Hugh Nibley: When Crack Cocaine Meets Apologetics
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 3:13 am
I mentioned in another thread Hugh Nibley apparently "writing under the influence." The following example will require a little explanation. Hugh Nibley's "Message of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers," published in BYU Studies, infamously argued for the "Scribes Did It" theory. There are three "Egyptian Alphabet" documents. One of them is in the hand of Joseph Smith, one in the hand of Phelps, and one in the hand of Cowdery. The three documents are very similar and appear to have been produced by simultaneous dictation. Nibley wants to argue that these documents were a preliminary exploration in which Joseph Smith and his scribes "worked it out in their minds" prior to asking for revelation. As such, he wants to present each of these three documents as a basically independent, uninspired production. Consider what he says below:
I just love that last line. Let's repeat that: yes, folks, anti-Mormons have willfully misinterpreted this from the first.
Basically, what Nibley is arguing is that the three documents interpret the same sign in completely different ways. In fact, the documents don't even agree on whether the symbol is some variant of Za Ki on-hish or whether it's some variant of Ah-bra-oam! How damning! Or something. The trouble, of course, is that this is complete bull. Below are images of the actual documents. While they are certainly sloppy and contain omissions, they do not interpret the same sign differently. In fact, there are actually two signs here: the first is Za Ki on-hish and the second is Ah-bra-oam. Nibley's argument hardly even makes sense, let alone does it accurately represent the documents! This is the great Mormon apologist? The most charitable explanation I can think of is that he wrote this essay while doing a line or smoking a doobie!
-Chris
The interesting thing is the way the three men disagree in their interpretations, each going his own way. Take for example the one sign that is constantly being rehashed in all the "Grammar and Alphabet" writings, the well-known reed-sign, perhaps the most important and certainly the commonest of all hieroglyphic symbols. A special treatment of the reed-sign is tacked on at the end of each of the three copies. A comparison of the three texts is instructive.
Each of these is interpreting the same sign, with no sovereign master-mind to bring them to a unity of the faith. Cowdery and Phelps hear different sounds and come up with different meanings. And Joseph freely lets them go their way while he goes his, each under obligation to "study it out in your mind" before asking for revelation. This is something that anti-Mormon writers have wilfully misinterpreted from the first.
I just love that last line. Let's repeat that: yes, folks, anti-Mormons have willfully misinterpreted this from the first.
Basically, what Nibley is arguing is that the three documents interpret the same sign in completely different ways. In fact, the documents don't even agree on whether the symbol is some variant of Za Ki on-hish or whether it's some variant of Ah-bra-oam! How damning! Or something. The trouble, of course, is that this is complete bull. Below are images of the actual documents. While they are certainly sloppy and contain omissions, they do not interpret the same sign differently. In fact, there are actually two signs here: the first is Za Ki on-hish and the second is Ah-bra-oam. Nibley's argument hardly even makes sense, let alone does it accurately represent the documents! This is the great Mormon apologist? The most charitable explanation I can think of is that he wrote this essay while doing a line or smoking a doobie!
-Chris
