Did Baer Back Down?

Recently I provided a letter from Hugh Nibley in which he asserted that during a lecture at BYU non-Mormon Egyptologist Klaus Baer was asked some hard questions about the Book of Abraham, and by the end of the session "was definitely in retreat." A letter from H. Michael Marquardt to my friend Noel Hausler tells a rather different story. The contrast between these two letters is a fascinating study in differing perceptions. Unlike Nibley, Marquardt's notes emphasize Baer's firmness that Joseph Smith made "no lucky guesses", and that Baer did not believe Joseph was a prophet.

I think the problem here was that Baer was a very strong believer in the "suspensive" school of historiography, which argued that religious claims are inherently non-empirical and there is absolutely nothing that secular historians can say about religious truth claims. So when Baer emphasized at the end that this was outside his expertise as an Egyptologist, it's understandable that that would sound to Nibley's ears like a retreat. But actually, if you read some of Baer's other papers and letters on the subject, you'll find that these remarks were pretty typical fare for him. He was very reticent to directly, publicly speak his mind about religious truth claims.

[p. 1]

[Address omitted for privacy reasons]

November 2, 1974

Mr. Noel Hausler
[Address omitted for privacy reasons]

Dear Mr. Noel Hausler,

Wesley P. Walters sent me a copy of a letter written by Dr. Hugh Nibley at BYU dated September 15, 1974 and was addressed to you.

I attended the last lecture by Klaus Baer at BYU on August 23, 1974 and was at the Question and Answer Session which lasted for an hour afterward. At the Question and Answer Session I asked Klaus Baer three questions in succession, infact I started the discussion in relation to the Book of Abraham. The comments by Klaus Baer on the Book of Abraham was about 20-25 minutes. He answered the first two questions that I asked him by going into some of the background material on the Joseph Smith Papyrus and papers which Joseph Smith worked with and so my short account is a summary of his conclusion. The third answer was a definite yes.

The following questions are what I asked Klaus Baer and the answer is a brief summary of what his conclusions were, this material is taken from my typed notes made on the same day. The first two questions I had typed out when I asked Klaus Baer those questions.

Question 1: “In your opinion did Joseph Smith or whoever understand Egyptian? Or inotherwords – Is there enough evidence to convince you that Joseph Smith (or whoever did the translation of the Egyptian Papyrus behind the Book of Abraham) could read and understand Egyptian?”

Answer: Klaus Baer explained that Facsimile No. 1 and the Sensen text were together and that the backing paper had drawings on them. Hugh Nibley had sent him a copy of his article dealing with the different hadwritings of Joseph Smith’s scribes. Klaus Baer stated that whoever did the work of the Book of Abraham didn’t understand Egyptian.

Question 2: “There are some persons who have expressed the opinion that we don’t know where the papyrus is from which the Book of Abraham text comes from and they say that the papyrus is still lost. What do you feel? – Is there any evidence that this is true?”

Answer: Klaus Baer knew that I was referring to Hugh Nibley and he stated that he disagreed with Hugh Nibley and that we do have the actual papyrus that was the source of the Book of Abraham.

Question 3: “Do you still stand behind your Dialogue article?”

Answer: “Yes”.

[p. 2]
In the letter by Dr. Hugh Nibley to you on page 1 he writes: “Baer was hard put to it during the discussion periods and at the end was definitely in retreat, though as an honored quest we could not press him too hard. The main point was that heshowed his hand while we, to spare unpleasant controversy, virtuously withheld our own. I would like to comment on this. There were a number of questions asked Klaus Baer after the three questions which I had asked him. There was no doubt about the answers to my questions but it seems that some of the persons who were there at the Question and Answer Session felt that Klaus Baer was backing down. I do not feel that he was in retreat but giving his own personal observations about Joseph Smith and the following is from the typewritten notes that I made.

“A question was asked Klaus Baer on whether Joseph Smith had made any lucky guesses on his interpretation of Facsimile No. 2 of the Book of Abraham. Klaus Baer said that the copy of Facsimile No. 2 which appeared among the papers of the EAG showed that there were gaps at the time Joseph Smith was working on them. The gaps were filled in from other papyri. The method to restore a damaged document is to use a parallel text and Klaus Baer stated that he did not approve of how Fac. No. 2 was restored. Klaus Baer said that there were no lucky guesses.

“A question was asked how could there be no lucky guesses when in fact Egyptologists agree with Joseph Smith on a number of interpretations that Joseph Smith made in relation with Fac. No. 2. Klaus Baer stated that there were no lucky guesses and that you could prove anything you wanted. He then made it clear that this was beyond his competence in his field as an Egyptologist. Klaus Baer stated his personal belief that he didn’t believe Joseph Smith to be a Prophet. He mentioned that this was out of his field. He said that he had no intention to becoming a member of the LDS Church. During this answer Klaus Baer sat in a chair. There was some pressure for Klaus Baer to say that there could have been some lucky guesses made by Joseph Smith on Fac. No. 2 but Klaus Baer made it very plain that he would not go beyond his field as an Egyptologist on the question of Joseph Smith.”

Hugh Nibley mentioned in his letter to you that Klaus Baer had written letters to you. I would appreciate copies of the letters which Klaus Baer has written to you. Thank you very much.

Yours truly,

[signature: H. Michael Marquardt]

H. Michael Marquardt