Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

[_Kishkumen]

So he can present is a generality... in a historic context to his peers that know better, then twist it, bend it, and erase portions...and lets not forget "mis-remember," until it compliments LDS thought and theology to the uninformed Mormon audience who are grasping for answers...e.g. the book reviews?

You have claimed said a lot of things here, you claimed I called him a fraud and crazy, and now you claim I was discussing the link you pasted...which is not true. My examples here were two, the paste above about his claim of the GA, and the German footnote about the robe and "garments."

What cracks me up is that folks here seem to believe just because someone is a scholar what they say must be true, yet then they spend most their time criticizing scholars they disagree with...what a joke.

There are many men and women with and without degrees that do good things and elevate "life" and learning, and are honest with their work...and likewise there are hacks that twist, bend, cheat, and pursue nonsense. Hunter Biden was talented for sure, but he used his talents as a means to an end to promote a false faith...working backwards with a preconceived interpretation and belief and then forced his research into his preconception.

I look forward in reading your link this weekend if I get some time, and hopefully I can track down his footnotes and then see how it translates into his teaching.

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.

[_Symmachus]

This thread has inspired me to review some of the Nibleyana on my shelves, and going through some of his stuff makes me think that the question of whether or not Hugh Nibley is a liar in part hinges on something quite obvious: namely, whether he lied, i.e. whether he claimed one thing while maintaining another in his mind. If he lied, he did not believe that what he wrote was true. However, all of the personal correspondence quoted in his son-in-law's biography—material that was not intended for publication and that ranges from letters to close friends to other Mormon intellectuals like Sterling McMurrin—shows that he had a fierce and literal belief in his very idiosyncratic view of Mormonism (more on that view in a moment).

Hugh Nibley was wrong, but he was not a liar. An analogy is to a missionary: they quote some scripture from Exodus about God's backside (Ex 33:20-ish), thus proving, contra the claims of the rest of Christendom, that God is embodied. is that missionary lying (or is the rest of Christendom for that matter)? Or is he seeing what he wants to see there without bothering with pesky details like cultural and theological contexts? I don't myself call that wrong interpretation lying: I call it a wrong interpretation.

Almost everything I've read of Hugh Nibley—and I've read most of it—fits that category fine and allows his words about his own belief in Mormonism to be true also. He's just wrong.

It is true that he had a very negative view of the reliability of human knowledge and a cynical view of professional scholars, whom he seemed to think cared only about being respected by their peers (actually, that's probably true for many). Partially that it is understandable for his scholarly generation: it really was true that the paradigms for understanding the ancient past that he had learned as an undergraduate and graduate were being overturned by new discoveries in archaeology and the decipherment of languages etc. If you were learning in your 30s and 40s that almost everything you labored at learning in your teens and 20s was wrong, you'd probably be skeptical too about claims of certainty. At the same time, paradigms for ordering knowledge in general were being toppled and new ones have yet to replace them even now. Nibley's epistemological skepticism is superficially ahead of its time. I say superficially because Nibley did believe explicitly that there was a sure foundation for epistemological certainty: personal revelation along Mormon lines.

Robert Ritner gets Nibley mostly right in a footnote in his edition of the JSP (sorry, I don't remember which one) when he characterizes Nibley's approach as epistemologically nihilistic: since we don't know everything about Egyptian and knowledge is always tentative, all interpretations are equally valid. I say "mostly right" because I don't think Nibley was a nihilist. He was actually an epistemological opportunist: the limits of what we know about Egyptian were an opportunity to validate any reading of texts that rests on Joseph's claims (Mormonism), since to Nibley Joseph Smith's claims are the foundations of all certain knowledge. In his view, they are thus more epistemologically sound than anything you get from those ignorant scholars. Nibley makes no sense if you don't appreciate that he really and deeply believed Joseph Smith's claims and he that he took them literally.

I think it is also wrong to characterize Nibley's approach as simply trying to prove the Church was true. I don't think he was trying to do that for the most part, at least until his Egyptian stuff in the late 70s to the 2000s. But before then he wrote thousands of pages about Mormonism and antiquity. He was writing for people who already deeply believed in Mormonism, and while there certainly is a strong streak of proto-FARMSian apologetic ("Joseph couldn't have known X fact about antiquity, ergo the Church is true"), mostly I think he was trying to situate Mormonism within a wider cosmic horizon. I suppose this has to do with what one thinks an "apologist" is. Nibley is much more like a traditional Christian or Jewish or Muslim apologist in that his defense is creative rather than destructive: he has a view of Mormonism that isn't just a regurgitation of the Church's narrative. The Church, after all, has nothing to say about "ancient year-rites" and communing with the cosmos or living in harmony with nature or any other number of themes that are so pervasive in Nibley's work. Most of Nibley's work is advancing his view of Mormonism; he does not only attack critics like his imitators among the FARMSian crowd (and notice that only one of them, John Sorenson, has ever even written any substantial books about any aspect of Mormonism whatsoever; mostly they stick to niche articles in their own venues, blogposts, and book reviews), though certainly he does do some of that. He has a comprehensive view of Mormonism and its relation to other cultures, especially ancient cultures, that he argues for in smaller and greater ways in almost everything he wrote. This is why he is difficult for even believers to read. He demands that they actually learn something about other cultures if they want to understand Mormonism (as he views it). Most people aren't interested in that sort of thing.

But this is why I think even people who reject Mormonism (like me) and who think Nibley is a sloppy scholar can find him so fascinating and enjoy reading him: there is something exhilarating about seeing a powerful mind in the process of creation. As an analogy, I also think St. Jerome was a crappy scholar and I have no sympathy for almost any of his views; but I relish reading him because, like a beautiful piece of music, I can take pleasure in experiencing a brilliant mind in acts of furious creation—and I'll say that Jerome certainly was a liar if there ever was one!

Kish is right that Nibley's whole project imploded. Not even his FARMSian groupies have accepted Nibley's comprehensive and cosmic view of Mormonism; they're all right-wingers who only like the "Joseph couldn't have known X" part of Nibley. As for the rulers of the Church institution, they have wanted nothing substantial to do with Nibley. His Mormonism is not really the Church's Mormonism. I already linked in another post here a letter from the First Presidency's secretary that explicitly says Nibley's views are not in any way official—and that was from the early 70s when he was just getting started on his Book of Abraham. There is an assumption on this thread and one that Martha Beck claims in her book that Nibley was pressured by the Church to defend the Book of Abraham. Where is the evidence for that? He certainly knew these people closely, but a lot of that had to do with the fact that he was from one of those inbred Church families, and they all know each other. J. Reuben Clark encouraged Nibley in several projects, true. McKay stood up for him when his priesthood manual was deemed too difficult for the general membership. Oaks had been a student. But I found revealing the Wotherspoon podcast from 2013 about Nibley. Firstly there was his son-in-law claiming that Nibley probably believed in Adam-God; but then there was a relative of a general authority (McConkie?) on another podcast who said that Nibley was viewed as "kind of out there" by the Church leaders. People like Bruce McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith had nothing but contempt for scholarship and learning. McConkie thought even learning Hebrew and Greek were a waste of time, since the KJV is the official version of the Church—what else do you need then? On the whole, my impression is that the Church governing body does not look favorably on what it cannot control among its members; no way were they ever going to outsource the Book of Abraham or any other aspect of Mormon scripture to an eccentric professor, especially a left-winger. The Church tolerated Nibley because, unlike most Mormon intellectuals, he never criticized the Brethren. Ever. But they have never embraced anything he wrote. Nor have the membership. Nor have his admirers and groupies.

[_Kishkumen]

A very lovely and lucid post, Symmachus. Thank you so much for sharing this.

[_Nevo]

Great posts, Symmachus and Kish. Thanks.

(Me chirping in delight)

[_Fionn]

“Wie Adam dasteht und sich aufzuklren sucht, kam der Mann, sein Helfer. Der hohe Helfer kam zu ihm, der ihn in ein Stu?ck reichen Glanzes hineintrug. Er sprach zu ihm: Ziehe dein Gewand an… Die Mnner, die dein Gewand geschaffen, dienen dir, bis du abscheidest’”

Here is the translation from google translator...

"As Adam stands and aufzuklren be investigated, the man, his assistant came. The high helpers came to him, who? Ck rich luster into carrying him in a Stu. He said to him: Draw thy robe ... The men who created your robe, you serve until you abscheidest '"

Here is Nibleys translation...a paraphrase according to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw

Nibley paraphrases a passage from the Mandaean Ginza: “… when Adam stood praying for light and knowledge a helper came to him, gave him a garment, and told him, Those men who gave you the garment will assist you throughout your life until you are ready to leave earth'”

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.

[_mentalgymnast]

A very lovely and lucid post, Symmachus. Thank you so much for sharing this.

As a non-academic and just a 'regular guy' I've much enjoyed the viewpoints/thoughts of Symmachus in this thread also. Yours too, Kish. More often than not you two, along with a few others...honor, for example...have stuff that is "content intensive' and worth the read.

Regards,
MG

[_kairos]

A very lovely and lucid post, Symmachus. Thank you so much for sharing this.

i will second that praise Sym but tell me how could nibley be around guys like mc murrin who i was to understand had his own version of Mormonism and it included nothing literal about FV or Book of Mormon historicity- if those scholars were talking to each other those must have been a hellavu set of discussions.

one other point don't you think the brethren used nibley as a shield like when nibs was working on Book of Abraham there was nary a peep coming from the COB for years was there?

k

[_Symmachus]

tell me how could nibley be around guys like mc murrin who i was to understand had his own version of Mormonism and it included nothing literal about FV or Book of Mormon historicity- if those scholars were talking to each other those must have been a hellavu set of discussions.

McMurrin was not a believer in Mormonism at all, though he was a participant and he did socialize with Church officials (he too was from one of those inbred Mormon families, like Nibley). He wrote about Mormonism and was interested in the role of intellectuals within Mormondom, but I'm quite sure he was not a believer. I think he and Nibley debated publicly a few times. I remember from the Peterson biography that Nibley wrote a letter to McMurrin (quoted in full in the book) outlining his skepticism of academic knowledge and his literalistic belief in Joseph Smith's claims. I don't know what McMurrin though of Nibley.

one other point don't you think the brethren used nibley as a shield like when nibs was working on Book of Abraham there was nary a peep coming from the COB for years was there?

k

I don't know. If I remember correctly from the Peterson biography, he did give talks to groups of General Authorities from time to time at their invitation, and he certainly knew many of them on a very personal level (e.g. Spencer Kimball and Joseph Fielding Smith), but the Church has never officially endorsed anything Nibley wrote (unless citing him in institute manuals or the like counts). The priesthood manual might be an exception, but given the informality of curriculum materials in the 1950s, before that process was brought under correlation, I wouldn't read that as an endorsement. I think they were probably influenced by Nibley to the extent that he though the Book of Mormon should play a larger role in church life than it had (it was not such a big part of Mormonism until after WWII), but others of his generation were already pushing that, people like Ezra Taft Benson.

The COB never said anything about the Book of Abraham at all until 2013. I really don't think they care all that much about the scholarly issues. These are business types who don't have interest in academic parsing and the complexities of scholarly argument, and they never respond to those they perceive to be critics anyway, so I'm not sure what use Nibley would be to them. If anything, the fact that he could command a following was potentially a source of worry, except that he was so loyal. The Church is true, they are in charge, god called them, and you should get in line—the rest is just detail.

[_kairos]

tell me how could nibley be around guys like mc murrin who i was to understand had his own version of Mormonism and it included nothing literal about FV or Book of Mormon historicity- if those scholars were talking to each other those must have been a hellavu set of discussions.

McMurrin was not a believer in Mormonism at all, though he was a participant and he did socialize with Church officials (he too was from one of those inbred Mormon families, like Nibley). He wrote about Mormonism and was interested in the role of intellectuals within Mormondom, but I'm quite sure he was not a believer. I think he and Nibley debated publicly a few times. I remember from the Peterson biography that Nibley wrote a letter to McMurrin (quoted in full in the book) outlining his skepticism of academic knowledge and his literalistic belief in Joseph Smith's claims. I don't know what McMurrin though of Nibley.

one other point don't you think the brethren used nibley as a shield like when nibs was working on Book of Abraham there was nary a peep coming from the COB for years was there?

k

I don't know. If I remember correctly from the Peterson biography, he did give talks to groups of General Authorities from time to time at their invitation, and he certainly knew many of them on a very personal level (e.g. Spencer Kimball and Joseph Fielding Smith), but the Church has never officially endorsed anything Nibley wrote (unless citing him in institute manuals or the like counts). The priesthood manual might be an exception, but given the informality of curriculum materials in the 1950s, before that process was brought under correlation, I wouldn't read that as an endorsement. I think they were probably influenced by Nibley to the extent that he though the Book of Mormon should play a larger role in church life than it had (it was not such a big part of Mormonism until after WWII), but others of his generation were already pushing that, people like Ezra Taft Benson.

The COB never said anything about the Book of Abraham at all until 2013. I really don't think they care all that much about the scholarly issues. These are business types who don't have interest in academic parsing and the complexities of scholarly argument, and they never respond to those they perceive to be critics anyway, so I'm not sure what use Nibley would be to them. If anything, the fact that he could command a following was potentially a source of worry, except that he was so loyal. The Church is true, they are in charge, god called them, and you should get in line—the rest is just detail.

very good insights-thanx

k

[_kairos]

duplicate