Baer on Apologetics and the Nature of Egyptian Religion

Here is the last of the three Klaus Baer letters Noel Hausler sent to me. This one is particularly important, I think, because it makes a crucial methodological point about the nature of Egyptian religion. Because the Egyptians were pantheistic and engaged in "free association" of symbols and deities, Baer argues, LDS apologists like Nibley can justify almost any interpretation of the Joseph Smith Papyri that serves their purposes. Such interpretations will not be common or mainstream, but they will be defensible on some level. I'd add, for my own part, that even apart from the peculiarities of Egyptian religion, images and symbols are inherently multivalent and almost always capable of multiple interpretations and adaptations. This is the strength of Kevin Barney's "Semitic adaptation" theory: it takes advantage of this inherent pictorial ambiguity. (But see here for a particularly problematic case where this favorite apologetic escape hatch does not apply.)

----------

10 April 1972

Dear Reverend Walters,

Many thanks for your letter of April 3, which just got here. Under separate cover, I am returning to you the photocopies of Nibley's articles in the IMPROVEMENT ERA; I have the whole set, and you mught be able to use the copies. I must confess that I haven't actually managed to read the thing from one end to the other. As you say, it is virtually impossible to refute what Nibley writes as fast as he produces it -- and quite difficult, since what the LDS would demand is proof that something isn't the way Nibley says it is, when often all the conscientious scholar can say is that the evidence doesn't support a conclusion of any kind.

To put it briefly and in general form, the problem facing us with the study of Egyptian religion is one (probably) common to all polytheistic religions. The Egyptians were essentially pantheistic, believing in one divine substance that could manifest itself in a great many different ways. While for the common believer (and for the purposes of the cult) each image was a separate entity (and thus there were many Amons, who could even disagree with one another), at the same time that each god could be seen as many gods (from one point of view), many gods could be seen as one (from another aspect). There may well be a train of thought leading to the trinitarian theology of the Alexandrians here. One even finds identifications of gods across the sex line (which isn't supposed to happen according to theoreticians of religion). One result, of course, is that symbols can have a most confusing application. Just for the lotus, for instance, we have (Moren, Schubert, DER GOTT AUF DER BLUME: the primeval lotus that arose from the primeval waters at creation (hence creator), the lotus at the nose of Re (the creator) (hence creation), god of perfume, hence Nefertem, Harsaphes, Harsomeeus, Re, Horus, King, etc. etc. Thus there is nothing that says (by the king of free association indulged in by the Egyptians in this sphere) that they could not have associated a lotus with a lion that guards the frontiers and hence meant Abraham -- unfortunately there is also no shred of evidence that they actually did so, and that is the important thing. In a world where anything can be anythin, the outsider who wants to prove something must do more than simply say that such and such is possible withing [sic] the framework of Egyptian thought. He must prove that it actually happened, something much harder. Similarly Heyerdahl's mistake: Even without the Ra trip, I would have been delighted to agree that the Egyptians _could_ have crossed the Atlantic with their (substantial) wooden ships. The question is: did they? If there were evidence (and there isn't), then even the failure of Hyerdahl's trip wouldn't prove anything. As it is, his success is equally meaningless.

In regard to the quotes from my letters; don't mention it to Tanner. There's no point in warming up ancient history, and I am, after all, in contact with them (may have mentioned it when I visited them in Salt Lake some years ago).

Sincerely,
Klaus Baer