A Red Herring on Wikipedia...

[_Kishkumen]

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.

Isn't a little arbitrary to accept Ptolemaic pseudepigrapha as scripture, but not 19th-century pseudepigrapha?

[_Danna]

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.

I am not sure that you have thought through the ramifications of this. Yes, post-exile writings refer to Abraham's birthplace as Chaldea. This dates the Book of Abraham to a point after the exile, which is approximately 14 centuries after Abraham. So the reference to the Chaldeans in the Book of Abraham is indeed anachronistic for a writing claimed as Abraham's.

You are positing a scenario that involves a forgery occurring after about 600BCE, this forgery then being translated by JSjr. This would require a translation process, in which case, we could confirm the translation using the facsimiles at least. There would not be any room for conjecturing a revelation, or catalyst for revelation process. JSjr would have to be capable of uninspired translation of Egyptian. The entire Book of Abraham would have to be assumed to be a hoax on JSjr. Nothing in it could be considered scripture.

If the discrepant translation of the facsimiles is explained by positing revelation (from God or Abraham) as the source of the text, then there is no explanation for such a whopping anachronism.

[_Danna]

I just took a closer look, and it appears to have been created by a Russian person who was using the online writings of Kurdish patriots as his sole sources. The Kurds apparently are claiming to be related to these Kaldi and therefore to be the most ancient people group in the Middle East.

So, it was an apologist. Just not a Mormon one.

I can only pull up a history for related pages coming under the same geographical category, which makes it looks like the Khaldi (people) page is new and not modified since creation [as opposed to Khaldi (God) - not actually related to the people apparently]. It doesn't include or link to anything remotely Kurdish, unlike the related pages. The area is nearer to Georgia and not in Kurdistan so I doubt the Khaldis are going to be much use to the Kurds.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Danna,

I am not sure that you have thought through the ramifications of this. Yes, post-exile writings refer to Abraham's birthplace as Chaldea.

Well, I can assure you that I really have thought through the issue a bit. Post-exilic Jewish writings refer to Chaldea/Chaldean as a reference to practioners of astrological speculations, the land or inhabitants of Mesopotamia, and the Hebrew language or race.

This dates the Book of Abraham to a point after the exile, which is approximately 14 centuries after Abraham.

And the papyri in Joseph’s possession date from the post-exilic era. Yes.

So the reference to the Chaldeans in the Book of Abraham is indeed anachronistic for a writing claimed as Abraham's.

But again, I’m not aware of any Latter-day Saint scholars who believe that Abraham wrote the scroll of Horus. This is the reason that your argument is so weak.

You are positing a scenario that involves a forgery occurring after about 600BCE, this forgery then being translated by JSjr. This would require a translation process, in which case, we could confirm the translation using the facsimiles at least.

I’m not positing a translation process. I don’t believe that a “translation” as such ever occurred. I’m simply explaining why your argument amounts to little more than a strawman for the apologetic view.

Everyone who has read anything about the papyri knows that the scrolls derive from the late Ptolemaic era.

It goes without saying therefore that LDS scholars who believe that the missing segment from the scroll of Horus contained a book of Abraham do not believe that Abraham himself wrote the text.

And if the scroll featured a text concerning Abraham inserted by a post exilic Jewish editor, we would expect the expression "the land of the Chaldeans" to appear in the text. Hence, its attestation in the Book of Abraham is not anachronistic for the scholarly view concerning the text. You're arguing against a strawman.

There exist plenty of valid arguments against the Book of Abraham’s ancient authenticity, the attestation of the term Chaldean, however, is simply not one of them.

best

[_Danna]

I’m not positing a translation process. I don’t believe that a “translation” as such ever occurred. I’m simply explaining why your argument amounts to little more than a strawman for the apologetic view.

Everyone who has read anything about the papyri knows that the scrolls derive from the late Ptolemaic era.

It goes without saying therefore that LDS scholars who believe that the missing segment from the scroll of Horus contained a book of Abraham do not believe that Abraham himself wrote the text.

And if the scroll featured a text concerning Abraham inserted by a post exilic Jewish editor, we would expect the expression "the land of the Chaldeans" to appear in the text. Hence, its attestation in the Book of Abraham is not anachronistic for the scholarly view concerning the text. You're arguing against a strawman.

There exist plenty of valid arguments against the Book of Abraham’s ancient authenticity, the attestation of the term Chaldean, however, is simply not one of them.

You are claiming the Book of Abraham is post-exilic and I'm arguing against a strawman?

Yes, a post-exilic Jew would have placed Abraham in the land of the Chaldeans. But then it would not be the Book of Abraham, would it.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I can only pull up a history for related pages coming under the same geographical category, which makes it looks like the Khaldi (people) page is new and not modified since creation [as opposed to Khaldi (God) - not actually related to the people apparently]. It doesn't include or link to anything remotely Kurdish, unlike the related pages. The area is nearer to Georgia and not in Kurdistan so I doubt the Khaldis are going to be much use to the Kurds.

See the discussion page for the article.

[_CaliforniaKid]

And if the scroll featured a text concerning Abraham inserted by a post exilic Jewish editor, we would expect the expression "the land of the Chaldeans" to appear in the text.

The Book of Abraham does more than just refer to the land of the Chaldeans. Unlike in Genesis, the "Chaldeans" themselves are active players in the story here. So the problem here is slightly greater than simply the insertion of an anachronistic toponym.

I don't think the apologists who argue for Semitic adaptation are arguing for Ptolemaic pseudepigraphy. My impression is that they believe this is a more or less accurate copy of a genuine Book of Abraham, and that the vignettes on the papyri have merely been used to illustrate Abraham's story. In other words, they're arguing for adaptation of the papyri, not of the Book of Abraham text itself. I've not actually heard any of them make the argument that "Chaldeans" was not a part of the original Book of Abraham text as penned by Abraham. Instead, they have tried to place the Chaldeans as a people group in a North Syrian Ur in 2000 B.C. So at the very best, you are assuming something for their position that they have not explicitly stated. More likely, you are assuming something for their position that they themselves would find unacceptable. I think it's a worthwhile exercise for them to be forced to face the issue and answer the question one way or another.

Best,

-Chris

[_harmony]

Hello Danna,

I am not sure that you have thought through the ramifications of this. Yes, post-exile writings refer to Abraham's birthplace as Chaldea.

Well, I can assure you that I really have thought through the issue a bit. Post-exilic Jewish writings refer to Chaldea/Chaldean as a reference to practioners of astrological speculations, the land or inhabitants of Mesopotamia, and the Hebrew language or race.

But were post-exilic Jewish writers correct? Did the inhabitants of Chaldea (did such a place actually exist? Was it the birthplace of Abraham? Did Abraham actually exist?) practice astrological speculations? Were they the inhabitants of Mesopotamia... and when was that? And are the Jews claiming the Chaldeans were the foundation for the Hebrew language and race?

This dates the Book of Abraham to a point after the exile, which is approximately 14 centuries after Abraham.

And the papyri in Joseph’s possession date from the post-exilic era. Yes.

Let me see if I have this correct:

Joseph's papyri are from the era that is 14 centuries after Abraham's time, Joseph's papyri are written on in Egyptian. Is there any indication on the papyri themselves were ever in Jewish hands? (besides apologetic speculation, of course)

So the reference to the Chaldeans in the Book of Abraham is indeed anachronistic for a writing claimed as Abraham's.

But again, I’m not aware of any Latter-day Saint scholars who believe that Abraham wrote the scroll of Horus. This is the reason that your argument is so weak.

So, you're saying no LDS scholar thinks Abraham actually wrote the Book of Abraham?

I can't tell you how out-there that sounds to my TBM husband. When asked who wrote the Book of Abraham, he looks at me like I'm the stupidest woman in existence: Abraham did, of course. DUH!

You are positing a scenario that involves a forgery occurring after about 600BCE, this forgery then being translated by JSjr. This would require a translation process, in which case, we could confirm the translation using the facsimiles at least.

I’m not positing a translation process. I don’t believe that a “translation” as such ever occurred. I’m simply explaining why your argument amounts to little more than a strawman for the apologetic view.

You avoided her question, EE. That's not like you. If Abraham didn't write on the papyri, who did? And if Abraham isn't the writer of the Book of Abraham, when is that going to be broadcast to the church members? And what about "The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by hi own hand upon papyrus"?

Everyone who has read anything about the papyri knows that the scrolls derive from the late Ptolemaic era.

Obviously not "everyone".

It goes without saying therefore that LDS scholars who believe that the missing segment from the scroll of Horus contained a book of Abraham do not believe that Abraham himself wrote the text.

How many more things "go without saying", and lead the members astray? Someone better tell the prophet, and quick.

And if the scroll featured a text concerning Abraham inserted by a post exilic Jewish editor, we would expect the expression "the land of the Chaldeans" to appear in the text.

Do I need to quote the opening statement from the Book of Abraham in my quad again? There is no mention of a post-exilic Jewish editor. Abraham wrote the Book of Abraham, while in Egypt.

Hence, its attestation in the Book of Abraham is not anachronistic for the scholarly view concerning the text. You're arguing against a strawman.

At least she's dealing with the text that's in the quad, (the mythical Abraham) not some mythical post-exilic Jewish editor.

There exist plenty of valid arguments against the Book of Abraham’s ancient authenticity, the attestation of the term Chaldean, however, is simply not one of them.

best

You haven't established that, EE. You make statements about what LDS scholars believe. What LDS scholars believe makes little difference to what LDS members believe, and has no bearing on what LDS prophets believe and have taught for generations.

All you did was show that LDS scholars think the Book of Abraham isn't what it claims to be.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Chris,

To understand my point, let’s assume for a moment something that we both know is incorrect. Namely, that the Book of Abraham really did appear on the scroll of Horus. If that was the case, what would the implications of this attestation mean?

First, it would not prove that Abraham wrote the scroll of Horus. Enough of the scroll has been preserved to date the text to the late Ptolemaic era, so Abraham didn’t write the scroll.

This fact would mean that the Book of Abraham featured on the scroll of Horus was either written by a Jewish author as piece of pseudeopigraphy comparable to the Apocalypse of Abraham, the book of Enoch, or even the biblical book of Deuteronomy, or that the account had originally been written by Abraham himself, preserved and no doubt edited by subsequent Jewish editors and then incorporated into the Egyptian scroll of Horus by an Egyptian editor.

Either way, if the Book of Abraham appeared on the late Ptolemaic scroll of Horus, we would expect the account to use the term Chaldeans to refer to the inhabitants of Mesopotamia.

Hence, any critic that uses the attestation of this expression as evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Abraham presents a misinformed argument.

The fact that the text uses the term Chaldean to refer to the land of Mesopotamia is historically correct for the only two ways that the book could appear on the Ptolemaic scroll.

That’s all I’m trying to say.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Friend Harmony,

So, you're saying no LDS scholar thinks Abraham actually wrote the Book of Abraham?

Not at all. I’m saying that no LDS scholar thinks that Abraham wrote the scroll of Horus, the missing portion of which most LDS scholars believe contains the book of Abraham.

More later.