Missing Apologetics

[_Danna]

I get wee autistic obsessions over discrepancies, so please move to another thread if you think I am trying to resurrect a dead horse for flogging. Recently I read a commentary that criticises critics for focussing on the origin of the Book of Abraham, not its content. I've been mulling over it for a while, and can't remember who made the statement. Anyway. Good point.

Old Testament references to Abraham coming from 'Ur of Chaldees' are acknowledged anachronisms. It is likely that a scribe or author inserted the phrase 'of Chaldees' some time after the 7th Century BCE, either when drafting the narrative or copying it from older sources. Chaldea simply did not exist at the time of Abraham. After the exilic period Ur was in the possession of the Chaldeas for a while, hence the desgnation.

In the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith not only uses 'of Chaldees' (perhaps to clarify which Ur Abraham came from according to apologists), but refers to the Chaldeans, the customs of the Chaldeans, and the language of the Chaldeans. Abraham positively galavants around Chaldea, commenting on linguistic and sociological phenomena.

Probably about two years ago, when following up on this topic, I came across an apologetic essay that claimed that the Chaldeans were equivalent to the Kurds, providing a convoluted transition from Chaldee to Kurd, via the Akkadian word Kaldu.

This is nonsense of course; any investigation shows that the Chaldeans and Kurds are discrete peoples, with different ethnic backgrounds, different languages, and different geographic origins. Both peoples an be traced back (separately) past the time period in question.

My problem is that I can't track down the orginal essay. I was sure it was online at FAIR. And I can't find any serious treatment for this issue in apologetic cyberspace at all. Just thisunsatisfying treatment. There was another essay I saw at the same time which spoke of Abraham's Ur being located in modern-day Lebanon, (due to difficulties in placing the Egyptians in Ur in any strength, and the Chaldean problem) but that essay has disappeared as well. I was sure it was also on FAIR but can't find anything searching FAIR or The Neal Maxwell Institute.

Have I missed something? Has issue of the anachronistic Chaldeans been solved? Or have Book of Abraham 'origins' issues obscured what is quite a serious 'content' issue? Does anyone remember the essays I recall?

[_CaliforniaKid]

The essay you're probably looking for is titled "Was Abraham at Ebla?" Runtu and I picked this apart a while back, probably over at MADB. Yes, there are obvious problems with this clear anachronism, and no, they have not been satisfactorily resolved.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Here you go.

There was a brief discussion here and here at MDB about this, but the thread at MADB was more in-depth: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... =0&start=0

[_Danna]

Great, thanks for that, I have been kept busy following links all morning. Some very interesting stuff.

The second article I was trying to find is the Lundquist one, but it has gone from the net as far as I can tell. Although still appearing in FARMS footnotes, apparently published in book form from what I can see. Following FARMS footnotes is an adventure in its own. One day I am sure I will go full circle.

A Hoskisson article has similar points to the first one, but the one I was looking for distnctly raised the possibility of the Kurds being the Chaldeans. So still looking, but it looks like there has been a tidy-up of flakier Book of Abraham stuff in apologetic cyberspace.

Thanks again,

[_bcspace]

The essay you're probably looking for is titled "Was Abraham at Ebla?" Runtu and I picked this apart a while back, probably over at MADB. Yes, there are obvious problems with this clear anachronism, and no, they have not been satisfactorily resolved.

If this is the one I'm thinking of, it seemed to me that you guys were the ones picked apart. For example, we determined that the alternative Olishem in modern day Lebanon has a plain nearby and was a frequent stop for Egyptian visitors. We also determined that Ur of Chaldees could mean anything from Basra to Turkey.

[_harmony]

We also determined that Ur of Chaldees could mean anything from Basra to Turkey.

In other words, the writer of the Book of Abraham had no idea what he was talking about. Surprise, surprise.

[_CaliforniaKid]

If this is the one I'm thinking of, it seemed to me that you guys were the ones picked apart. For example, we determined that the alternative Olishem in modern day Lebanon has a plain nearby and was a frequent stop for Egyptian visitors. We also determined that Ur of Chaldees could mean anything from Basra to Turkey.

You should re-read the threads. You had an inflated opinion of the strength of your arguments. Perhaps now that some time has passed you will be able to see things with different eyes. (Or perhaps not. *shrug*)

-Chris

[_Tom]

for what it's worth, Lundquist's article does not mention Kaldu or the Kurds. The BYU digital archives have two articles that mention Kaldu: a longer version of the Ensign article by Hoskisson and one by Stephen Ricks and John Gee.

Also an ANE post by John Tvedtnes that mentions the Kurds in connection with Ur

[_Danna]

That's the odd thing. The link Chaldean - Kaldu - Kurd was so strained, I remembered the essay for its oddness, and now it is nowhere to be found.

There are some interesting theories around. The LDS are not the only ones trying to cope with the Ur of Chaldees anachronism. It looks like Jewish, christian and islamic apologists have been converging on a 'two Urs' theory as well, since at least the start of the 1900s, but I have to check some refs on my work PC sometime when I am free before I can work out what has been going on.

The silly thing is that the two Urs theory makes the repeated references to Chaldea and its language, customs, and people in the Book of Abraham pretty silly. The notion that adding 'of Chaldees' to clarify the location using modern toponymy might work at a stretch if it could be shown to be useful. Or even to designate the original people of Abraham. But when the location is actually moved away from Chaldean UR, and even further away from the origins of the Chaldeans in the southern reaches of the Tigris/Euphrates, then the use of the word is a nonsense. The Book of Abraham goes way beyond other scriptures in its descriptions of Chaldea, I don't think LDS Book of Abraham apologits can piggy-back on other faith' attempts to reconcile the Old Testament with history.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

The Book of Abraham has already been thoroughly debunked. Why do we need to pile on?