Klaus Baer on Hugh Nibley

[_CaliforniaKid]

These are some old blog posts that are no longer online. Noel (aussieguy) asked me to repost them here.

Klaus Baer's Critique of Hugh Nibley

I got images of the following letter of Klaus Baer from a friend named Noel Hausler, who got them from Wesley P. Walters. Walters had written Baer to solicit his opinion of Hugh Nibley's argument that the Book of Breathings is an "Egyptian endowment" text. In the letter, Baer critiques a number of Nibley's arguments and classes him with "a large penumbra of semi-scholarly types (and crackpots) that hang around the fringes of Egyptology."

I should say, as a disclaimer, that Baer requested that Walters check with him before publishing or quoting from the letter. Since all the persons involved in this exchange are deceased, I hope I can be forgiven for disrespecting his wishes in this regard.

There have been only a few published critiques of Nibley's "Egyptian endowment" apologetic, so I think Baer's specific criticisms of that apologetic are important. The letter also illustrates that although Baer was Nibley's mentor and quite irenic toward the Church, this should not be construed as support for or acquiescence to Nibley's views.

Note: Brackets have been used in the transcription in place of angle brackets, because angle brackets confuse Blogger.

-----------------

28 February 1972

Rev. Wesley P. Walters
Marissa United Presbyterian Church
Marissa, Illinois 62257

Dear Reverend Walters:

A quick answer to your letter of February 24, which just arrived. I must admit that I haven't been keeping up with the flood of LDS publication on the topic of the so-called "Book of Breathings" that has appeared since my article in DIALOGUE. 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.

Among the latter, I would include those that want to see in the Book of the Dead a manual of initiation. That the Book of the Dead has ritual significance in connection with funeral services -- and that a great deal more can be pulled out of it than has been in regard to ancient Egyptian cosmological and theological views -- has, of course, nothing to do with the point under consideration.

Just to go over the references in the two pages of Nibley's articles that you sent me:

{a} Thausing in Melanges Mapero and elsewhere: Prof. Thausing is the professor of Egyptology at Vienna, but her views on Egyptian religion are not exactly in the mainstream of Egyptian thought. If you are interested, may I suggest, e.g., checking the passage in Mel. Masp. I, 40 and seeing whether the texts there cited sound to someone who comes to the question without preconceptions as though they had anything to do with the initiation of a hierophant. They don't to me.
{b} Bleeker, Initiation is not handy at the moment.
{c} Bleeker, Egyptian Festivals, p. 45 discusses the Osiris Mystery plays (i.e, in the medieval Christian sense). How about this quote from the page: "there never was a secret doctrine in Ancient Egypt; there were no closed societies of priests and initiates who possessed esoteric knowledge. In popular writings this view is sometimes advanced with much display of pseudo-scholarship ..."
{d} The Brandon quote on this page (p. 168): ["]It is not a self-evident leap from the fact that the dead had to go through tests to be admitted to the life in the Netherworld to the existence of initiation in the here and now.["] Brandon doesn't make the leap, though Nibley implies [that he does].
{e} My copy of Bergman, Ich bin Isis, hasn't arrived yet, but the book in general deals with the Greek Isis cult.
{f} ZAS 57, p. 11: The passage in question (I am quoting from the more recent edition of the Egyptian text, de Buck, Coffin Texts II, pp. 226 ff): "TO KNOW THE SPIRITS OF HELIOPOLIS. TO KNOW WHAT THOTH KNOWS AND KEEPS TO HIMSELF FOREVER. TO KNOW EVERY TEMPLE. TO BE EFFECTIVE ON EARTH AND IN THE NECROPOLIS. TO ENTER AMONG THE LORDS OF HELIOPOLIS. TO GO FORTH TO HEAVEN AND TO PENETRATE THE NETHERWORLD BY A LIVING OR DEAD SPIRIT." This is the title; most copies only have the first phrase. The text continues: "I know the spirits of Heliopolis. I have becom great among the great ones; I have come into being among those who have come into being, who see clearly in regard to his one eye (i.e. the injured eye of Horus). Open (the way) for me that I may restore the damaged eyes, for I am one of them. I KNOW THE ENNEAD OF HELIOPOLIS, INTO WHICH EVEN THE GREAT OF SEERS (the high priest of Heliopolis) HAS NOT BEEN INITIATED ..." The point here is that the deceased claims to have secret knowledge that only the gods have and in shared not even by the high priest -- which points to anything but initiations of living persons into secret knowledge on earth.
{g} The references in Munro etc. in n. 150 deal with the need for intensive study of the ordinary rituals -- say nothing about mystic initiations.

This should, I believe make my point clear. The article in question is an exercise in LDS apologetics, which has to be judged, like all apologetics, in the light of faith.

To come back to the question in your second paragraph: I see no need for major changes in my treatment of the st n snsn text. How you want to mention it in your own paper is another question. Perhaps I am not the best person to ask whether "my article still presents generally accepted conclusions" or not, though obviously I think it does.

At the moment, I wouldn't even want to propose minor changes. I've been working on other things in recent years and don't have the material at my fingertips at the moment.

One minor matter: I would appreciate your checking with me before quoting me in your article. Far too many of my letters (including some to you) have appeared in print without any sort of advance warning. Not all were written under the assumption that they would be published; and I think that you will understand that you will find it difficult to get cooperation if people feel that they have to send you publishable manuscripts instead of letters.

Hope that this is of some help.

Sincerely yours,
Klaus Baer
Professor of Egyptology

[_CaliforniaKid]

More from Klaus Baer on Hugh Nibley

Thanks again to Noel Hausler for providing these very interesting letters. Notice that Baer here clarifies his comments from the last letter I posted. Someone commented that it sounded like Baer was a little perturbed with Walters in that letter, but actually it was the Tanners he was annoyed with.

20 March 1972

Dear Reverend Walters,

Many thanks for your letter of March 14 and the copy of Nibley's article, which I found here upon returning from Toronto. Just one brief remark: Nibley cites an awful lot of scholarly literature, but it seems noteworthy that certain recent publications that just possibly might have a closer bearing on the subject under discussion are ignored. Also no acknowledgement on p. 173; to my knowledge it wasn't Nibley who discovered the original location of the mismounted fragments. But then, as I have said before, most of what is being written is religious apologetics, which usually has different standards than one would expect in scholarly work.

In regard to quotations from letters: most of the citations from unnamed Egyptologists on p. 135 of THE CASE AGAINST Mormonism, vol. I [by Jerald and Sandra Tanner] come from letters I wrote -- cf. e.g. the top of p. 2 of my letter to you written September 2, 1967. Even though the Egyptologist is anonymous (and few people that know me personally are likely to see the book), I think you will admit that the page in question was something of a shock to me. Things would have been worded very differently if I had at that time anticipated publication. But this is past history.

In any event, I have said what I had to say in regard to the papyri, and am just as happy I don't have to follow the twists and turns that the LDS argument seems to be taking. I must admit that I wonder how some of the more learned early Mormons would have reacted on being told that their religion was closer to gnosticism than Christianity. But then, if Nibley can find religious comfort in the endless reams of boring rubbish that the Coptic Gnostic texts tend to consist of (I am not interested in Gnosticism, obviously), more power to him.

Sincerely,
Klaus Baer

[_CaliforniaKid]

Baer on Apologetics and the Nature of Egyptian Religion

Here is the last of the three Klaus Baer letters Noel Hausler sent to me. This one is particularly important, I think, because it makes a crucial methodological point about the nature of Egyptian religion. Because the Egyptians were pantheistic and engaged in "free association" of symbols and deities, Baer argues, LDS apologists like Nibley can justify almost any interpretation of the Joseph Smith Papyri that serves their purposes. Such interpretations will not be common or mainstream, but they will be defensible on some level. I'd add, for my own part, that even apart from the peculiarities of Egyptian religion, images and symbols are inherentlymultivalent and almost always capable of multiple interpretations and adaptations. This is the strength of Kevin Barney's "Semitic adaptation"theory: it takes advantage of this inherent pictorial ambiguity. (But see herefor a particularly problematic case where this favorite apologetic escape hatch does not apply.)

----------
10 April 1972

Dear Reverend Walters,

Many thanks for your letter of April 3, which just got here. Under separate cover, I am returning to you the photocopies of Nibley's articles in the IMPROVEMENT ERA; I have the whole set, and you mught be able to use the copies. I must confess that I haven't actually managed to read the thing from one end to the other. As you say, it is virtually impossible to refute what Nibley writes as fast as he produces it -- and quite difficult, since what the LDS would demand is proof that something isn't the way Nibley says it is, when often all the conscientious scholar can say is that the evidence doesn't support a conclusion of any kind.

To put it briefly and in general form, the problem facing us with the study of Egyptian religion is one (probably) common to all polytheistic religions. The Egyptians were essentially pantheistic, believing in one divine substance that could manifest itself in a great many different ways. While for the common believer (and for the purposes of the cult) each image was a separate entity (and thus there were many Amons, who could even disagree with one another), at the same time that each god could be seen as many gods (from one point of view), many gods could be seen as one (from another aspect). There may well be a train of thought leading to the trinitarian theology of the Alexandrians here. One even finds identifications of gods across the sex line (which isn't supposed to happen according to theoreticians of religion). One result, of course, is that symbols can have a most confusing application. Just for the lotus, for instance, we have (Moren, Schubert, DER GOTT AUF DER BLUME: the primeval lotus that arose from the primeval waters at creation (hence creator), the lotus at the nose of Re (the creator) (hence creation), god of perfume, hence Nefertem, Harsaphes, Harsomeeus, Re, Horus, King, etc. etc. Thus there is nothing that says (by the king of free association indulged in by the Egyptians in this sphere) that they could not have associated a lotus with a lion that guards the frontiers and hence meant Abraham -- unfortunately there is also no shred of evidence that they actually did so, and that is the important thing. In a world where anything can be anythin, the outsider who wants to prove something must do more than simply say that such and such is possible withing [sic] the framework of Egyptian thought. He must prove that it actually happened, something much harder. Similarly Heyerdahl's mistake: Even without the Ra trip, I would have been delighted to agree that the Egyptians _could_ have crossed the Atlantic with their (substantial) wooden ships. The question is: did they? If there were evidence (and there isn't), then even the failure of Hyerdahl's trip wouldn't prove anything. As it is, his success is equally meaningless.

In regard to the quotes from my letters; don't mention it to Tanner. There's no point in warming up ancient history, and I am, after all, in contact with them (may have mentioned it when I visited them in Salt Lake some years ago).

Sincerely,
Klaus Baer

[_CaliforniaKid]

Nibley's Response to Klaus Baer

Previously I posted some letters from Klaus Baer to Wesley Walters commenting on Hugh Nibley's "Egyptian Endowment" apologetic. A few days ago my friend Noel Hausler sent me a letter he received from Nibley that responded to the Baer letters.
[p. 1]
September 25, 1974

[Address deleted for privacy reasons]

Dear Brother Hausler:

Facsimiles No. 2 and 3 are inseparable from No. 1 and quite as instructive. They require a lot of work. During the past few years a surprising number of highly rated Egyptologists have been taking them into consideration.

Professor Bauer was here for a week in August. He gave four lectures with long question periods after, and I had some long conversations with him. We had not talked together for some years, and I was much impressed by the changes in his point of view. We have LDS students studying with half-a-dozen top Egyptologists here and abroad--all out for doctor's degrees-- and so are no more "voices in the wilderness." Bauer was hard put to it during the discussion periods and at the end was definitely in retreat, though as an honored guest we could not press him too hard.

The main point was that he showed his hands while we, to spare unpleasant controversy, virtuously withheld our own. What makes our position stronger every day, however, is not the improvement in our own ranks so much as the increasing number of eminent Egyptologists who are changing their own views and moving steadily in the direction of the "initiation school" and those other things that Bauer deplores.

In his letters to you Bauer condemns as obfuscatory things which he admits he has no intention of reading. He had not read Bleeker's Initiation nor Bergman's book, yet he was ready with comments on both. Thausing has come out with two important books since Bauer's letter to you making her position clear beyond question. What has her teaching in Vienna to do with it? The Brandon quote is one from a whole article in which he emphatically does "make the leap." [handwritten: See below = P.S.!]

While he was here last, Bauer repeatedly stated that evidence can have nothing whatever to do with faith: his faith as a dedicated Lutheran is not to be touched by any evidence. By the same token no amount of evidence will ever, ever change his opinion of Joseph Smith. For those who do consider evidence, however, each item must be considered on its own merits.

[p. 2]

Bauer loves to condemn other Egyptologists on the strength of a single statement with which he disagrees. He does the same thing with books and articles: if there is a mistake or two, nothing can be right. But what he will not see is that if only a half or third or even a tenth of the points we have made about Joseph Smith are sound, the door is still wide open. Bauer insists angrily that a word from Breasted or Petrie in 1912 is enough to shut the door forever on all further discussion. The much-advertized competence of Egyptologists is pretty well limited to a knowledge (admittedly dubious) of the language. Beyond that they have no monopoly on common sense.

Trusting you will continue to use your own wits and judgment, I ups and remains,
Yours truly,
[signed: H. Nibley]
Hugh W. Nibley
HWN:li

P.S. Since Dr. Baer flings down the challenge: "How about this quote" from Brandon, it is only fair to note that Brandon adds immediately thereafter: "...mystery proves to have been an important component of the religious consciousness of the ancient Egyptians. And when mystery somewhere occurs, then the initiation into that hidden truth or spiritual reality cannot be totally absent." (Initiation, p.50). Then after announcing that "apparently...no authoritative myth, and certainly no secret doctrine" he spoils it all by adding: "Yet some cultic ceremonies were celebrated, which were so holy and which so strongly had the character of a mystery that no one was allowed to describe or depict them." (p.53).

Thus instead of refuting Thausing's position, Bleeker's juggling is a good indication of the present trend of reluctant transition in the face of gathering evidence. But I can assure you, whatever new
developments take place, the Chicago School will be the last in the world to recognize them.

[signed: H.N.]

[_CaliforniaKid]

Did Baer Back Down?

Recently I provided a letter from Hugh Nibley in which he asserted that during a lecture at BYU non-Mormon Egyptologist Klaus Baer was asked some hard questions about the Book of Abraham, and by the end of the session "was definitely in retreat." A letter from H. Michael Marquardt to my friend Noel Hausler tells a rather different story. The contrast between these two letters is a fascinating study in differing perceptions. Unlike Nibley, Marquardt's notes emphasize Baer's firmness that Joseph Smith made "no lucky guesses", and that Baer did not believe Joseph was a prophet.

I think the problem here was that Baer was a very strong believer in the "suspensive" school of historiography, which argued that religious claims are inherently non-empirical and there is absolutely nothing that secular historians can say about religious truth claims. So when Baer emphasized at the end that this was outside his expertise as an Egyptologist, it's understandable that that would sound to Nibley's ears like a retreat. But actually, if you read some of Baer's other papers and letters on the subject, you'll find that these remarks were pretty typical fare for him. He wasvery reticent to directly, publicly speak his mind about religious truth claims.

[p. 1]

[Address omitted for privacy reasons]
November 2, 1974
Mr. Noel Hausler
[Address omitted for privacy reasons]

Dear Mr. Noel Hausler,

Wesley P. Walters sent me a copy of a letter written by Dr. Hugh Nibley at BYU dated September 15, 1974 and was addressed to you.

I attended the last lecture by Klaus Baer at BYU on August 23, 1974 and was at the Question and Answer Session which lasted for an hour afterward. At the Question and Answer Session I asked Klaus Baer three questions in succession, infact I started the discussion in relation to the Book of Abraham. The comments by Klaus Baer on the Book of Abraham was about 20-25 minutes. He answered the first two questions that I asked him by going into some of the background material on the Joseph Smith Papyrus and papers which Joseph Smith worked with and so my short account is a summary of his conclusion. The third answer was a definite yes.

The following questions are what I asked Klaus Baer and the answer is a brief summary of what his conclusions were, this material is taken from my typed notes made on the same day. The first two questions I had typed out when I asked Klaus Baer those questions.

Question 1: “In your opinion did Joseph Smith or whoever understand Egyptian? Or in other words – Is there enough evidence to convince you that Joseph Smith (or whoever did the translation of the Egyptian Papyrus behind the Book of Abraham) could read and understand Egyptian?”

Answer: Klaus Baer explained that Facsimile No. 1 and the Sensen text were together and that the backing paper had drawings on them. Hugh Nibley had sent him a copy of his article dealing with the different had writings of Joseph Smith’s scribes. Klaus Baer stated that whoever did the work of the Book of Abraham didn’t understand Egyptian.

Question 2: “There are some persons who have expressed the opinion that we don’t know where the papyrus is from which the Book of Abraham text comes from and they say that the papyrus is still lost. What do you feel? – Is there any evidence that this is true?”

Answer: Klaus Baer knew that I was referring to Hugh Nibley and he stated that he disagreed with Hugh Nibley and that we do have the actual papyrus that was the source of the Book of Abraham.

Question 3: “Do you still stand behind your Dialogue article?”

Answer: “Yes”.

[p. 2]
In the letter by Dr. Hugh Nibley to you on page 1 he writes: “Baer was hard put to it during the discussion periods and at the end was definitely in retreat, though as an honored quest we could not press him too hard. The main point was that he showed his hand while we, to spare unpleasant controversy, virtuously withheld our own. I would like to comment on this. There were a number of questions asked Klaus Baer after the three questions which I had asked him. There was no doubt about the answers to my questions but it seems that some of the persons who were there at the Question and Answer Session felt that Klaus Baer was backing down. I do not feel that he was in retreat but giving his own personal observations about Joseph Smith and the following is from the typewritten notes that I made.

“A question was asked Klaus Baer on whether Joseph Smith had made any lucky guesses on his interpretation of Facsimile No. 2 of the Book of Abraham. Klaus Baer said that the copy of Facsimile No. 2 which appeared among the papers of the EAG showed that there were gaps at the time Joseph Smith was working on them. The gaps were filled in from other papyri. The method to restore a damaged document is to use a parallel text and Klaus Baer stated that he did not approve of how Fac. No. 2 was restored. Klaus Baer said that there were no lucky guesses.

“A question was asked how could there be no lucky guesses when in fact Egyptologists agree with Joseph Smith on a number of interpretations that Joseph Smith made in relation with Fac. No. 2. Klaus Baer stated that there were no lucky guesses and that you could prove anything you wanted. He then made it clear that this was beyond his competence in his field as an Egyptologist. Klaus Baer stated his personal belief that he didn’t believe Joseph Smith to be a Prophet. He mentioned that this was out of his field. He said that he had no intention to becoming a member of the LDS Church. During this answer Klaus Baer sat in a chair. There was some pressure for Klaus Baer to say that there could have been some lucky guesses made by Joseph Smith on Fac. No. 2 but Klaus Baer made it very plain that he would not go beyond his field as an Egyptologist on the question of Joseph Smith.”

Hugh Nibley mentioned in his letter to you that Klaus Baer had written letters to you. I would appreciate copies of the letters which Klaus Baer has written to you. Thank you very much.

Yours truly,

[signature: H. Michael Marquardt]
H. Michael Marquardt

[_Chap]

... the endless reams of boring rubbish that the Coptic Gnostic texts tend to consist of

I do not know whether I would find Coptic Gnostic texts 'boring rubbish', but I have to say that it is refreshing to find someone admitting that he is repelled and bored by some texts, even if they are ancient and deal with mystical topics.

Now it may be that if I read Coptic Gnostic texts, I would find them lively and fascinating. But in the cultures I am more familiar with, there are some ancient texts that really do seem to be the equivalent of some of the weirder blog posts by fans of modern mystagogues trying to sell their books and seminars. Obviously one has to be more careful the more distant the writing is from one's own time and culture - since one's judgement may be based on a misunderstanding. But if there is plenty of pretentious nonsense around today, it seems just as likely that we should also meet examples of it in antiquity.

[_Symmachus]

Thanks for posting these, Celestial Kingdom. These are really fascinating. It's interesting to see NIbley so convinced so early on and so passionately expressive of his conviction to someone who had taught him Egyptian in the first place. I see Nibleian sophistry at work: he spent a great deal of energy throughout his writing condemning scholars for overweening confidence in the equivalence between their academic knowledge and reality—a lack of intellectual humility in the face of difficult evidence—and yet here we have someone like Klaus Baer firmly emphasizing that Egyptological knowledge has its limits and that he can't and won't pronounce on the prophethood of Joseph Smith regarding the Book of Abraham.

And Nibley then attacks him for not respecting the evidence.

[_Johannes]

... the endless reams of boring rubbish that the Coptic Gnostic texts tend to consist of

I do not know whether I would find Coptic Gnostic texts 'boring rubbish', but I have to say that it is refreshing to find someone admitting that he is repelled and bored by some texts, even if they are ancient and deal with mystical topics.

Now it may be that if I read Coptic Gnostic texts, I would find them lively and fascinating. But in the cultures I am more familiar with, there are some ancient texts that really do seem to be the equivalent of some of the weirder blog posts by fans of modern mystagogues trying to sell their books and seminars. Obviously one has to be more careful the more distant the writing is from one's own time and culture - since one's judgement may be based on a misunderstanding. But if there is plenty of pretentious nonsense around today, it seems just as likely that we should also meet examples of it in antiquity.

That comment struck me as well.

The truth is that the Coptic Gnostic texts are not a unified corpus. Different texts differ wildly in terms of literary merit and philosophical seriousness. Some of them, like the Gospel of Thomas and the Thunder, Perfect Mind have deservedly achieved a certain degree of popularity. But it's difficult to acquire a taste for the endless perplexing descriptions of aeons and cosmic emanations that you find in some of the works. That's where I'd say that the comparison with modern fringe spiritual movements is apt.

[_Symmachus]

It certainly depends on what we think we're looking at. "Fringe" movements are by definition not mainstream, yet Gnosticism (along with Montanism and others that seem bizarre in historical hindsight) was widespread horizontally across different geographical regions and vertically along the social scale. The more literalist movements that later coalesced into orthodoxy were the fringe movements in the second century. If you live in a world that you believe is populated by demons and other spiritual forces that must be placated or whom you believe can help you in the afterlife, knowing this stuff is important. The similarities with modern stuff I think is mostly superficial because the social and cultural contexts are what give each their meanings.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Man, the Nibs really set the standard for mopologetic bullshitting