FAIR/NAMIRS Articles You Enjoy

[_sethpayne]

I'm curious as to what articles/arguments that come out of FAIR/NAMIRS you enjoy.

I pointed out a review by Richard Bushman in another thread but there are many other articles including:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=213

Fascinating read.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=223

Dan's piece on Asherah is also a great read. Obviously, my opinion differs from the concluding paragraph but the argument is interesting and the material presented is compelling.

[_sethpayne]

*bump*

[_CaliforniaKid]

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... bms&id=374

[_Aristotle Smith]

I wish I could say there are some that I enjoy. There were some FARMS/NAMIRS publications I enjoyed in the past. I really enjoyed several volumes in the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley Series, especially The World And The Prophets, Approaching Zion, The Ancient State, and Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints. He was part of the reason I eventually took up studying ancient history, religion, and Greek. However after coming back to Nibley having done that (plus researched LDS church history) I find his work to be annoying, wrong, or both. Ironically, I now see Nibley in many ways as being a shining example of so many of the things he railed against. I realize we are all to some degree hypocrites because we all fail to live up to our ideals, but in Nibley's case there seems to have been a lack of self awareness.

I also at one time enjoyed Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. It was kind of neat to see someone try and make so much out of small amounts of data and copious use of maps. I confess I have a soft spot in my heart for map afficionados who can stare at maps for hours. But the book's conclusions were quite slim and were quickly forgotten after doing a bit of research on Mesoamerican history and losing faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

FARMS/NAMIRS stuff can be witty and rhetorically sharp, I'll give them that. But beyond that, their material really doesn't hold up well over time or with the addition of new data.

[_CaliforniaKid]

However after coming back to Nibley having done that (plus researched LDS church history) I find his work to be annoying, wrong, or both.

Nibley had a pretty expansive mind, and I think he's a fascinating example of the human drive to create a Grand Synthesis of All Things. His works are inspiring, at the very least, and I know of at least a few Mormon academics who chose their field of study after being impressed by Nibley. But the later reaction you describe is also fairly typical. Fair and rigorous Nibley was not.

I remember when I read Abraham in Egypt, I kept thinking, "Does Nibley not realize that he's connecting the Book of Abraham to late, fraudulent texts full of Greek metaphysics and Greek misreadings of the Hebrew Bible?" And then I read the line where he says something like, "'Pseudepigrapha' just means texts that didn't make it into the Bible." I couldn't stop laughing for several minutes. No, Hugh. That's not what pseudepigrapha means.

[_Kishkumen]

Nibley had a pretty expansive mind, and I think he's a fascinating example of the human drive to create a Grand Synthesis of All Things. His works are inspiring, at the very least, and I know of at least a few Mormon academics who chose their field of study after being impressed by Nibley. But the later reaction you describe is also fairly typical. Fair and rigorous Nibley was not.

I was one of those people. It is true that his work doesn't hold up so well once you have done the training yourself. Still, he did some good stuff. I still see a Nibley article or two cited in Classics scholarship now and then.

I remember when I read Abraham in Egypt, I kept thinking, "Does Nibley not realize that he's connecting the Book of Abraham to late, fraudulent texts full of Greek metaphysics and Greek misreadings of the Hebrew Bible?"

That was his method and his problem. But when you think of it, what is a Mormon who really values Joseph Smith's scriptural contributions to do? In a way it makes all the sense in the world according to LDS theology to treat all the texts this way. Joseph Smith himself did not throw out the Apocrypha. So, yes, it is problematic according to the usual demands of scholarly rigor, but it also has a certain logic to it in terms of LDS thought.

And then I read the line where he says something like, "'Pseudepigrapha' just means texts that didn't make it into the Bible." I couldn't stop laughing for several minutes. No, Hugh. That's not what pseudepigrapha means.

Well, I guess it's funny, until you realize that Nibley knew Greek better than either one of us ever will and could quote Pindar and Homer from memory. So, he knew very well what pseudepigrapha technically means. He was challenging assumptions about those texts along the lines of what I was just explaining, which is, again, rather consistent with LDS thought dating back to Joseph Smith.

So, what appears hilarious to someone who is not LDS is actually quite logical from an LDS point of view. Maybe you knew that already though. I just thought I would point it out on the outside chance that you missed it.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I understand what you're saying, Kish, and I don't entirely disagree. I wouldn't have found it so ridiculous if Nibley had explained what the word "pseudepigrapha" means and then offered some rationale that problematized the value judgment that term implies. But the bald assertion-- that was too much. This is the difference between an unconventional religious think-piece and an apologetic snow-job.

[_sethpayne]

I'm in the camp of those who were inspired by Nibley to explore religion academically. It wasn't until I reached grad school that I realized how loose Nibley was with his sources. Seemingly giving no though to their dating, authenticity, etc...

In particular the old bit that Ham stole Noah's garments and that is why he was cursed because he was trying to steal Noah's priesthood power/authority. That idea is still prevelent among some Church members I interact with.

When you take a close look at the text -- especially given the ANE context -- it is hard to avoid that the text is stating Ham raped, or at least attempted the rape of his Father. Now, in that context that would be seen as a power grab as sodomy was a symbol of dominance in the ANE and Egypt (Horus & Set for example). Clearly the author/editor of Genesis was trying to this type of dominance was unholy so Nibley had it 1/2 right but he had to inject the nonsense about temple garments from a late and fraudulent source.

[_Kishkumen]

I understand what you're saying, Kish, and I don't entirely disagree. I wouldn't have found it so ridiculous if Nibley had explained what the word "pseudepigrapha" means and then offered some rationale that problematized the value judgment that term implies. But the bald assertion-- that was too much. This is the difference between an unconventional religious think-piece and an apologetic snow-job.

We may respond differently because I never considered the concept of the Biblical canon at all important.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm in the camp of those who were inspired by Nibley to explore religion academically. It wasn't until I reached grad school that I realized how loose Nibley was with his sources. Seemingly giving no though to their dating, authenticity, etc...

In particular the old bit that Ham stole Noah's garments and that is why he was cursed because he was trying to steal Noah's priesthood power/authority. That idea is still prevelent among some Church members I interact with.

When you take a close look at the text -- especially given the ANE context -- it is hard to avoid that the text is stating Ham raped, or at least attempted the rape of his Father. Now, in that context that would be seen as a power grab as sodomy was a symbol of dominance in the ANE and Egypt (Horus & Set for example). Clearly the author/editor of Genesis was trying to this type of dominance was unholy so Nibley had it 1/2 right but he had to inject the nonsense about temple garments from a late and fraudulent source.

It strikes me yet again how much Nibley is like occult enthusiast in his antiquarianism. Maybe a naïve student of Freemasonic early history who accepts the myths of origins in Solomon's Temple and the like seriously. I would argue that Nibley was aware that he was consciously drawing from different traditions from across the ages because he believed they were valuable for theological reasons. After all, the Book of Mormon refers to the word of God being written in different times and places in what sounds like a vast sea of literature.

As a Mormon reader, he is sifting through it all and making it harmonize with LDS doctrine. It is the world through an LDS lens. He was very conscious and open about it. Still, I think a lot of people did not understand the full implications of what he was doing.