By Jerald and Sandra Tanner

---

After the [Josephs Smith] papyri were presented to the Mormon Church they were “turned over to Dr. Hugh Nibley, . . . for further research and study” (Improvement Era, January 1968, page 13). On page 19 of the same issue we were assured that Dr. Nibley “is eminently qualified for the project he has undertaken.” In the February issue of the same publication we were told that Dr. Nibley was going to unfold “the meaning of the hieroglyphics and illustrations on these valuable manuscripts” (Ibid., page 40-H). Dr. Nibley gave a “demonstration” of his “Egyptology at work” which was printed in the Brigham Young University Studies. This was a rendition of a name that appeared in the papyri. Dr. Nibley’s rendition was accepted by the Improvement Era:

The writings on the recently recovered fragments show that all of these Book of the Dead papyri belonged to the Lady Taimin Mutninesikhonsu. (Improvement Era, February 1968, page 40)

It soon became obvious that Dr. Nibley had made a mistake. Dee Jay Nelson stated that Dr. Nibley’s work was “incorrect.” He showed that Nibley had “combined the name of the beneficiary of the papyrus and her mother. . . . Taimin Mutninesikhonsu is a transliteration combining the name Ta-shert-Min with the connecting phrase meaning “daughter of,” mes en and Nes-Khensu (the mother’s name) (The Joseph Smith Papyri, page 48).

John A. Wilson also rendered this as two different names: “Document B is a Book of the Dead composed for a lady named Ta-shere-Min (‘the Daughter of the god Min’) born to the lady Nes-Khonsu . . .” (Dialogue, Summer, 1968, page 71). Richard A. Parker also rendered this as two separate names (page 87).

After Dr. Nibley made this mistake, he seemed to give up the idea of unfolding “the meaning of the hieroglyphics and illustrations.” He has written the following in the Brigham Young University Studies:

We have often been asked during the past months why we did not proceed with all haste to produce a translation of the papyri the moment they came into our possession. Well, for one thing others are far better equipped to do the job than we are, and some of those others early expressed a willingness to undertake it. But, more important, it is doubtful whether any translation could do as much good as harm. (Brigham Young University Studies, Summer, 1968, page 251) (emphasis added)

It would appear, then, that Dr. Nibley was not qualified to give a translation of the papyri. If it had not been for Dialogue, Dee Jay Nelson, and Grant Heward we would still be in the dark concerning the meaning of the papyri. Dr. Nibley has had the papyri down at the B.Y.U. for six months, yet he has not given us a translation. Strange as it may seem, this is the same man who mocked the Egyptologists of 1912 for not taking Joseph Smith’s work seriously: “If such individuals could not take the thing seriously, they should have turned the assignment over to others who would be willing to do so if only for the sake of argument” (Improvement Era, April, 1968, page 66).

We feel that Dr. Nibley’s words fit his own situation. If he “could not take the thing seriously,” why did he not turn “the assignment over to others who would be willing to do so?” Why did John A. Wilson and the other Egyptologist have to work from photographs while Dr. Nibley kept possession of the papyri?

---

---