I posted this comment on the other board in reference to this issue. Thought I would share the perspective here as well:
This is an extremely misinformed argument against the Book of Abraham.
Since the papyri derive from the late Ptolemaic era, if one of the scrolls actually contained a book of Abraham, we would expect the record to refer to Abraham’s home as the land of the Chaldeans.
In reality, the expression Chaldea/Chaldeans functions as an exceptionally fluid term in Jewish writings from the Second Temple time period referring to practioners of astrological speculations, the land or inhabitants of Mesopotamia, and the Hebrew language or race. The apocryphal book of Judith for example, refers to the Israelites as decedents of the Chaldeans (Judith 5:6).
Hence, if the Ptolemaic papyri in Joseph’s possession did contain a Jewish version of the story of Abraham, we would certainly expect the scroll to use the expression the land of the Chaldeans in reference to Mesopotamia.
"We know when we understand: Almighty god is a living man"--Bob Marley
Enuma Elish wrote:This is an extremely misinformed argument against the Book of Abraham.
Since the papyri derive from the late Ptolemaic era, if one of the scrolls actually contained a book of Abraham, we would expect the record to refer to Abraham’s home as the land of the Chaldeans.
In reality, the expression Chaldea/Chaldeans functions as an exceptionally fluid term in Jewish writings from the Second Temple time period referring to practioners of astrological speculations, the land or inhabitants of Mesopotamia, and the Hebrew language or race. The apocryphal book of Judith for example, refers to the Israelites as decedents of the Chaldeans (Judith 5:6).
Hence, if the Ptolemaic papyri in Joseph’s possession did contain a Jewish version of the story of Abraham, we would certainly expect the scroll to use the expression the land of the Chaldeans in reference to Mesopotamia.
Great post, David. Thanks for this.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Enuma Elish wrote:This is an extremely misinformed argument against the Book of Abraham.
Since the papyri derive from the late Ptolemaic era, if one of the scrolls actually contained a book of Abraham, we would expect the record to refer to Abraham’s home as the land of the Chaldeans.
In reality, the expression Chaldea/Chaldeans functions as an exceptionally fluid term in Jewish writings from the Second Temple time period referring to practioners of astrological speculations, the land or inhabitants of Mesopotamia, and the Hebrew language or race. The apocryphal book of Judith for example, refers to the Israelites as decedents of the Chaldeans (Judith 5:6).
Hence, if the Ptolemaic papyri in Joseph’s possession did contain a Jewish version of the story of Abraham, we would certainly expect the scroll to use the expression the land of the Chaldeans in reference to Mesopotamia.
Great post, David. Thanks for this.
Here's what I posted in response on MADB:
Your argument assumes, then, that Joseph was mistaken in his belief that Abraham "penned" the Book of Abraham on the papyrus "in his own hand." It's kind of a catch-22: if the document is what Joseph said it was, it's anachronistic, but if it's a later Ptolemaic-era document, he got it right.
Runtu wrote:Here's what I posted in response on MADB:
Your argument assumes, then, that Joseph was mistaken in his belief that Abraham "penned" the Book of Abraham on the papyrus "in his own hand." It's kind of a catch-22: if the document is what Joseph said it was, it's anachronistic, but if it's a later Ptolemaic-era document, he got it right.
There really is not easy answer for the believers, John. An apologetic that seeks to make this work will likely be a complicated one, and the more complicated it is, the more unlikely it appears. The missing papyrus theory at least has the virtue of being fairly simple. "If we had the missing papyrus, we would see that Joseph Smith translated it correctly." Now I understand that does not really cover the "penned" issue, but I think we can allow for a certain amount of misunderstanding on the part of the translator. Smith obviously thought the mummies were much older than they in fact were.
Although I think the evidence on the whole points to a 19th-century Book of Abraham, I like this whole Ptolemaic angle because it is at the very least the most probable (if still wildly unlikely) solution for an ancient Book of Abraham.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Trevor wrote:There really is not easy answer for the believers, John. An apologetic that seeks to make this work will likely be a complicated one, and the more complicated it is, the more unlikely it appears. The missing papyrus theory at least has the virtue of being fairly simple. "If we had the missing papyrus, we would see that Joseph Smith translated it correctly." Now I understand that does not really cover the "penned" issue, but I think we can allow for a certain amount of misunderstanding on the part of the translator. Smith obviously thought the mummies were much older than they in fact were.
Although I think the evidence on the whole points to a 19th-century Book of Abraham, I like this whole Ptolemaic angle because it is at the very least the most probable (if still wildly unlikely) solution for an ancient Book of Abraham.
I agree. If it's a later document, the anachronism are no longer anachronistic. But then that sort of posits Joseph Smith as a religious Forrest Gump who stumbled into something ancient without realizing what he was doing.
This is the problem with these sort of dual threads, never know which one to respond to.
The problem is that when we discuss this issue, critics need to recognize that despite the fact that Joseph appears to have believed that Abraham penned the scroll himself, LDS scholars recognize that the papyri derive from the late Ptolemaic era.
Therefore, most orthodox LDS scholars maintain that the scrolls simply contained a version of the Abraham story presented as a type of first person pseudepigraphic account.
If this theory is correct (and as you know, I don't personally subscribe to it), then the fact that a reference to the land of the Chaldeans appears in the Book of Abraham would actually support the apologetic argument.
I'm simply pointing out therefore that given the standard LDS scholarly treatment of the issue, arguing that the term Chaldeans is anachronistic is wrong.
best,
--DB
"We know when we understand: Almighty god is a living man"--Bob Marley
Runtu wrote:I agree. If it's a later document, the anachronism are no longer anachronistic. But then that sort of posits Joseph Smith as a religious Forrest Gump who stumbled into something ancient without realizing what he was doing.
If you were a believer in miracles, then there would be the miracle of it.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Enuma Elish wrote:The problem is that when we discuss this issue, critics need to recognize that despite the fact that Joseph appears to have believed that Abraham penned the scroll himself, LDS scholars recognize that the papyri derive from the late Ptolemaic era.
In other words, LDS scholars have the same understanding as the critics do: that Joseph was wrong. The LDS scholars just think he was wrong for a different reason than the critics think he was wrong.
Good to know.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Enuma Elish wrote:I'm simply pointing out therefore that given the standard LDS scholarly treatment of the issue, arguing that the term Chaldeans is anachronistic is wrong.
Part of the problem is that there is no standard scholarly treatment of the subject. So it's hard sometimes to know what to argue against. But I suppose I can agree that if a Semitic redactor adapted the Book of Breathings for the purpose of producing an Abraham pseudepigraphon, the mention of Chaldeans wouldn't be a problem. (But then that throws a monkey wrench in some of the arguments for antiquity, like ulisum and early-Old Kingdom human sacrifice.)
This is the problem with these sort of dual threads, never know which one to respond to.
The problem is that when we discuss this issue, critics need to recognize that despite the fact that Joseph appears to have believed that Abraham penned the scroll himself, LDS scholars recognize that the papyri derive from the late Ptolemaic era.
Therefore, most orthodox LDS scholars maintain that the scrolls simply contained a version of the Abraham story presented as a type of first person pseudepigraphic account.
If this theory is correct (and as you know, I don't personally subscribe to it), then the fact that a reference to the land of the Chaldeans appears in the Book of Abraham would actually support the apologetic argument.
I'm simply pointing out therefore that given the standard LDS scholarly treatment of the issue, arguing that the term Chaldeans is anachronistic is wrong.
best,
--DB
I understand your point. As I said before, for this standard apologetic to work, Joseph must not have realized what he was working with.