Bushman, Intellectualism and a little Nibley.

Hugh W. Nibley




Richard L. Bushman

Two of the greatest minds in Mormonism

Bushman on Hugh W. Nibley

"...Hugh Nibley's writing played a large part in my thinking. Although I recognized the eccentricities of his style and was never completely confident of his scholarship, there seemed to me enough there to make a case. 1 Nephi could not be dismissed as fraudulent, and so far as I know no one has refuted the argument Nibley made in "Lehi in the Desert. He offered just the kind of evidence I was looking for in my pursuit of answer: evidence that was specific, empirical, historical." BYU Studies, My Belief pg 26

First, Bushman's statement that he was in pursuit of answers that included " evidence that was specific, empirical, historical." In my life I have found what I consider specific evidence; one example may be Jacob 5 and the allegory of the Olive tree. Although not a primary factor during my conversion the historical evidence of the three witnesses is compelling. As for empirical data, we know empirical data can be gathered simply through observation, or experienced through the senses. I have my own conversion that stands as a form of empirical data and can stand the test of the Scientific Method.

On to Nibley. For believing Mormons his reach is almost without boundaries. For those who are naturally inquisitive about the Mormon construct, he remains a constant resource. However it has been verified by a number of people that his footnotes and sources left much to be desired.

Nibley's son in law stated:

I have contacted many of the note checkers and editors of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley...and they all confirm that, while Hugh has been sloppy—at times mistranslating a text or overstating his case—he does not make up his sources. (link)

Kent P. Jackson who is a well respected Scholar and Administrator wrote one of the most critical essays on Nibley in 1989:

"Among my critiques was that Nibley often generalized excessively, saw "things in the sources that simply don't seem to be there," let his "predetermined conclusions set the agenda for the evidence," and misinterpreted authors he cited. Others, including some of Nibley's greatest admirers, have found the same problems in his scholarship. But the academic transgressions committed by Nibley (hardly unique to him) were the products of carelessness and wishful thinking, not of fraud and deception. Nibley's greatest skill as a scholar was his ability to see the big picture, not his ability to finesse the fine details. Nowhere in my own examination of his research and writing did I find any hint of his making up sources for fictional references. I do not believe it happened." Link

But in the end John Gee has said:

"As one who has probably checked as many or more of Nibley's footnotes than anyone alive, I think that it is important to say up front that the vast majority of his footnotes are correct and that only a few are questioned, even fewer would be seen as questionable.

Second, before I did my statistical study I did an impressionistic estimate of the accuracy of the footnotes based on my personal experience. The estimate was 70% accuracy when in reality it was over 90%. Those of us checking footnotes spent more of our time dealing with problems (a correct footnote takes only a minute or so to check, while fixing a problem may take hours) and that makes us inclined to vastly overestimate the number of problems.

One also needs to compare Nibley's accuracy with other authors, although here I have been less systematic. Compared to other scholars whose footnotes I have checked, Nibley does very well.

[Furthermore] With the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, the issue of footnote accuracy is essentially moot. All the footnotes were checked (at least since volume two). The issue of the footnotes is essentially only relevant in works before they were published in the Collected Works" Link

One of the things that Nibley was often guilty of was that of Presentism, (Presentism is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.) Wikipedia, "presentism"



And here is where two divergent approaches can be contrasted; One of frequent Presentism, and the approach I prefer and to which Bushman took at this point in his life:

"I long ago learned that it is better to flow with the evidence than to compel compliance with one's preformed ideas." BYU Studies, My Belief pg 26

This approach allows for the full flowering of the truth despite personal agenda's. Now, to say that complete objectivity is possible may be a stretch, but it is possible to be self aware of one's own paradigms and try our best to consider the truth on its own merits.

In the end. We may ask "what is truth?" We could ask Tertullian and Clement. They had quite a bit to say about it. We may ask Origen and the Philosophers with their Hellenistic idea's what the truth is? Or we may ask the appropriate question "who is truth?". And we receive an answer from a Nazarene, "I am...the Truth." The Truth flows like water when sought. So taught the Master in John 4:14... but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Asking the right questions and following the trail truth leaves behind sounds pretty good to me. Then just DO and BECOME!

Next wee see Bushman employ both Faith, Reason, and the exercise thereof.

Big UP!

Lamanite


An aside. Nibley's writings have colored my ideology and theology a great deal. I love and respect him and his scholarship. I feel like I came down on him pretty hard here, and I wish to state without equivocation that I owe a deep debt of gratitude to his startling intellect and dedication to he Gospel.