As she often does, the Relief Society Sister gave me a gift. This time she gave me a copy of some recently published faithful Latter-day Saint scholarship: Abraham and His Family in Scripture, History, and Tradition (Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2025). The two-volume set features the proceedings of a conference held May 3 and 10, 2025, at Brigham Young University that purported to "discuss the enduring legacy of Abraham and his immediate family in scripture, history, and tradition."
The Interpreter Foundation website claims that "[t]his two-volume [sic] will increase the appreciation of readers for the trials and triumphs of the family of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. More importantly, it will enable them to more fully emulate their faithful lives to claim the fulness of blessings promised in the Abrahamic covenant." Volume one is titled Studies in the Book of Abraham, while volume two is titled Studies of the Family of Abraham in the Bible, the Qur’an, and Other Traditions. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, John S. Thompson, Matthew L. Bowen, and David R. Seely are the editors. The set is available in both hardcover and paperback.
As noted, Eborn Books is the co-publisher of the volumes. Rather astonishingly, Eborn's sales page for the hardcover version discloses that "[t]he bindings are quite cheap so don’t expect the quality you may be used to." I am not making this up. I suppose I count my blessings that the Relief Society Sister gave me the paperback version. However, I have my doubts that the paperback volumes will hold up to light reading.
I would like to note a few things about one of the articles that appears in volume two: "The Qur’anic view of Abraham," by Daniel C. Peterson. The article's opening paragraph reads:
Peterson begins with an overview of how Abraham is seen in the Hebrew Bible and Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The overview seems to draw silently on Wikipedia's entry on "Abraham." Peterson writes, for example:The most important idea to take away from this paper is that Islam—like Judaism and Christianity and unlike, say, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, or classical Greek paganism—is an Abrahamic religion. In Islam, Abraham is a prominent link in the chain of prophets that begins with Adam, continues with Moses, and eventually culminates in Jesus and then (via the line of Ishmael) in Muhammad. He is a pivotal figure in the Islamic Heilsgeschichte, or “history of salvation”; the Qur’an calls him “an imam to the nations” (li-al-nas imaman; Qur’an 2:124)[.]
In a footnote, Peterson states:The Bible’s so-called primeval history extends from Genesis 1 through Genesis 11, covering the creation of the world and of humankind, the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, the first murder, the destruction of the world in a global flood, and the origin of nations and languages at the Tower of Babel. At Genesis 11:26–32, however, the patriarch Abram—later to be called Abraham—(along with his wife Sarai, later Sarah, and his nephew Lot) is introduced, and the focus of the biblical narrative becomes more local and more conventionally historical, as it will largely remain thereafter.
The Wikipedia entry states:This is not to say that scholars are unanimous with regard to the historicity of Abraham. Prominent biblical scholars such as Albrecht Alt and John Bright, along with archaeologists such as G. Ernest Wright and the enormously influential W. F. Albright, believed that Abraham was a real historical person (however embellished his story might later have become) of the second millennium BC, the so-called patriarchal age. Since the 1970s, however, several revisionist scholars have argued that he is an essentially fictional character, and whether solidly based or not, that view has gained relatively wide currency.
Peterson writes: "In the Hebrew Bible, Abraham is the progenitor of many nations, including not only the Israelites but also the Edomites, Amalekites, Kenizzites, and Midianites." The footnote states: "Through his nephew Lot, Abraham is also related to the Moabites and the Ammonites." Wikipedia's entry reads:In the early and middle 20th century, leading archaeologists such as William F. Albright and G. Ernest Wright and biblical scholars such as Albrecht Alt and John Bright believed that the patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable composites of people who lived in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE. However, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel's past and the biblical texts challenged these views; these arguments can be found in Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson, a literary scholar, based his argument on archaeology and ancient texts. His thesis centered on the lack of compelling evidence that the patriarchs lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, and noted how certain biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns. Van Seters examined the patriarchal stories and argued that their names, social milieu, and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations. Van Seters' and Thompson's works were a paradigm shift in biblical scholarship and archaeology, which gradually led scholars to no longer consider the patriarchal narratives as historical. Some conservative scholars attempted to defend the Patriarchal narratives in the following years, but this has not found acceptance among scholars. By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had stopped trying to recover any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.
In Judaism, Peterson says,According to the Bible, reflecting the change of his name to "Abraham" meaning "a father of many nations", Abraham is considered to be the progenitor of many nations, among them the Israelites, Ishmaelites, Edomites, Amalekites, Kenizzites, Midianites, and Assyrians[.] Through his nephew Lot, he was also related to the Moabites and Ammonites.
The Wikipedia entry states:Abraham is the father of the special covenant relationship between the Hebrews and God. Jews traditionally call him Avraham Avinu (אבינו אברהם),” our father Abraham,” signifying that he is both the biological progenitor of the Jews and, spiritually speaking, the father of Judaism, the first Jew.
Peterson notes that "Abraham is mentioned in thirty-five chapters of the Qur’an, second only to Moses." The Wikipedia entry, citing Francis Edward Peters, Islam, a Guide for Jews and Christians (2003), states the same. Other sources I've checked report that Abraham is mentioned in twenty-five chapters. I do not know the reason for the discrepancy.In Judaism, [Abraham] is the ethnic ancestor and first Hebrew patriarch who began the covenantal relationship between the Jewish people and God. . . . In Jewish tradition, Abraham is called Avraham Avinu (אברהם אבינו), "our father Abraham", signifying that he is both the biological progenitor of the Jews and the father of Judaism, the first Jew.
The remainder of Peterson's article is devoted to, as he writes, "compar[ing] the more or less continuous narrative about Abraham that is found in the biblical book of Genesis with the narratives about Abraham and the allusions to him that are widely scattered across the pages of the Qur’an." Peterson indicates that while the Qur'an refers to Abraham's father as Azar, as opposed to the name Terah that appears in the Hebrew Bible and the Midrash, "early Islamic scholar Ibn Hisham gives his name as Tarih, which seems sufficiently close to the biblical name to be considered essentially identical." The footnote for this statement reads: "Ibn Hisham XXXX." It's uncertain what "XXXX" is referring to, but I assume that Peterson placed a citation placeholder in his draft paper and neglected to provide a final citation. The four editors should have caught this apparent error.
In a discussion of Azar's idolatry and what he calls "Abraham's near sacrifice," Peterson notes that [t]hroughout the Qur’an are scattered allusions to a story—much more fleshed out in the commentators and in the so-called qisas alanbiya’ (“tales of the prophets”) literature—according to which Azar, Abraham’s father, used to actually make idols and then entrust them to his son to sell." One of these stories, Peterson writes, tells that Abraham was captured and thrown into a furnace. However, "the fire was cool and pleasant to Abraham, and he emerged from it unharmed." Here Peterson cites "W. St. Clair-Tisdall, Sources of Islam: A Persian Treatise (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901), 16–17, quoting Abdul Feda, Ancient History from the Mukhtasar fi Akhbar il Bashar." St. Clair-Tisdall's work is noteworthy. One can get a good idea of its underlying purpose from the book’s preface. The writer, William Muir, states:
Peterson's decision to use an obviously dated and polemical work as a source is a puzzling one.This remarkable book has been written by the Rev. W. St. Clair-Tisdall, Missionary, C.M.S., Julfa, Persia. It takes up a subject never as yet brought properly under discussion either by Mahometans [sic] or Christians—namely, the origin of the Coran [sic], and the Sources from which both it and Tradition have been derived. By the teaching of Mahomet [sic] the Coran is of divine origin, and was brought down, as Tradition tells us, word by word by Gabriel to the Prophet’s ear. The original is “written on a Tablet, kept in Heaven,” “sent down on the night of al Cadr [sic]” by the Almighty. Thus the Coran comes from God alone, heavenly, divine, and uncreate from all eternity. Now if it be shown that much of this grand book can be traced to human Sources existing daily around the ' Prophet, then Islam falls to the ground. And this is what the Author proves with marvellous power and erudition. . . . Hitherto much labour has been spent in showing the falsity and errors of Islam, as has been ably done by Pfander and others. It has remained for our Author not only to conceive a new, and perhaps more thorough and effective, mode of treating the so-called divine and eternal faith, but also in doing so to prove its Sources to be of purely human origin; and that in so masterly and effective a way that it seems impossible for good Moslems to resist the conclusion drawn.
Peterson says, "Of course, the story of Abraham’s near sacrifice is familiar to Latter-day Saints from the Book of Abraham, but that book doesn’t involve fire." The footnote reads, in part:
Again, Peterson cites to "XXXX." I assume, once more, that Peterson placed a citation placeholder in his draft paper and neglected to provide a final citation. The four editors should have caught it. The editors should have caught a problem in footnote 25, as well. The footnote reads: "See Qur’an 2:125, 127, 128; compare 14:35. [Check these!]"The medieval Gospel of Barnabas, which probably dates from the fourteenth century or later and which otherwise betrays some signs of Islamic influence, mentions Abraham’s near death by fire at Barnabas 26, as does the apocryphal Book of Jasher. XXXX. St. Clair-Tisdall, Sources of Islam, 21–24, quoting the Midrash Rabbah, suggests that the error (as he views it) arose from confusing the city name mentioned at Genesis 15:7 (“I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees”) with the Hebrew word ורּא) ur, “fire”).
I sense that the editors published Peterson's draft paper as submitted. In any case, it’s a shame that the Interpreter Foundation published the two volumes in their present form.
Posted from Parable of the Pickleville, Utah
