Nibley And Rhode'S One Eternal Round

[bjw]

I read Rhodes and Nibley's One Eternal Round and I wanted to see what some on the board think about it. Did it live up to its expectations? Did it do a good job defending Joseph Smith's interpretation of Facsimile 2? What was the most interesting part of it?

I think I liked best the chapter on the Kabbalah, where he compares the transmission of power from one figure to another with the Tree of Life. This was something I would probably have not thought of on my own.

While I enjoyed the mathematical relationships in the chapter on geometry, I didn't quite understand how that strengthens the conclusion that the hypocephalus is a religious object and not a magical object, and how that is relevant for the Book of Abraham. It seems like even a magical object could have geometric designs in it the same as a religious one. While it was interesting to know these geometric constructions, I just wish it gave a conclusion of how the geometry was relevant with the text itself. I do understand though that Nibley didn't have time to finish the conclusion for each chapter before he died and that some chapters may have been incomplete.

So, anyone else read it and have any thoughts on it?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I loved it. Probably one of my favorites of his. Wrote a big ol' blog post about it, actually: http://jeremy-orbe-smith.tumblr.com/post/4621328677/the-hypocephalus

Some weaknesses: Anyone wishing to accuse Nibs of parallelomania will have a field day; there are so many tantalizing hints and inferences drawn that he doesn't always do a perfect job of documenting every single jump he makes. Some will inevitably see this as unjustified reaching or grasping at straws - frankly, though, I actually enjoy this about Nibley (and Margaret Barker, and Mircea Eliade, etc.). I wish other scholars were willing to put as much on the line, with such sincerity - you can tell that this was a deeply personal book, as Nibley grappled with the overriding theme of death towards the end of his own life.

Most of my critique is quibbling, really, and not because I necessarily disagree with his conclusions - rather, I wish he would've been able to spend more time explaining to me how he came to them! He spends awhile covering old ground (the year-rite, etc) when I would have loved to see, for instance, more evidence for the evolution he traces between the cosmic drums of the shamans on the steppes and the interrelated complex of symbolism he finds on the hypocephalus. I want more information on his views on how the Russian, Scandinavian, Hindu, and Chinese backgrounds relate, darnit! *grin* I grew up in Hawaii, so it kills me that Nibley never wrote much on how the gospel is related to Indian, Chinese, or Oceanic religions - I wish he would have been able to follow up on the few tantalizing hints he gave about the Tibetan Book of the Dead, for instance.

Some of his sources are dated (notably the section on the Aztec calendar stone, which comes from, if I recall, just a single book). And I wish he'd been able to do a follow up to "Before Adam" before he died - I'd be interested to know if his perspective on evolution ever shifted away from the "colony" model implied in this book (I come from an atheistic background, so I'm probably more comfortable with some form of evolution than he was, but have yet to rule out the more sci-fi speculations which would be so fun if ever demonstrated.) He makes an interesting argument somewhere in the book dealing with the famous French cave paintings, being quite generous with the possibility that earlier peoples than those descended from our "Adamic takeover" were given the gospel, and I wish he would have speculated more candidly on his views of prehistoric peoples.

So basically, it comes down to the usual complaints everyone has about Nibley: he compares sources from very different time periods and doesn't always make the intervening years clear. He's got such a wide scope that it's hard to go into detail about the fascinating side-issues he brings up and then skims over. Etc.

(Regarding your questions on magic, I think you'd do well to give this a read: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=7&num=1&id=171 "Magic" is so nebulous a term that Gee is skeptical it can be used as anything other than a dismissive pejorative. In other words, drawing a clear line between "religious" practices and "magical" practices is not particularly good scholarship - ie, what I do is of course dignified "religion", whereas what those heathen barbarians do is "magic". *grin* I loved the last chapter on Sacred Geometry - I think the significance lies in where Nibley finds the spiral to focus on: namely, the transference of power from one person to another, as males and females take part in the plan of salvation/resurrection.)

Some strengths: (Uh, see that blog post for the long-winded version.) Mostly what's exhilarating about Nibley is the sheer scope and open-minded willingness to consider new hypotheses he brings to the table. He's certainly not always correct, but he definitely saw the big picture. I appreciate his emphasis, as usual, on cultural diffusion as a more satisfying explanation of commonalities between religious symbolism than Jungian archetypes, etc. - Raglan's great, but I'd actually transfer the title of "doughty defender of diffusion" to Nibley at this point. *grin* I thought his overall interpretation of the hypocephalus was absolutely inspired - there are still some details to be ironed out, but personally, from reading Nibley, Rhodes, and Gee, I'm very confident that Joseph knew what he was talking about, and am rather appalled at the misrepresentations some people will paint. I also appreciated his discussion on the ubiquity of the Ascension texts.

Personally, what I got out of it most - and I'm aware that this might be a rather idiosyncratic read - was the emphasis on male and female duality, and the sacredness of marriage. This was pointed out in the section dealing with Joseph and Asenath of course, but underlying the entire book I felt an undercurrent of love for the duality of humanity. I especially like the discussion of the Heavenly Mother(s) and how she relates to the whole Plan of Salvation when combined with the Father and Son. (Nibley is on record as conceiving of the Priesthood as a Patriarchal order, but I wonder if some of his discussion on the female bird motifs common in mythology might be evidence that he could have accepted the Holy Ghost, symbolized by the dove, as being the Heavenly Mother, ala Barker's speculations on Wisdom and the Tree of Life. I actually suspect that he might have been subtly pushing for a new understanding of priesthood as potentially including women even in outside-the-Temple ordinances.)

So all in all, despite my quibbles, a great read.

[volgadon]

The chapter on Kaballah was the one I read. To me it seemed fairly weak. Heavily dependant on Kaplan's commentary of the Sefer Yetzirah, and indiscriminately mixing various historical developements.

[volgadon]

The plus? There is a picture of Asterix and Obelix.

[Nathair/|\]

The plus? There is a picture of Asterix and Obelix.

That alone should mark it as the greatest work in the history of scholarship.

[Olavarria]

For me, I see this as another one of Nibley's opening of doors but never walking down the hall. He's opened up possible future topics to research.

As for their interpretations of the figures in the facsimile, it was good. I prefer Gee's method though.

[Kevin Christensen]

I loved it. I've read it twice so far.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[LeSellers]

[The picture of Asterix and Obelix] alone should mark it as the greatest work in the history of scholarship.

Hear! Hear!

Lehi

[volgadon]

That alone should mark it as the greatest work in the history of scholarship.

I want to learn French for the jokes in the original.

[LeSellers]

I want to learn French for the jokes in the original.

My French was (and still is, although to a lesser extent) very good. I only got about half of them. (One reason is that Asterix was, in part, political satire, and I didn't have the background in French politics. Missionaries don't have time for that stuff.)

Lehi

[bjw]

Thanks everyone for the good responses so far. I agree that it will open the door for more research. I also agree that more time should have been spent on how the conclusions were reached. I know Rhodes probably had his hands full with the material he was presented with and that had Nibley lived he probably would have added more material. I think I'm going to go back and read it again to see if there's anything I missed the first time. Overall, it is a well thought-out book and its amazing what all he gets from just dealing with Facsimile 2.

[volgadon]

I think part of the problem is that not all that is round is a hypocephalus, nor does a round shape always imply inifinty or eternity. I seem to recall that Nibley mentions discs in connection with Sefer Yetzirah. I have some thoughts on that, but I would need to see the quote again before commenting.

[bjw]

I think part of the problem is that not all that is round is a hypocephalus, nor does a round shape always imply inifinty or eternity. I seem to recall that Nibley mentions discs in connection with Sefer Yetzirah. I have some thoughts on that, but I would need to see the quote again before commenting.

I think the connection with the Kabbalah has to do with the idea that the Sefer Yetzirah was written by Abraham, is a revelation similar to the Book of Abraham, and has to do with the transmission of power similar to Facsimile 2. An example is statements like "borrows its light from Kolob" and "through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash". So, supposedly you can link the various designs on Facsimile 2 as a chain that transmit power from one drawing to another as with the Tree of Life in the Kabbalah.

I do agree that some of the round drawings he tries to tie in may be strained paralells though. However, it stems from the belief that all of the world's religions evolved from "one true religion."

[volgadon]

I think the connection with the Kabbalah has to do with the idea that the Sefer Yetzirah was written by Abraham, is a revelation similar to the Book of Abraham, and has to do with the transmission of power similar to Facsimile 2. An example is statements like "borrows its light from Kolob" and "through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash". So, supposedly you can link the various designs on Facsimile 2 as a chain that transmit power from one drawing to another as with the Tree of Life in the Kabbalah.

I do agree that some of the round drawings he tries to tie in may be strained paralells though. However, it stems from the belief that all of the world's religions evolved from "one true religion."

The Sefer Yetzirah itself actually does not claim that Abraham wrote it, but that its teachings are identical with the ones he used.

Even if all the world's religions evolved from "the one true religion" it doesn't mean that various aspects function the same as others.