For Abraham
personally to mention Chaldea, as seems to be the case in the book of
Abraham, is blatantly anachronistic. He could not logically have known the name
of a kingdom and people six hundred years in his future. We propose two other
possible solutions to this apparent problem:
1. It is
entirely possible that the book of Abraham was edited some time after Abraham originally
wrote it. Using the reasoning of Parrot and Woolley, if Israelite people in Egypt
had access to the book of Abraham and edited it, it would make perfect sense
for them to substitute the known place-name Chaldea for the unknown name
Sumeria.
2. The
mention of Chaldea is also reasonable if one accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet of
God.
Following
Parrot’s line of thought, the Mormons of 1842 had no more concept of the
Sumerians than the ancient Israelites. It is probable that Abraham never used
the term Chaldeans personally but instead his text read Ur of the
Sumerians, Ur of the Babylonians, or perhaps just Ur. It can be theorized that
Joseph Smith, or God who ultimately gave the translation and could just as
easily have revealed the term, used the term Chaldeans for the same
reason as the author of Genesis: it was more familiar and would hold more meaning
for its readers. (Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “First Person Abraham: The Book of
Abraham in Light of Ancient History,” in The Seventh Annual Church Educational
System Religious Educators’ Symposium on the Old Testament [Salt Lake City:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1983], 33)
