Comments about ‘Mormon author Hugh Nibley honored with BYU lecture series’

They broke the mold when Hugh was born. He was truly a gift to our generation. I'm just thankful I was alive to listen to him as his mind raced from detail to obscure detail (always a researched, accurate one) and to pore over his words. Always the dedicated scholar, social critic, and rock-solid in his commitment to his faith and to the truth wherever he found it. Happy birthday, Hugh!

"Details and truth". DR. Nibley agreed with(D&C 93:22)Church of the "first born", as the literal meaning,"firstborn" or "first begotten" which is the English translation of the Greek word(prototokos)Defined: His priority to,and preeminence over,creation,not in the sense of being the first to be born. (Vines Biblical Words)

I had the privilege of painting his portrait that now has pride of place in the Hugh W Nibley Ancient Studies Room at HBL Library, and graces the cover of Boyd Jay Petersen's biography. One of the highlights of my life was to present the portrait to him personally and read him my poem on the reverse. It was truly a joy to see him rub his hands together in anticipation as I explained all the details in the background. He was deeply curious and meditative to the end. A true scholar.

In Hugh Nibley's writings on the book (Abraham 3:26)..."those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate."
"first estate'(Jude 6 KJV)In Modern Bible translations,(Jude 6)teaches Angels
(messengers)lost their positions of authority and power and became fallen angels. Joseph Smith mis-understood the Greek text(arche),but Dr. Nibley could read Greek?

Joseph Smith totally misidentified the Book of Abraham. It's funny Hugh Nibley could make sense of the Book of Abraham when it was in reality an Egyptian funery text.

Anon at 12:06 a.m.: There's a book that's coming out by an Egyptologist at the University of Chicago that thoroughly demolishes Nibley's claims on the Book of Abraham. It gives detail after detail explaining that it was an Egyptian funery text. Let's see, who knows more about Egyptology--Hugh Nibley who didn't know the language or a reputable scholar from a repubable university who's spent his entire life studying, teaching, researching, and training PhD students in Egyptology. Not a tough call to make. Not trying to denigrate Nibley--clearly he was gifted--just trying to show who had the particular expertise in this particular subject area.

PS: If someone wants to know the name of the book and scholar's name I'd be happy to supply it (have to look it up first).

Dear Book:

Please supply the name of the Book and the author. I wonder if it is the same man who looked at the document initially and gave his professional opinion. There was a Youtube sight with him speaking having a hard time not just laughing about the silly explanations people had to try to fit this whole episode into official Mormon perspective.

Why is it that a non-Mormon, Egytpian Arabic Scholar could discover the lost scrolls of Abraham and tell the world that Joseph Smith translated them as the Book of Abraham? That U of Utah scholar was non other than Aziz Suryal Atiya (1898-1988).
Hugh Nibley was also a linguist trained by the military and numerous schools.

I met Hugh more than 60 years ago and was amazed at his genius. My mother would point out to him some scriptural mistakes she felt he had made, and he humbly acceded to her, much to my embarrassment. I knew of his linguistic abilities, but the book compliled by his son, Sgt. Nibly, PhD, showed how very human he was and concerned in helping others.

Anon. at 9:55 AM wants to know the name of the scholar who challenges Nibley's work: Robert Ritner at the University of Chicago. His manuscript "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: Photographs, Transliterations, Translations and Comparisons,” is a complete textual edition of the Smith Papyri. It is supposed to be published by the Cambridge University Press later this year. It's a devasting attack on Nibley's, Atiya's, Gee's, and others who have authenticated the books as something other than a funery text.

It is common knowledge that Joseph Smith's description of the Book of Abraham scroll does not match the Book of Breathings scroll that is constantly mistaken for the scroll JS used to translate the B of A. No one knowledgable claims that the scroll obtained by the Church in 1967 is the scroll used by JS to translate the B of A. Again, it's physical description does not match Joseph's description of the scroll he used to translate the B of A.

It is also common knowledge that JS obtained a number of mummies and scrolls from Michael Chandler. why the critics insist that the one scroll obtained by the Church has to be the one JS used to translate the B of A is very curious.

Dr. Ritner claims that the LDS Church brass wouldn't allow him to see the papyri. His strong feeling is they have something to hide--they know the Book of Abraham is not what Joseph Smith said it was. The church always says it has nothing to hide--well, it's time to put those words to the test. Let Prof. Ritner have a peak.

People try to explain away the idea that the funery text is not what Joseph Smith translated. How do you explain away the fact that Joseph misinterpreted the meaning of the facsimilies also. I personally believe he was posturing. He claimed to have both the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph. In the beginning I read that Hugh Nibley thought that having someone look over the papyri would do more harm than good for the church. He was right on that issue because people naturally think if he couldn't get it right with a document we have the ability to inspect, how do we know he got it right with gold plates which aren't available to look over. My overriding question is what is the probability Joseph Smith would have hit gold and received two important documents about figures such as Abraham and Joseph from this antiquities dealer. I personally feel he was pontificating and trying to impress the Saints with his trumped up translating skills.