Spirit of Nibley's Sloppiness lives on

[_Kevin Graham]

http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2010/03/ ... lileo.html

[_Aristotle Smith]

The more I have looked at Nibley's work, the less impressed I am. I wonder why the FARMS/MI guys put him on such a high pedestal and try and follow in his footsteps.

[_lostindc]

The more I have looked at Nibley's work, the less impressed I am. I wonder why the FARMS/MI guys put him on such a high pedestal and try and follow in his footsteps.

agreed, i was actually pissed at the sloppiness a year or two ago. It is embarrassing.

[_Dwight Frye]

Another fun look at the Nibster's work:

Hugh Nibley's Footnotes by Ronald V. Huggins

[_Trevor]

Another fun look at the Nibster's work:

Hugh Nibley's Footnotes by Ronald V. Huggins

I know Ron Huggins. While I don't share his beliefs, I think he is a good guy. And, I have to say, this appears to be one of the most devastating critiques of Nibley that I have ever read.

[_Manfred]

Another fun look at the Nibster's work:

Hugh Nibley's Footnotes by Ronald V. Huggins

I know Ron Huggins. While I don't share his beliefs, I think he is a good guy. And, I have to say, this appears to be one of the most devastating critiques of Nibley that I have ever read.

Some might be interested in this review of Huggins' article:

A Sure Foundation - Shirley S. Ricks - FARMS Review - Volume 20 - Issue 2

[_CaliforniaKid]

Some might be interested in this review of Huggins' article:

A Sure Foundation - Shirley S. Ricks - FARMS Review - Volume 20 - Issue 2

Ironically, the article does not respond to any specific cases raised by Huggins, and spends a considerable amount of time discussing issues with which Huggins was unconcerned-- specifically, incomplete or inaccurate citations. Huggins was more concerned with cases where Nibley misused or misrepresented his sources. These issues are almost entirely glossed over in the FARMS response.

The FARMS response is also more or less an argument from authority, mostly just citing the assessments of Mormon scholars who think Nibley was right far more often than he was wrong. It also makes a pretty lame dig at Huggins when it assumes that the reason he compared Nibley's translations with the published translations of professional scholars was that he lacked confidence to do his own translations.

I tend to agree with Huggins. Brent Metcalfe has made a similar critique of Nibley's study of the KEP. Klaus Baer agreed: "Much of it seems to be ofuscatory 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." Baer gave five specific examples of misrepresentation from just two pages of one of Nibley's works.

[_Runtu]

Some might be interested in this review of Huggins' article:

A Sure Foundation - Shirley S. Ricks - FARMS Review - Volume 20 - Issue 2

OK, that's ten minutes of my life I won't get back that I wasted reading that article. What kind of response was that? Testimonials from John Gee and others that Nibley was 90% accurate and a stubborn refusal to deal at all with Huggins's article. It's almost like Droopy and his "nothing to see here, move along" attempts to change the subject.

Sheesh, what a crappy "review."

[_Nimrod]

The more I have looked at Nibley's work, the less impressed I am. I wonder why the FARMS/MI guys put him on such a high pedestal and try and follow in his footsteps.

To paraphrase: 'The more I have looked at Joseph Smith's life, the less impressed I am. I wonder why the LDS members put him on such a high pedestal and try and follow in his footsteps' to the extent the current LDS Inc allows (no polygamy now, mind you).

I think that wonderment about FARMS/MI guys emulating the seriously-, scholarly-flawed can be answered by the fact of their LDS context that emulates the seriously-, religiously-flawed Joseph Smith.

[_Dwight Frye]

It also makes a pretty lame dig at Huggins when it assumes that the reason he compared Nibley's translations with the published translations of professional scholars was that he lacked confidence to do his own translations.

I'm wondering if we are seriously supposed to believe that Shirley wouldn't have had any qualms if Huggins had used his own translations as the standard of comparison. Please.

I imagine her criticism in that case would have been something like, "Huggins, in developing his case against Nibley's interpretations, always seems to prefer to cite his own translation in comparison to Nibley's. One wonders why he was unable -- or unwilling? -- to provide a disinterested scholar's translation for contrast."

Huggins is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.