Jump to content

Bushman verses Nibley


Recommended Posts

It figures Bushman would be lauded over Nibley on this board. After all, Bushman is the “go to” guy for thousands of bitter former believers who depend upon his “research” to justify their loss of faith and exit from the Church. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It figures Bushman would be lauded over Nibley on this board. After all, Bushman is the “go to” guy for thousands of bitter former believers who depend upon his “research” to justify their loss of faith and exit from the Church. 

CFR "thousands of bitter former believers have depended on his "research" to justify their loss of faith".

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@Kevin Christensen

Thanks for posting the Shirley Ricks piece.  I think that's what I was looking for.  Footnote 36 is my new all-time favorite footnote to anything, anywhere.  

 
Quote

Nibley’s piece ‘A Strange Thing in the Land,’ ran across reference to the book of 1 Jeu and changed it to 1 Jew. The other one is a typist who accidentally changed a word that she was unfamiliar with. Nibley stated that ‘there is no eschatology without protology,’ which was changed by the typist to ‘there is no eschatology without proctology’; this was amusingly corrupted further as ‘there is no scatology without proctology.’” Gee, personal communication, 3 October 2008.

 

:D :rofl: :D :rofl: :D :rofl: :D 

As one who has edited a great deal of Nibley (back in the day), I can say that is very true.  I also proofed some semester class lectures which had been typed up by secretaries:  They had no idea what or who Nibley was talking about, which was also my condition on first hearing Nibley lecture in 1963.  Many years later, I had begun to understand him.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

It figures Bushman would be lauded over Nibley on this board. After all, Bushman is the “go to” guy for thousands of bitter former believers who depend upon his “research” to justify their loss of faith and exit from the Church. 

 

57 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

CFR "thousands of bitter former believers have depended on his "research" to justify their loss of faith".

We have seen this phenomenon many times on this board, in which Bushman is misquoted or false views are attributed to him in order to justify a critique of the LDS Church.  This has even included false claims that Bushman himself has lost his faith.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

We have seen this phenomenon many times on this board, in which Bushman is misquoted or false views are attributed to him in order to justify a critique of the LDS Church.  This has even included false claims that Bushman himself has lost his faith.

Not "thousands" Robert, and certainly Bushman cannot be held responsible for for those who do not read him correctly.

Teddyunaware is once again making claims he cannot and will not back up.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I've long noticed that the thing about insisting on perfection

I’m not sure anyone has done anything close to that on this thread. It’s okay to acknowledge faults (especially when comparing two experts) even while recognizing other significant contributions. Hagiography doesn’t do anyone any good. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It figures Bushman would be lauded over Nibley on this board. After all, Bushman is the “go to” guy for thousands of bitter former believers who depend upon his “research” to justify their loss of faith and exit from the Church. 

Truly you are too pure for this board. Yet you come here in your vast humility to enlighten us with knowledge from higher spheres.

To all I say: "Knowest thou the condescension of teddyaware?"

Link to comment
On 8/1/2021 at 9:09 PM, Freedom said:

Nibley was a different type of scholar, he was an NOT expert in American history, he researched ancient texts. If this critic claims Bushman, who was the chair of the joseph Smith papers project tasked with gathering and studying primary sources, did not use original sourced then he did not read the book or look at the foot notes. 

I know that Bushman was one of the editors in the Joseph Smith Papers project. But I thought Ron Esplin headed up the project. That was my understanding when I interviewed Esplin about the project several years ago. 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know that Bushman was one of the editors in the Joseph Smith Papers project. But I thought Ron Esplin headed up the project. That was my understanding when I interviewed Esplin about the project several years ago. 

One last burst of search:

Quote

Project founder Dean C. Jessee is a former historian for the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University. Ronald K. Esplin is managing editor of the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Richard Lyman Bushman is Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies, Claremont Graduate University. Mark Ashurst-McGee and Richard L. Jensen are historians for the Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/journals-volume-1-1832-1839

Also:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/project-team

Quote

 Richard Lyman Bushman,

a member of the National Advisory Board of the Joseph Smith Papers, served as a general editor of the Papers from the project’s founding until 2013. He is Gouverneur Morris Professor Emeritus of History at Columbia University and former Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University. 

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Nevo said:

Yes. I also like the story David Hackett Fischer tells:

Fischer memorably called this "the fallacy of the lonely fact."

I mentioned my experience fact-checking Nibley not to make any broad claims about Nibley's work but rather to counter the notion that fact checkers have "never found anything that Nibley made up or intentionally misquoted."

In fact, as I was fact-checking my own fact-checking, I found another source that Nibley misrepresented. In Since Cumorah (1967), Nibley cites "A. von Harnack, in Journal of Biblical Literature, 50 (1931), pp. 266ff" as an example of a scholar that "has shown the really ancient background . . . of the well-known 'Pauline' formula, 'faith, hope, and love'" (128). I looked up the issue of JBL. It turns out to be an article by Nils W. Lund called "The Literary Structure of Paul's Hymn to Love." It doesn't mention Harnack or an ancient background for the formula "faith, hope, and love." Lund (like Harnack) sees Paul as the author of 1 Corinthians 13. Nothing in the citation supports Nibley's claim.

I get that Nibley was using 3x5 note cards and a primitive filing system, but these aren't small mistakes.

That said, I agree that we need to keep a sense of perspective and a sense of charity (which was missing in my earlier post). Some of Will Bagley's and D. Michael Quinn's works have faced similar criticism. I don't consider their scholarship to be worthless because there are problems with some of their claims and some of their sources. The same is true of Nibley. Having never written anything of consequence myself, I am mindful of the words of Teddy Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.” 

Yes, plenty of food for thought there.  However, in addition, last Feb 4, I responded to you as follows on that Pauline formula:

Whatever that 1961 Church News article said (I haven't seen it), there is a claim that Richard Reitzenstein and Adolf von Harnack had a debate in print over whether this triad appeared prior to Paul.[1]  Johannes Weiss considered the triad as earlier than Paul,[2] while Wolfgang Weiss cited Reitzenstein on Stoic use of a similar formula: AGlaube, Warheit (altheia), Liebe (eros), Hoffnung,@[3] even though Joseph Fitzmyer takes the opposite view from both.[4]  One Bible commentary says of faith, love and hope in First Thessalonians, Athis threefold balance probably arose even before Paul=s doctrinal stance had matured and perhaps came from the teachings of Christ himself.@[5]  Another agrees that the three graces may predate Paul.[6]

  So the notion that it is original with Paul is not nearly as clear as you maintain.  Paul was a trained rabbi, and (as you suggest) he may have employed a typical rabbinic triad (common in Pirqe 'Abot).

IV Macc 17:2,4                        pistis, elpis, hupomone[7]

I Thess 1:3                               pistis, hupomone, elpis

I Cor 13:13                               pistis, elpis, agape

Gal 5:6                                     pistis, agape, ergon

Col 1:4-5                                  pistis, agape, elpis[8]

I Peter 1:21-22                        pistis, elpis, agape[9]

Hebrews 10:22-24                   pistis, elpis, agape


[1] R. Schütz, ADer Streit zwischen A. v. Harnack und R. Reitzenstein über die Formel >Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung=, 1. Kor. 13,13,@ ThLZ, 42 (1971):454-457.

[2] J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 9th ed., Meyer Commentary (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), 320.

[3] W. Weiss, AGlaubeBLiebeBHoffnung: Zu der Trias bei Paulus,@ ZNW, 84/3-4 (1993):196.  Quite aside from the anti-Gnostic position being taken by Paul in that context,

[4] Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, Anchor Bible 32 (Yale, 2008), 490.

[5] F. E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor=s Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1978), II:242, citing A. M. Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors (London: SCM, 1961), 33-35.

[6] F. F. Bruce, ed., Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, 1982), 45:12, also citing Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors, 33-35.

[7] Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor=s Bible Commentary, 204 (n. 41), 211.

[8] Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor=s Bible Commentary, 214.

[9] Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor=s Bible Commentary, 204 n. 41.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, plenty of food for thought there.  However, in addition, last Feb 4, I responded to you as follows on that Pauline formula:

Thanks, Robert. I saw and responded to this post last February. I'm not disputing that R. Reitzenstein and J. Weiss thought that the triad "faith, hope, and love" in 1 Corinthians 13:13 pre-dated Paul. You're right about that.

But Nibley made a different claim in the Church News article. In reference to Moroni 7:45 // 1 Corinthians 13:4–7, he wrote: "For the whole passage, which scholars have labeled the 'Hymn to Charity,' was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reizenstein) to have originated not with Paul at all, but to go back to some older but unknown source: Paul is merely quoting from the record." (see p. 71 in this 2011 reprint)

Edited by Nevo
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Thanks, Robert. I saw and responded to this post last Februrary. I'm not disputing that R. Reitzenstein and J. Weiss thought that the triad "faith, hope, and love" in 1 Corinthians 13:13 pre-dated Paul. You're right about that.

But Nibley made a different claim in the Church News article. In reference to Moroni 7:45 // 1 Corinthians 13:4–7, he wrote: "For the whole passage, which scholars have labeled the 'Hymn to Charity,' was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reizenstein) to have originated not with Paul at all, but to go back to some older but unknown source: Paul is merely quoting from the record." (see p. 71 in this 2011 reprint)

Yes, of course.  I just wish that we could settle on "love" instead of "charity."  Even the KJV translators could never decide which they preferred, thus muddying theological waters right on into the present day (in a recent Gospel Doctrine class).

Link to comment
On 8/3/2021 at 4:00 AM, Calm said:

Yeah. 
 

I don’t know what is meant by “chair” of the project. Not at all sure such a position exists. 
 

They have a lot of editors for the project. As I recall, there are two or three general editors. Each volume in the project has its own set of editors, and last I heard, there were about two dozen planned or published volumes. It is a huge undertaking. 

As far as hands-on work goes, my impression was managing editor is pretty much the top position, and that’s what Esplin was when I interviewed him. I think he might have retired since then. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

I've personally always found Bushman's writings very much faith promoting. I consider Rough Stone Rolling the current best biography of Joseph Smith. That he is willing to look at the history and note the imperfections of humans is a good thing in my book. He recognizes that others don't quite see it that way.

Quote

What does my faith mean? What do I truly believe, and how can I explain it? Over time, these inquiries will doubtless lead to new prospects and broader perspectives. In my case, the interrogation all goes on under an umbrella of faith. I am looking to support what I know in my heart is good and true. Others may have had their confidence shaken and don’t know which way to turn—towards faith or away from it. I cannot say that they must swim toward the shore where I stand, or perish; the truth is that we have to find our own footing in our search for understanding. I can only say that Mormonism has served me well and that I believe most people would be better off if they followed the Mormon way. -- Richard Bushman

 

 

Nibley is great too and I quite appreciate his writings. He is much more closer to a history polymath than Bushman. The depth and breadth of Nibley's writings far exceed Bushman's more narrow scope with Joseph. For me, both contribute to my theological understanding.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Nevo said:

Bushman is held up for ridicule here. We are meant to laugh at the absurdity of Christ appearing to anyone "near Cleveland." And on the other side Bushman is derided as "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and as a fomenter of apostasy whose scholarship is a sham.

Wait, what?

That was near Cleveland? Like…..Cleveland Cleveland?

Okay, I am outta here.

 

I will leave you weirdos to wallow in this folly.

*muttering* Seriously….Cleveland?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzgAjjuqZM

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, what?

That was near Cleveland? Like…..Cleveland Cleveland?

Okay, I am outta here.

 

I will leave you weirdos to wallow in this folly.

*muttering* Seriously….Cleveland?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzgAjjuqZM

Hahaha. In all honesty, it always trips me up when I'm reading the Doctrine and Covenants and some American city is mentioned. It's such a disruption. Here I am reading in the exalted idiom of scripture, which I've come to associate with great texts and sacred thoughts, and suddenly Cleveland or Detroit gets dropped in. Utterly mundane but somehow grounding. I might have been through that place and gotten nothing but a subpar burger, but the Lord is interested in it nonetheless. 

Link to comment
On 8/4/2021 at 8:13 AM, Nofear said:

... Nibley is great too and I quite appreciate his writings. He is much more closer to a history polymath than Bushman. ...

I believe the correct expression is more closerer.  Just sayin'!

What? :huh: 

Oh, sorry. :unknw: 

Don't mind me! ;) 

Couldn't resist! :D 

Carry on! ;) 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...