mid/late 1960's. Given this transmission history, scholars would be reckless to uncritically appeal to Joseph F.'s story as an unblemished depiction of the BoAbr papyri.

Cheers,

bReNt

( http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =447.topic , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

Hugh Nibley was very, very wrong about his lost papyrus scroll theory, for the Book of Abraham.

[_harmony]

What an astonishing discovery you've just made, harmony. Notify the press!

Book of Abraham and what Nibley said about it was never of much interest to me, Daniel. Somehow it had never dawned on me that Nibley knew he was defending the indefensible.

I"m sure there will be many more interesting astonishing altogether amazing discoveries, if I ever decide to actually study it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Somehow it had never dawned on me that Nibley knew he was defending the indefensible.

I knew the man reasonably well for the last twenty years of his life, and less well for about fifteen years before that. I've had many conversations with him, sometimes about very intimate spiritual things. I know most of his family and even surprisingly many in his extended family. I've read everything he ever published, and at least a few things that he didn't. I've read the two biographical books about him, by his son-in-law Boyd Petersen and his son Alex.

If Hugh Nibley believed that either Mormonism in general or the Book of Abraham was "indefensible," I'm a leprechaun, Paris Hilton is the greatest philosopher of our time, and you're truly authorized to be my judge.

I"m sure there will be many more interesting astonishing altogether amazing discoveries, if I ever decide to actually study it.

They might start then.