Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

[_Markk]

Hey, Markk. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you are just flat out wrong here. You do understand that synonyms exist, yeah? And that the word 'garment' is in fact a synonym for various types of clothing, yeah?

Had you just put that one word into your google translate, you could have seen it more clearly: (i can't link to the image page, so I'll just copy and paste the content below. feel free to check it out for yourself).


garment
Translations of Gewand
noun

garment

Kleidungsstück, Kleid, Gewand

gown

Kleid, Gewand, Robe, Talar

garb

Gewand, Tracht, Kluft

raiment

Gewand

vesture

Gewand, Kleid, Kleidung, Kleider

vestment

Gewand, Ornat, Robe

apparel

Kleider, Mode, Gewand

vestments

Gewand, Ornat, Messgewand

You need to retract your initial statement on this topic. Kish told you and I'm certain he's studied German. You pretty much have to in his line of work. But as a German speaker, I'm telling you, you are wrong in this instance.

And what it does not mean is LDS underwear with masonic symbols...in the context that I read it is meant anything but LDS garments...but HN chose to teach and imply it meant.

[_Markk]

Markk, I don't know which planet you are living on, or which forum you think you are participating in, but I am not feeling the love from every corner of this forum just because my day job involves the study of antiquity. Yes, on occasion I say something that this person or that finds useful and informative, and they thank me for it.

More often, I would say, people argue with me very vigorously because they have their own opinions (see the temple thread, where my friend honorentheos thinks I am not a good scholar because I have not done what he has asked in providing the examples he seeks). I don't see that many non-academics here simply sitting like baby birds waiting for PhDs to feed them and then chirp in delight no matter what it dropped in their mouths.

You have a huge chip on your shoulder. You seem to feel unappreciated as one of the salt of the earth types you talk about. Well, I love salt-of-the-earth people. What I don't love is people who envy and have a chip on their shoulder, and who take it upon themselves to act like bigots and attack things they have very little knowledge about.

I regret that Nibley played fast and loose with his arguments when he was speaking to his own people. In my view, he felt he was speaking with the liberty his faith afforded him. I don't doubt that he felt he was doing a good service in communicating his faith-informed view in language Mormons would appreciate and benefit by, and I think he truly believed in his model of antiquity, which was essentially a literalist LDS view of the Biblical myth beginning with Adam receiving the ordinances from God and passing them on to his heirs.

That said, he seems to have been capable, even a couple of decades out from his PhD program, to do regular academic scholarship that passed professional muster. He was even able to advance theses that were in line with his uniquely LDS perspective in peer-review articles. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Scholarship thrives on different assumptions and different perspectives being injected into the ongoing discussion. But there are rules to the game, and mechanisms to maintain the quality, integrity, and mutual intelligibility of that discussion. Nibley was certainly capable of working within that framework. For that reason, I reject the idea that he was a hack.

I'll ignore your adhoms...kinda :)

I regret that Nibley played fast and loose with his arguments when he was speaking to his own people.

What does that mean? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. My argument is that he basically lied to his audience...you call it mis-remembering and playing fast and loose ...but you are correct in one way, we do live in different worlds ("what planet am I living on"), too me, on my planet, that is not telling the truth Kish.

I just stated reading you link, and it will take a while, I hope we can discuss it and see how it translated into his talk and whether a man of his intelligence could simple not know what he was teaching to the TBM.

In my view, he felt he was speaking with the liberty his faith afforded him.

Please expound? What does that mean? Lying for the Lord? Again please explain your "view" here.

He was even able to advance theses that were in line with his uniquely LDS perspective in peer-review articles.

Please show me in the link, i have it on my shelf...page and number please...and who were the "peers" were they familial enough with LDS thought to read int o what his intention was?

Scholarship thrives on different assumptions and different perspectives being injected into the ongoing discussion. But there are rules to the game, and mechanisms to maintain the quality, integrity, and mutual intelligibility of that discussion. Nibley was certainly capable of working within that framework. For that reason, I reject the idea that he was a hack

It is okay to run fast and loose with facts, and mis-remember and then write a paper then totally butcher it and teach it differently to the ignorant?

Again, we do live on different planets, on my planet it is called deceiving others.

[_Kishkumen]

Markk, you don't seem to be paying close attention to this conversation. Instead, you jump to the most simplistic and negative conclusion. Nibley was a true believer--a literalistic one. He fully believed Jesus took his leading Church authorities through the temple during his 40 Day Ministry. This does boggle the mind, yes, but it is true that he believed this. His scholarship took him up to a point, and then his faith carried him beyond where a regular scholar would go. To call this mere lying or deception is inaccurate and unfair.

[_Markk]

Markk, you don't seem to be paying close attention to this conversation. Instead, you jump to the most simplistic and negative conclusion. Nibley was a true believer--a literalistic one. He fully believed Jesus took his leading Church authorities through the temple during his 40 Day Ministry. This does boggle the mind, yes, but it is true that he believed this. His scholarship took him up to a point, and then his faith carried him beyond where a regular scholar would go. To call this mere lying or deception is inaccurate and unfair.

part of my point is that you are calling him a liar..."Mis-remember" means what Kish...that he forgot his research did not allow for his embellished conclusions? And now played "fast and loose" with his audience (TBM)?

I believe I am paying close attention to what you are writing, and seeing a person that has to ignore the obvious, why I do not know.

I simply do not believe that Hunter Biden did not know he was stretching the truth...to the extremes he did. His talk started out by saying...

"Recently I collected all the references I could find-I have twice as many now-of the forty-day mission of Christ. Whenever you find a very early Christian text, it almost always has a title referring to 'the secret teachings of the Lord to the Apostles during the forty days.' The fifty texts available to me then had four things in common

Then he went on to teach...

"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."

If all his research on this, which in part you gave a link to, leads to this "main" conclusion...then it should be in a peered reviewed paper? right?

The difference is Kish, I believe he knew what he was doing, and if he did it makes him a liar...it appears to me, that you admit he did, but don't believe it is lying but a exercise that is allowed in scholarship.

You wrote...

Scholarship thrives on different assumptions and different perspectives being injected into the ongoing discussion. But there are rules to the game, and mechanisms to maintain the quality, integrity, and mutual intelligibility of that discussion.

Apparently the "rules" allow one to speak within the rules to one audience...and then exploit and go on beyond the approved product to another, changing the context between the two...and this is called "mis-remembering' and playing "fast a loose" with the "facts"...but not lying. Would you step out on a limb and say that he was a least a bull toilet?

I look forward to reading through your link this weekend...my guess is though most the foot notes will be next to impossible to find online without spending a fortune on the books.

[_Lemmie]

If all his research on this, which in part you gave a link to, leads to this "main" conclusion...then it should be in a peered reviewed paper? right?

No, that's not how peer review works. Just because an author thinks the research justifies a conclusion doesn't mean the peer review committee will agree, as Kish pointed out.

His scholarship took him up to a point, and then his faith carried him beyond where a regular scholar would go.

Apparently the "rules" allow one to speak within the rules to one audience...and then exploit and go on beyond the approved product to another, changing the context between the two..

Not really the 'rules,' I'd call it more going from the 'rules' (peer review publishing) to 'no rules' (non-peer reviewed publishing).

How else do you think Mormon apologia gets published now?

[_Fionn]

And what it does not mean is LDS underwear with masonic symbols...in the context that I read it is meant anything but LDS garments...but HN chose to teach and imply it meant.

Your interpretation is incorrect, I am sorry to say. Nibley's translation is dead on. The sentence does not say "garments", as you would expect from a Mormon, rather it says garment. There is nothing in this text that supports your interpretation. None.

As you don't speak German, clearly, it would be best if you shut your pie hole now.

[Guest]

Nibley was a true believer--a literalistic one. He fully believed Jesus took his leading Church authorities through the temple during his 40 Day Ministry. This does boggle the mind, yes, but it is true that he believed this. His scholarship took him up to a point, and then his faith carried him beyond where a regular scholar would go. To call this mere lying or deception is inaccurate and unfair.

Well, yes. But it is not unreasonable to ask whether he gave his readers enough warning when he passed from:

Stage 1: Nibley does scholarly research and gives us the conclusions that he believes follow from that research.

to ...

Stage 2: Nibley loses contact with the relatively solid ground of evidence from research, and spreads the wings of faith which enable him to soar upwards.

Markk quotes from a talk by Nibley as follows (my letters A and B added):

(Markk - can you kindly remind us of the link to this text?)

I simply do not believe that Hunter Biden [=Nibley, by the sound of it] did not know he was stretching the truth...to the extremes he did. His talk started out by saying...

"[A]Recently I collected all the references I could find-I have twice as many now-of the forty-day mission of Christ. Whenever you find a very early Christian text, it almost always has a title referring to 'the secret teachings of the Lord to the Apostles during the forty days.' The fifty texts available to me then had four things in common

Then he went on to teach...

"[B] 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."

In part A, the first sentence is a statement of his mode of working. The second sentence is a claim that Nibley could, presumably, document (at least one hopes so). By the time we get to part B, the first sentence might - just might - have a solid textual justification, but I'd be surprised. I think he has taken flight. However, when he says " I just mention here these generalities, the importance of these documents, what they meant to those people " the reference to 'these documents' certainly gives the impression that he wants us to think that he has documentary back-up and is back on firm evidential ground. Did he?

That of thing can only be settled by careful inspection of the whole talk. But it looks a bit doubtful at first glance.

[_CaliforniaKid]

By request of Noel, I posted in another thread some letters by Klaus Baer in which he comments on Nibley's research. As a bonus, here's an old blog post I wrote on Nibley's footnotes (no longer online anywhere else, so this is an MDB exclusive ).

A Footnote to the Debate Over Nibley's Footnotes

A while back, Ron Huggins wrote a fairly devastating critique of Hugh Nibley's use and abuse of his sources. More recently, Huggins's critique was critiqued by Shirley Ricks in the FARMS Review. My critique of the critique of the critique follows.

In her entire lengthy article, Ricks does not respond to any of the specific examples Huggins offered. She spends a considerable amount of time discussing issues with which Huggins was unconcerned-- specifically, incomplete or inaccurate citations. Huggins was more interested in cases where Nibley misused or misrepresented his sources. These issues are almost entirely glossed over in the FARMS response.

The FARMS response is also largely an argument from authority, mostly just citing the assessments of Mormon scholars who think Nibley was right 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. (One suspects he would have been criticized for hubris had he used his own translations as the standard for comparison.)

Unlike Ricks, I tend to agree with Huggins's assessment of Nibley's footnotes. In Nibley's essay, "Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers," I found many of his statements about the KEP manuscripts to be false and misleading. Brent Metcalfe's reaction to the essay was similar. In a letter to Wesley P. Walters, Nibley's Egyptology teacher Klaus Baer characterized Nibley's apologetics in terms strongly reminiscent of Huggins's view: "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." Baer identified five specific examples of misrepresentation from just a few pages of one of Nibley's works.

I think it's important to acknowledge that Nibley did a lot of good, was extremely knowledgeable, and had many talents and virtues. His work is very useful for suggesting future directions of study. But in my opinion, his work must also be used very critically and with careful attention to his sources. It cannot generally be taken for granted that he accurately represented what they say.

[_Kishkumen]

Apparently the "rules" allow one to speak within the rules to one audience...and then exploit and go on beyond the approved product to another, changing the context between the two...and this is called "mis-remembering' and playing "fast a loose" with the "facts"...but not lying. Would you step out on a limb and say that he was a least a bull toilet?

I think it is justifiable to separate the academic Nibley from the faithful Mormon Nibley to this extent: Nibley did not feel constrained by the rules of academia when he spoke as a faithful Mormon promoting and defending Mormonism. The former--his academic chops--represent his training and great ability; the latter represents him placing faith before academics, and unapologetically so (excuse the pun). I don't think Nibley was a bull toilet. I think there were times--and his Book of Abraham apologetics were perhaps the most egregious of them--when he allowed his faith and the burden of promoting and defending it to take precedence over his scholarly ethics.

Generally, I agree with the criticisms of Nibley, and I am disappointed that he chose to obfuscate in his apologetics in order to spare members a faith-challenging conclusion. But I don't think slagging his entire career as nothing but lies and incompetence is the least bit fair, and as much respect and friendship as I have for my critic friends, I think it is important that we all remember their bias and objectives. I don't begrudge them those, but there are times that they stretch the truth and advocate stupid things in order to paint a darker picture of Mormonism than is probably warranted.

For example, as much as I love and respect my friend Ron Huggins, I disagree with him that Freemasonry and Mormonism are demonic. And he thinks they literally are demonic, as in real demons inspired Freemasonry and Mormonism and remain involved in them. Ron is disturbed that leaders in the SBC are Freemasons because of this. So, yes, let's all be critical to the extent that the evidence warrants it, but let's not go overboard in demonizing our opponents. I am well sick of the demonization of Nibley in ways that are profoundly unfair, prejudiced, and even downright fantastical. I knew Nibley, maybe not all that closely, but well enough to know that the caricature of him that is bandied about among many critics is just bogus.

[_Kishkumen]

I think it's important to acknowledge that Nibley did a lot of good, was extremely knowledgeable, and had many talents and virtues. His work is very useful for suggesting future directions of study. But in my opinion, his work must also be used very critically and with careful attention to his sources. It cannot generally be taken for granted that he accurately represented what they say.

I agree.