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

Sunstone SLC 2010

There are still a couple days to get your proposals in for the 2010 Salt Lake City Sunstone Symposium. Here's what I'll be presenting:

Title: Instrumental Mysticism: The Inspired Fictionalization of the United Firm Revelations

Abstract: It is well known that the 1835 D&C substituted ancient-sounding "code names" for the names of nineteenth century persons and institutions associated with the "United Firm". The recent publication of the original handwritten manuscripts for these revelations reveals that the code names were only the tip of the iceberg. Significant additions and deletions were made in order to make these revelations appear to be ancient documents from the time of Enoch.  This new evidence of a more thoroughgoing fictionalization not only raises the theological question of “inspired fiction”, but also provides a striking example of the way in which Joseph Smith blended mystical and practical concerns.  He sought to maintain secrecy by mystically identifying the Firm and the Kirtland brethren with the ancient Adamic order.

Nibley's Response to Klaus Baer

Previously I posted some letters from Klaus Baer to Wesley Walters commenting on Hugh Nibley's "Egyptian Endowment" apologetic. A few days ago my friend Noel Hausler sent me a letter he received from Nibley that responded to the Baer letters.

[p. 1]

September 25, 1974

[Address deleted for privacy reasons]

Dear Brother Hausler:

Facsimiles No. 2 and 3 are inseparable from No. 1 and quite as instructive.  They require a lot of work.  During the past few years a surprising number of highly rated Egyptologists have been taking them into consideration.

Professor Bauer was here for a week in August.  He gave four lectures with long question periods after, and I had some long conversations with him.  We had not talked together for some years, and I was much impressed by the changes in his point of view.  We have LDS students studying with half-a-dozen top Egyptologists here and abroad--all out for doctor's degrees-- and so are no more "voices in the wilderness." Bauer was hard put to it during the discussion periods and at the end was definitely in retreat, though as an honored guest we could not press him too hard.

The main point was that he showed his hands while we, to spare unpleasant controversy, virtuously withheld our own.  What makes our position stronger every day, however, is not the improvement in our own ranks so much as the increasing number of eminent Egyptologists who are changing their own views and moving steadily in the direction of the "initiation school" and those other things that Bauer deplores.

In his letters to you Bauer condemns as obfuscatory things which he admits he has no intention of reading.  He had not read Bleeker's Initiation nor Bergman's book, yet he was ready with comments on both.  Thausing has come out with two important books since Bauer's letter to you making her position clear beyond question.  What has her teaching in Vienna to do with it?  The Brandon quote is one from a whole article in which he emphatically does "make the leap." [handwritten: See below = P.S.!]

While he was here last, Bauer repeatedly stated that evidence can have nothing whatever to do with faith: his faith as a dedicated Lutheran is not to be touched by any evidence.  By the same token no amount of evidence will ever, ever change his opinion of Joseph Smith.  For those who do consider evidence, however, each item must be considered on its own merits.

[p. 2]

Bauer loves to condemn other Egyptoloists on the strength of a single statement with which he disagrees. He does the same thing with books and articles: if there is a mistake or two, nothing can be right. But what he will not see is that if only a half or third or even a tenth of the points we have made about Joseph Smith are sound, the door is still wide open. Bauer insists angrily that a word from Breasted or Petrie in 1912 is enough to shut the door forever on all further discussion. The much-advertized competence of Egyptologists is pretty well limited to a knowledge (admittedly dubious) of the language. Beyond that they have no monopoly on common sense.

Trusting you will continue to use your own wits and judgment, I ups and remains,

Yours truly,
[signed: H. Nibley]
Hugh W. Nibley

HWN:li

P.S. Since Dr. Baer [unreadable] flings down the challenge: "How about this quote" from Brandon, it is only fair to note that Brandon adds immediately thereafter: "...mystery proves to have been an important component of the religious consciousness of the ancient Egyptians. And when mystery somewhere occurs, then the initiation into that hidden truth or spiritual realiaty cannot be totally absent." (Initiation, p.50). Then after announcing that "apparently...no authoritative myth, and certainly no secret doctrine" he spoils it all by adding: "Yet come cultic ceremonies werex celebrated, which were so holy and which so strongly had the character of a mystery that no one was allowed to describe or depict them." (p.53).

Thus instead of refuting Thausing's position, Bleeker's juggling is a good indication of the present trend of reluctant transition in the face of gathering evidence. But I can assure you, whatever new [unreadable] developments take place, the Chicago School will be the last in the world to recognize them.

[signed: H.N.]

The Brethren End the Standing Together Roadshow

Word on the street is that at a recent meeting with some members of the Quorum of the Twelve, BYU professor Robert Millet was told by Elder Bednar that he must cease his participation in the interfaith roadshows that he and Greg Johnson of Standing Together have been conducting on a regular basis for the last several years. Apparently some of the Brethren were concerned that Dr. Millet might be seen as an official spokesperson for the Church.

From what I understand, the end of the roadshows puts Johnson in an especially tough spot, since this has been his primary ministry for some time now. Granted, the end of the roadshows doesn't mean the end of interfaith dialogue in general, and I'm sure that both Millet and Johnson will find other venues to carry on their work. But it's still sad to see such an important and visible symbol of interfaith cooperation come to an end.

The Adventists Are Doing the Same Thing?

At the CMSSA Conference Saturday, one of the audience members asked, "Why haven't we been able to situate Mormon Studies as a discipline yet? You'd think that we'd have figured it out by now!" Panelist Spencer Fluhman replied that he recently went to an Adventist Studies conference in which the conferencegoers were wrestling with the same problem of situating Adventist Studies as a discipline. "They're doing the same thing we are," he said.

I happened to be sitting next to Kristine Haglund, who quietly quipped, "Just not on Saturday!"

Did Jan Shipps Accidentally Inspire the Salamander Letter Forgery?

This weekend I had the pleasure of dining with Jan Shipps (and a number of other wonderful people) after the end of the CMSSA Conference. Over our over-priced cuisine, which Armand Mauss generously paid for, Jan told a fascinating story.

Apparently, she once gave a guest lecture on "the Prophet Puzzle" at Utah State University. After class, a bright-eyed young student approached her and asked, "how would you solve the Prophet Puzzle?" Off the top of her head, Jan replied, "Well, I guess you would need to find a letter from one of Joseph's faithful followers that talks about his money-digging."

A few weeks later, Mark Hofmann's infamous Salamander Letter was "discovered". Jan was later informed by the professor who had invited her to lecture at USU that the bright-eyed student who had asked her that question that day was Mark Hofmann.

Coincidence?

Did Charles Anthon Verify a Translation by Joseph Smith?

The canonical 1838 account of Martin Harris's visit to Charles Anthon says,

I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. ... He then said to me, ...that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, "I cannot read a sealed book."

When this account is compared with earlier tellings, important discrepancies emerge. No other early account reports Anthon having said anything about a "sealed book." Nor do other accounts report Harris having taken a translation along with the characters. To the contrary, they seem to strongly imply that no translation had yet been attempted. Take for example Joseph Smith's own 1832 account:

the Lord had shown him [Martin Harris] that he must go to New York City with some of the characters so we proceeded to coppy some of them and he took his Journy to the Eastern Cittys and to the Learned read this I pray thee and the learned said I cannot but if he would bring the blates [plates] they would read it but the Lord forbid it and he returned to me and gave them to me to translate and I said I said [ I ] cannot for I am not learned but the Lord had prepared spetticke spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters and thus the Prop[h]icy of Isiaah was fulfilled which is written in the 29 chapter concerning the book[.] (EMD 1:30)

Here Joseph commences his translation only after Martin's return. The account of Joseph Knight, Sr. follows basically the same pattern. According to Knight, when Joseph Smith got the plates he was "anxious to git them Translated." Apparently to this end, Joseph drew off some characters and gave them to Harris, who then took them to Mitchill and Anthon. There were, however, some characters Anthon was unable to understand, so he wrote a letter to Joseph Smith asking to see the original. Harris then confessed that the originals could not be delivered because Joseph had been commanded not to show them to anyone, and at this news Anthon tore up the letter. As in the 1832 History, Harris returned home without a translation, and Joseph, "B[e]ing an unlearned man[,] did not know what to Do. then the Lord gave him Power to Translate himself" (EMD 3:15, 17).

Lucy's Preliminary Manuscript substantially agrees with this accounting of events:

[Joseph] was instructed to take off a fac simile of the alphabet Egyptian characters Alphabetically and send them to all the learned men that he could find and ask them for a translation [...] as yet no means had come into his hands of accomplishing the same it. (EMD 1:343-44)

And finally, of course, there is Anthon's own 1834 statement that when Harris came to him "no translation had been furnished at the time" (EMD 4:377-81).

The early Mormon testimonies could perhaps be explained as attempts to fit the story to Isaiah 29:12. This was a decisive factor in their framing the story the way they did. The implication that Joseph did not know at this time that the spectacles could be used for translation, for example, is probably just a bit of creative misremembering. Still, when Anthon's testimony is added to the mix, I'd say the evidence is very good that Martin did not bring a translation with him to New York.  Presumably, if Anthon had verified Smith's translation then much would have been made of it in the earlier accounts.

So, I have to agree with Dan Vogel's approach to these discrepancies. He argues that the 1838 account is an apologetic revision, designed to "provide support for Smith's ability to translate." Since the revision eliminates the points of similarity to Isaiah 29:11, the comment about a "sealed book" is placed on Anthon’s lips in order to re-establish the biblical link (cf. also Making of a Prophet, 115-16).

This was just one of those stories that got a little better with the telling.

The Book of Mormon as an American Origin Myth

The Book of Mormon was written at a time when Americans were deeply interested in the country’s origins and history. America was finally old enough to start thinking of itself as a nation with a history. The last of the Founders had just passed away. People were just beginning to write books about the Revolution, and the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Relics of the Founding were being treated with an almost religious reverence. There was a widespread feeling that the birth of America had been a sacred event.

At the same time, America was young enough to feel insecure about its lack of history. It had no national literature, for example, to compare with Britain’s collection of classics. The British thought of Americans as uncouth and uncultured, lacking the centuries of refinement that the mother country could draw upon.

In the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith does two things.

First, he sacralizes the Founding. In 1 Nephi 13, the prophet Nephi prophesies the formation of “a great and abominable Church,” which persecutes the saints of God and takes them into captivity. Presumably this refers to Catholics and Protestants. Nephi then describes the discovery of America by Columbus, who he represents as divinely inspired. The Protestants then go forth out of captivity and travel to America, where God uses them to smite the unfaithful Lamanite tribes, and makes them prosper in the land. Thus the Founding is mythologized in a very typically American way: persecuted Protestants are said to have been guided here by divine Providence to prosper and worship freely in the land of promise.

The second thing the Book of Mormon does is extends America’s history backward by thousands of years. In the Book of Mormon, America is given its own literature and its own prophets. The experience of the ancient inhabitants, in fact, mirrors the experience of the Gentile Americans. Persecuted by Jerusalem’s religious establishment, they were forced to flee, and to travel over “many waters” to the American promised land. Thus it is possible for Americans to think of their land as one with a long history, and of their nation as one with a distinct divine mission and character: to serve as a land of promise and as a utopia for pure religion.