Will Nibley Translate It?'
"We have previously quoted Dr. Hugh Nibley as making this comment concerning the recently discovered vertical transcript: "Of course it's translatable" ('The Herald,' May 1, 1980). According to 'The Herald':
"'Nibley also said he counted at least two dozen out of 47 characters in the Demotic alphabet that could be given phonetic value:
"'This offers as good a test as we'll ever get. Nobody could have faked those characters. It would take 10 minutes to see that this is fake.'
For many years Dr. Nibley has maintained that the 'Reformed Egyptian' spoken of in the Book of Mormon was derived from the Egyptian script known as Demotic. Just why the Nephites would chose such a system of writing is certainly a mystery, for Nibley himself feels that Demotic was 'the most awkward, difficult, and impractical system of writing ever devised by man!' ('Lehi in the Desert' and the World of the Jaredites,' 1952, p. 16)
Ashment warned also against making rash statements or drawing early conclusions that could trap the Church into an embarrassing position.
"'"What if the transcript is a translation of Mormon's abridgement of the Book of Lehi (the 116 lost pages)?
"'"We've got to slow down and take it easy. We can't have contradictions. There are people like Tanner and 'Former Mormons for Jesus' in California who are just waiting to catch us slipping up."
"'Ashment said that Tanner had called him recently to verify Hugh Nibley's assessment that the Anthon transcript could be translated.
"'"I told him I wasn't as convinced as Nibley although I did discuss the characters with Dr. George A. Hughes of the University of Chicago. We agreed that there are some characters that look like demotic Egyptian."
"'"The Herald" called Hugh Nibley to see if he was still confident about his earlier assessments.
"'"I still say just what I said before. It can be translated. I will take a couple of years to complete though. These things take time". ('The Herald,' May 12, 1980).
"It would now appear that Dr. Hugh Nibley is going into the same type of stall that he used with regard to the 'Book of Abraham' papyrus. In 1968 we were told that Dr. Nibley was going to unfold 'the meaning of the hieroglyphics and illustrations on these valuable manuscripts' ('Improvement Era,' January 1968, p. 40-H). Twelve years have now past and he has still not translated the hieroglyphic writing which is found on the important fragment of papyrus printed as Facsimile No. 1 in the Book of Abraham. Other Egyptologists were able to translate all of the Joseph Smith Papyri in just a short time.
"In the case of the recently found transcript which is purported to contain 'Book of Mormon' characters, Hugh Nibley immediately asserted that 'Of course its translatable.' He claimed, in fact, that he had counted at least two dozen out of 47 characters in the Demotic alphabet that could be given a phonetic value. We would expect, then, that a translation might come forth at any time. Dr. Nibley now tells us, however, that it 'will take a couple of years' to complete the translation. It would appear to us that Hugh Nibley has made a claim that he cannot back up and that he is now stalling for time.
"Klaus Baer, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute, was one of 'Hugh Nibley's primary tutors in the art of reading Egyptian characters.' ('Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,' Autumn 1968, p. 109). Although Professor Baer is a good friend to Dr. Nibley, he does not share his views with regard to the recently-discovered transcript:
"'What is it? Probably not Egyptian, even if here and there signs appear that could be interpreted as more or less awkwardly copied hieroglyphs or hieratic signs. . . . I suspect that one would have about the same batting average in comparing this with Chinese or Japanese or other systems that arrange signs in columns.' (letter dated May 10, 1980).
"In a recent television interview the Mormon Egyptologist Edward H. Ashment said that the document 'doesn't come very close to being readable as demotic.' He went on to say that 'it's in a script that is entirely unique and it has no relationship, to my knowledge again, of Egyptian or to any American script.'
Scholars generally couch their findings and opinions under deep layers of caveat and stipulation. The best scholars are very aware of and open about the unknown, and the limits of knowledge.
So with that in mind, what in the world was Nibley thinking going “ham” on the Anthon transcript? In spite of his friends and fellow Mormons warning him to tread lightly?
