This is an interesting article Dr. Peterson. I hope you don’t mind a few criticisms.
The book begins with Abraham “in the land of Ur, of Chaldea.” (Abr. 1:20.) It is obvious that this “Chaldea” was a place under strong Egyptian influence. It was there that Abraham’s own fathers turned aside from worship of the true God to the service of “the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.” Apart from a passing reference in Joshua 24:2, the Bible does not tell of the idolatry of Abraham’s ancestors. However, their worship of false gods and Abraham’s faithfulness in worshipping the true God, as well as his attempts to convert his family, are common themes of many very old Jewish and Christian stories.
It is true that the
Bible doesn’t mention this detail. But it was knowledge available to anyone who had access to Bible commentaries in the day:
“Abraham himself also, most agree, was bred up in the same idolatry… [Abraham’s Father] was an idolater, living in a country from whence, as many think, idolatry first came.” (Symon Patrick, et. al.,
A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old Testament, 1809, on Joshua 24:2).
Were you aware of this at the time you wrote this article?
Elsewhere you said (emphasis mine):
Ancient texts sustain the book of Abraham account that there was indeed an attempt on Abraham’s life (Abraham depicted it in facsimile 1)… The book of Abraham tells of an attempt by idolatrous priests to sacrifice the young Abraham. (Abr. 1:7–20; facsimile 1.) Although the Bible says nothing of such an episode, postbiblical literature repeatedly mentions Abraham’s miraculous deliverance from an attempt to kill him.
In saying “Abraham depicted” this sacrifice in the Facsimile, you seem to be saying this accurately illustrates the manner in which Abraham was understood to have been sacrificed.
But the tradition depicts Abraham being burned by fire, not stabbed with a knife. Your failure to indicate this dramatic difference leads readers to believe the evidence for a connection is much stronger than it really is. Not only that, but the sacrifice tradition was common knowledge to anyone who wanted to read about it in the 19th century. For example:
“this tradition of the Jews says Abraham was cast in the fire for refusing to worship idols, and out of which he was delivered” (Matthew Henry,
An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments London, 1811, on Daniel 3:6. )
“If we may credit the tradition ... Abraham was cast into such a fire by this idolatrous people, because he would not worship their idols” (Adam Clarke,
The Holy Bible Commentary and Critical Notes, New York, 1832, on Daniel 3:6).
In short, you inform your audience where this information
doesn’t appear, but you neglect to inform your readers where it
had already appeared. Is this because you were unaware of this? It should go without saying that these neglected details weigh significantly in determining the merit of your overall presentation. Surely, evidence that
wasn’t available to Joseph Smith would carry far more weight than evidence that
was available to him.
Much ado is also made about the fact that Abraham studied astronomy. However, you do not inform your readers that Joseph Smith was aware of the works of Josephus which mention this detail. His brother Hyrum owned a copy of Josephus and Oliver Cowdery referred to it on several occasions in Church publications during the time the Book of Abraham was being translated. But Josephus was hardly the only source he had access to:
According to Adam Clarke, “Those who dwelt in Ur were either priests or astronomers,” and then we have Butler’s observations:
“Astrology is an holy, and most excellent Science .…It is asserted by good Authority, That much of this Learning came out of Paradise, and that our Father Adam after the Fall did communicate the same unto his Son Seth, out of his Memoirs of the state of Innocency: and that Seth made impressions of the same in certain permanent pillars, which were able to withstand both Fire and Water; and that hence Enoch had it, and Noah, and from him Shem, and
so it came to Abraham, who increased the knowledg[e] by Divine helps; and taught the Chaldeans, and the Egyptians the principal Rudiments of what they knew herein” (John Butler,
Astrology, A Sacred Science [London: N.p.,1680, “Preface”]
And finally, you said:
Recently a reference has been found in a third-century A.D. Egyptian papyrus which associates the name of Abraham with a lion-couch scene like that in facsimile 1
This of course, relies strictly on John Gee’s mangled apologetic understanding of what this papyrus really indicates. Edward Ashment has since made mincemeat of this argument, telling the audience all the contradictory details that Gee didn’t disclose, such as the fact that the figure on the couch was actually a woman and that Abraham was an expected name to appear on such documents because it began with “abra.” The full refutation can be found here:
http://www.irr.org/MIT/ashment1.html