Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks for posting Kish. I commented in the other thread you started.

I'm going to hang my hat in this discussion for now as I have said all I really have to say about the generalities and the human behavior patterns and I don't have much to say about case specifics as I have acknowledged openly from the beginning. I wish all Nibleys and Mopologists and scholars and people who like to try to prove their intellectual prowess on message boards on their merry ways.

Enjoy.

You're welcome, Rosebud. I am glad you found the other thread, which is much better suited for the kind of posts you have been adding to this one. As for your comments on proving intellectual prowess, it seems to me Symmachus has no need to prove anything. Symmachus' fine intellect shines through in every post.

[_Markk]

Jackson wrote...

"My own serious misgivings about his methodology do not detract from my admiration for his life of scholarship consecrated to the highest cause."

In other words... what Kish? For KJ to say something like that says a lot.

Yes, it does. But KJ does not accuse him of fraud, lying, or faking footnotes.

He is just being polite to a old man who in the end belongs to the same faith, it is pretty clear he believes he is a hack with his end notes. He further wrote...

"... In this book Nibley often uses his secondary sources the same way he uses his primary sources--taking phrases out of context to establish points with which those whom he quotes would likely not agree. I asked myself frequently what some authors would think if they knew that someone were using their words the way Nibley does (the same question I asked myself concerning his ancient sources as well)."

[Guest]

He is just being polite to a old man who in the end belongs to the same faith, it is pretty clear he believes he is a hack with his end notes. He further wrote...

Well, Markk, you have to decide what it is you are accusing Nibley of. I think it is well established that he was sloppy and indulged his own confirmation bias egregiously. But that is not the same as calling him a liar, a fraud, or an impostor. You are, of course, free to project whatever you like on Kent Jackson, but that makes you no better than Nibley on this issue.

[_Maksutov]

He is just being polite to a old man who in the end belongs to the same faith,

[_Markk]

Well, Markk, you have to decide what it is you are accusing Nibley of. I think it is well established that he was sloppy and indulged his own confirmation bias egregiously. But that is not the same as calling him a liar, a fraud, or an impostor. You are, of course, free to project whatever you like on Kent Jackson, but that makes you no better than Nibley on this issue.

It funny how me calling him a liar has turned into me calling him a fraud and impostor...

This is what KJ wrote...again...it is pretty clear.

"... In this book Nibley often uses his secondary sources the same way he uses his primary sources--taking phrases out of context to establish points with which those whom he quotes would likely not agree. I asked myself frequently what some authors would think if they knew that someone were using their words the way Nibley does (the same question I asked myself concerning his ancient sources as well)."

You wrote... "Did he massage the sources aggressively, misremember, and interpret things in a Mormo-centric fashion? Yes."

You say that, and I call him a hack...what is the difference? Simply amazing?

[_Kishkumen]

You say that, and I call him a hack...what is the difference? Simply amazing?

What do you think the word hack means, Markk?

[_Lemmie]

Thanks for posting Kish. I commented in the other thread you started.

I'm going to hang my hat in this discussion for now as I have said all I really have to say about the generalities and the human behavior patterns and I don't have much to say about case specifics as I have acknowledged openly from the beginning. I wish all Nibleys and Mopologists and scholars and people who like to try to prove their intellectual prowess on message boards on their merry ways.

Enjoy.

You're welcome, Rosebud. I am glad you found the other thread, which is much better suited for the kind of posts you have been adding to this one. As for your comments on proving intellectual prowess, it seems to me Symmachus has no need to prove anything. Symmachus' fine intellect shines through in every post.

(And neither do you, Kish, need to prove anything! Your intellect is completely evident as well, in case Rosebud needs a reminder. I'm glad she found the other thread, also.)

[_Kishkumen]

(And neither do you, Kish, need to prove anything! Your intellect is completely evident as well, in case Rosebud needs a reminder. I'm glad she found the other thread, also.)

You are too kind, Lemmie. I appreciate your praise.

[_Markk]

What do you think the word hack means, Markk?

Literally... "One who cuts without care" or one who butchers a text, taking it out of context on purpose, or using your own words... one who is willing to "massage sources aggressively," and "misremember"...again, as a means to an end?

It does not mean fraud or impostor, which you accused me of saying ...but ironically one synonym for hack is 'hireling", which fits my context very well.

[_Kishkumen]

Literally... "One who cuts without care" or one who butchers a text, taking it out of context on purpose, or using your own words... one who is willing to "massage sources aggressively," and "misremember"...again, as a means to an end?

It does not mean fraud or impostor, which you accused me of saying ...but ironically one synonym for hack is 'hireling", which fits my context very well.

Well, I don't agree that Nibley was a hack. He had a different standard and a different objective when he used his learning in his discussion of Mormonism. To say that he was merely a hireling is very unfair. Nibley sacrificed much to do what he did for something he believed in very deeply. It was his offering to his God. Yes, it was flawed and there are certainly grounds for serious criticism. But I also see a lot of room for sympathy, understanding, and respect.