Customer Reviews

Lehi in the Desert, the World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites (Collected Works of Hugh Nibley)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

"Lehi in the Desert and World of the Jaredites" is Dr. Hugh Nibley's first book dealing with the Book of Mormon as an historical text, to analyze the book using every historical tool available. Part of the problem is that many of the critics of the Book of Mormon do not have the Mid-East historical, linguistic, or cultural background plus Ph.D. level historical training and experience to do a satisfactory peer-reviewed study and critic of the Book of Mormon. So what most Book of Mormon critics give instead of substance is heavily footnoted pap and opinion, or they treat the book as you would a Mark Twain novel, completely ignoring the book's truth claims.

Dr. Nibley's premise is simple: the Book of Mormon claims to be the product of Mid-East culture-specifically Egyptian and Jewish cultures--so why not analyze the book as you would any other document that claims to be from a similar time period. It is so simple, it is pure genius!

One of the fascinating evidences cited is the name evidence. Certain names become more popular during different time periods, and the names used in the Book of Mormon correspond to 600 BC. Along these lines is the name Paanchi, one of the pharaohs of Egypt, and masculine Alma, which appears on a recently discovered document. Another point he discusses is the word "Deseret," which is associated with honeybee worship in Egypt.

This is a good read, with no advanced degree in history or special language skills required. The book of Mormon is one of those few books that people do not have to read to have an opinion, which is sad since so much is available on the book.

Hugh Nibley is revered by scholars and hobbyists of the Book of Mormon for good reason. His reputation for rigorous research and intellectual honesty are recognized by those who do not subscribe to the Christian precepts of the Book of Mormon as well as those who do. This book is a seminal work in the body collection of writing both for and against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Any person with an interest in the authenticity of that book ought to add this compendium of Nibley's early writing to his/her collection.

What is remarkable about Nibley is his approach to studying the contextual clues found in the Book of Mormon. Any writer from any age will necessarily betray quite a lot about his background origin and beliefs by the things he chooses not to say and expound on as much as what he does say. Nibley draws our attention to phrases like "And my father dwelt in a tent" 1 Nephi 2:15 and "river of water" 1 Nephi 2:6. Seemingly odd phrases to a casual reader, but against the background of Nibley's vast knowledge of things Middle Eastern, they stand out as sharp evidence regarding the historicity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

I began writing this review in response to the two former reviews. Having come this far I am less interested in responding to them directly, however since there are a few glaring errors I feel compelled to take the time to correct them. First, the Book of Mormon introduction page does not "... state that the people in the Book of Mormon are the principal ancestors of the American Indians", nor anything of the kind. You may read it for yourself at .... if you have any questions. Secondly, while I am merely a hobbyist, it doesn't take a genius to recognize that Nibley's religion (the fact that he is LDS) is a testimony to his honesty rather than the converse. Consider how dishonest it would be for him to be a researcher that believed in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and was not LDS? The comparison to the Tobacco industry is a silly one as chemistry is a hard science dealing in things that can be quantified and archaeology by its nature is necessarily speculative. I am not 100% certain of this, but I have never heard any reference to Nibley as church historian, and I don't believe he ever has been. I also did several searches on Google and the only pages I find that have the words "Hugh Nibley" and "church historian" are ones that contain information about Leonard J. Arrington, church historian. Last, is the thought that Nibley picks and chooses only evidence that supports the Book of Mormon, I'd like to extend hearty congratulations to the reader from Provo UT for recognizing that there is archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, and would like to know since he posits its existence what "evidence" was ignored?

The bottom line is that if you take seriously the question of the historicity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon you will read this book. If you don't, the book isn't exactly a light read, so you might try something by John Grisham instead.

Probably the greatest value in this book is in the number of questions it attempts to ask and the type of issues it delves into rather than the answers it comes up with. It is a compilation of articles written by Hugh Nibley over a course of a few years and first published in a single volume in 1952.

Hugh Nibley was undoubtedly a very knowledgeable person and a great scholar. He wrote on a variety of topics, but generally speaking his works fell into one of the following broad categories: 1. ancient studies, 2. early LDS Church history and 3. social criticism, particularly as pertaining to the LDS Church members. Nibley's best writings are those he wrote as a social critic -- "Approaching Zion" is Nibley in his finest moment.

In case of ancient studies, while Nibley raises interesting questions and issues, he often wonders all over the place, does not document his sources very well and often presents his opinions as facts. He is well read and his mind runs a mile a minute and even when he's proven wrong he doesn't bother to go back and correct his views, he's simply moved on. "Lehi in the Desert" falls into this category. Here Nibley explores a variety of issues that weren't necessarily explored before. This book alone supplied a host of research topics for en entire generation of LDS scholars to come after him. However most of Nibley's conclusions in this book are poorly supported. He seldom documents his sources and when he does, he often uses outdated scholarship. For example in his discussion on weather relies almost solely on a book written around 1900 -- about 50 years prior to Nibley's article! Another example are his remarks on the ancient origin of names of various Book of Mormon characters. Here he presents a very interesting analysis, but no sources are provided to allow anyone to retrace Nibley's steps and verify his work.

That is not to say that the book does not have a merit. As I said earlier, Nibley does raise many interesting questions and forces the reader to look at the Book of Mormon through different light. He does make a number of valid and interesting conclusions, one just needs to be careful not to fall into a cultic following of blindly accepting everything written by Hugh Nibley as the Gospel. For Gospel it is not.

I would not necessarily discourage folks from reading this book, but certainly caution them to read it with open mind. As I said, it has some merit. But I would encourage the interested reader to turn to other, much up-to-date LDS scholarship. In this regard, there is much available these days that I'd point the reader to first, before referring them to this book. For example, "Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem" is a great book on the topic of interest to many Latter-day Saints. And generally speaking Pike, Skinner, Chadwick and Seely produce great scholarship with respect to ancient studies.

I found this to be of value to anyone interested in the sagic tradition or heroic expression. Not much more can be written about the world of the Jaredites.

it is obvious that whoever wrote the review posted on Dec 7, 2002 has not read this book because Nibley answers all the questions the writer poses. I find it rather amusing that the writer of the review answers his own question with the same answer that Nibley gives, but nevertheless insists that Nibley is wrong.

I just finished reading an older version of this book and found it extremely interesting and informative.

Excellent, captivating evidence for the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Loved it!

If you are a Mormon, I want you to know that I respect your open mindedness in reading my review. I also want you to know that I don't believe the LDS Church is a cult; nor do I believe that Mormons worship the devil. Some of the Mormons I have known were the finest people who ever walked in shoe leather, as my grandmother used to say.

Here is what one good Mormon said about one of Nibley's books.

"As a believing Mormon, I think that Mormons need to be willing to accept many significant limitations to Hugh Nibley's work. The plain fact is, much of it simply does not hold up to fair scholarly criticism. It would appear that Carrier has invested a great deal of effort on this issue, and that his comments are generally legitimate."

Note: It is not the end of the world or the end of your religion to admit such things. In fact, by denying them and defending Nibley, Mormons invite ridicule. Why do that?


Now for specifics. If you think this is a good book, then don't check out Nibley's sources or you will be sorely disappointed. I'll provide some abused sources found in just two pages (pages 212-213) of Nibley's book. In the following, Nibley is trying to justify Book of Mormon statements about the Jaredites having steel swords and glass windows in 2000 BC. Remember all of the following mistatements are found in a mere two pages of Nibley's book.

1. Nibley uses an article by Wainwright about the "Coming of Iron." In speaking of an artifact from Egypt as being "steel," Nibley says "the tanslation is not absolutely certain..." Wainwright says "the translation is entirely guesswork." These descriptions are not equivalent. Also Wainwright says the use of iron before 1500 BC was extremely rare. On page 122, Nibley carelessly (and deliberately) uses the word "steel" in place of "iron" in his use of Wainwright's essay.

2. Nibley quotes Vernadsky on the "History of Ancient Russia," but before his quotation about clans of iron workers, Nibley puts in his own bizarre theory that steel was "used in one place and forbidden in another." Nibley makes it sound like his source supports that screwball "forbidden" theory. Vernadsky (see page 43) does not.

3. Nibley quotes from an article by D. B. Harden about ancient glass, but fails to mention that Harden says that glass in ancient times was as valuable gold and rubies. According to the article, colorless glass was not made until the 2nd century AD. Nibley ignored the sense of Harden's article in trying to get not just glass beads, but clear glass windows into 2000 BC.

4. Nibley says steel "objects" were found at Darmesteter. His source says "one object" was found. Then Nibley speaks of the "correct chemical formula" for steel. This is misleading because an "analysis" is not a "formula." In other words, steel can be make accidentally by the addition of carbon to iron. Nibley twice uses "formula" in place of "analysis."

5. Nibley says that "steel comes before iron in the four ages of Zarathustra." That is true, but these religious ages are listed by moral "value," not as indicating actual history. There are "gold" and "silver" ages, for example. Also Zarathustra dates from 600 BC, not 2000 BC. Nibley goes on to talk about "the Seljuk dynasty of Iran" without saying that he is talking about 1071 AD.

6. Nibley mentions an ancient steel "bow" without noting that a "steel bow" is found in the Bible in II Samuel. Any honest discussion of the Book of Mormon steel bow should also mention II Samuel.

On these two pages, Nibley gives the reader a snowstorm of facts and falsehoods that feel good, but prove nothing about Jaredite windows and steel swords.

If you take all these references and sources, and there are many more in Nibley's book, you have a line of argument that only impresses the uninformed, or the reader who doesn't bother to actually check Nibley's sources.

In a chapter about the Jaredites, for example, Nibley goes on about ancient steel and glass windows, but makes no attempt to justify the existence of the wooden (!) Jaredite submarines of 2000 BC (344 days in the ocean). Windows and steel weapons are a minor issue compared to the issue of submarines in 2000 BC, which Nibley completely ignores.

Nibley's work is not scholarly, but simply emotional, religious propaganda. He says that critics believe that Joseph Smith was an "ignorant rustic who could hardly write his name" (page 128).

This is simply false. Joseph Smith was an admitted Bible reader from age twelve. He also claimed to have read and translated the gold plates. His father had been a school teacher, and his brother Hyrum was on the Manchester school board. His mother was proud that all her children could read and write (though Joseph's handwriting was not the best). The Smiths even took the local newspaper.

Nibley is, in fact, insulting the prophet by making him so stupid he could not compose the Book of Mormon. There has got to be a better defense of the Book of Mormon than that. The informed reader of Nibley's books will come to the conclusion that he "doth protest too much."

I can't end without this quote from page 153 of Nibley's book. "The only weapons that have survived from prehistoric times are far more suited to their purpose than a modern rifle. The deadliest of all hunting weapons remains to this day the stone-headed (not steel-headed arrow)." Parenthesis by Nibley. Modern rifle and bow hunters raise your hand if you believe this! Nibley's weird theories should be an embarrassment to educated Mormons.

Needless to say, a person who has a lot of footnotes in his or her book is not necessarily a scholar. As the modern historian Will Durant said: "The cleverest defenders of a faith are its greatest enemies because their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind." No sentence could apply more perfectly to Hugh Nibley.

Added example of a misrepresented source:

In "Since Cumorah" (pages 62-63), Nibley writes about the ancient copper scroll containing the Book of Isaiah.

"The business of writing on such plates was hard and distasteful work....Writing on plates requires a cramped and abbreviated script, Moroni explains...and Allegro also notes the writing on copper plates actually produces a new kind of writing that is particularly difficult to read, characterized by mixing forms of letters, ignoring the proper spacing between words, "running-over from one line to the next in the middle of a word," and general neglect of the vowels.

"A greater deficiency lies in ourselves," Allegro concludes, "we simply do not possess a sufficiently comprehensive technical Hebrew vocabulary to deal with a text of this kind." This should have a sobering effect on those people who fondly suppose the if we could only discover some Nephite plates, the translation could be left to them: this sort of things needs an Urim and Thummin, indeed."

Now, read the following and ask yourself if Nibley was honest with his source?

His source is "The Treasure of the Copper Scroll," by John Marco Allegro (an expert).

A. Allegro says that the scroll is in Hebrew and readable (though with some overlapping of words, pp. 27-28). In fact, Allegro provided a facsimile of the entire scroll. On one page is the scroll, and the opposite page is Hebrew writing with the English translation next to it. ALLEGRO DOES NOT SAY THAT WRITING ON PLATES PRODUCES A NEW KIND OF WRITING. In fact, he says, "A comparable fault in modern uneducated writing might be the mixing of small and capital letters, although there the diffence would not be so marked as, for instance, when our scribe writs a cursive `aleph" for the normal square-shaped. (letter).

B. FACT: The copper scroll was translated by normal means by people who were experts in Hebrew.

C. Allegro writes (following Nibley's selected quotes) that: "Happily in our scroll there are no true verbs, where alone vowelling might make a crucial difference to the interpretation. Whilst, therefore, we need not be unduly concerned about the lack of vowel signs in our text...Again, once aware of this failing (or device) on the part of our scribe, we can still recognize the word for what it is. A greater deficiency lies in ourselves....(Note, this sentence quoted by Nibley. He ignored what preceded it).

D. Nibley has implied that an Urim and Thummin would be needed to translate the scroll, and he has totally distorted the sense of what Allegro was saying.

It is also worth noting that if what Nibley says is true about a "cramped and abbreviated style of writing," then it is highly unlikely that any chiastic structures would survive a translation. (Mormon writers claim that "chiasmus"--parallel sentences are in the Book of Mormon as a result of such practices in ancient times. They carefully delete words, however, to produce these examples of chiasmus).

Please check my reviews of other books by Hugh Nibley. Thanks.

An Approach to the Book of Mormon:
An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol 6)

Since Cumorah:
Since Cumorah: The Book of Mormon in the modern world

First of all, Nibley is not an unbiased source of information at all. Cigarette companies hire their own researchers and scientists who provide evidence to indicate that cigarettes aren't harmful to your health. Look at who Nibley was working for when he wrote this book. I admit that Nibley has an encyclopedic knowledge of the ancient world of the middle east, but I disagree with his methodology. Nibley is very selective. Nibley examines a vast amount of information about the ancient world of the middle east, picks out the bits and pieces here and there which happen to support the Book of Mormon and ignores the rest. He lumps these bits and pieces together that happen to support the Book of Mormon and thus presents an inaccurate view of the ancient middle east. Nibley lacks intellectual honesty: he is not out to discover the truth, but to provide evidence, at all costs, that the Book of Mormon is true. The introduction page to the Book of Mormon states that the people in the Book of Mormon are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. Then why does DNA evidence indicate that the American Indians are from Asia? Why isn't there an obvious relationship between Hebrew and American Indian languages just as there is an undeniably relationship between the ancient language Latin and its descendents: French, Spanish, and Italian?

Hugh Nibley is (or was) the Church Historian of the Mormon Church. If you are Mormon you will find it faith promoting. If you are not you will find it utter nonsense.