Aspirin99

I did search for this. Sorry if it's been covered, but I'm looking for evidence to support:

The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman assertion:

"We now know through archaeological research that camels were not domesticated as beasts of burden earlier than the late second millennium and were not widely used in that capacity in the ancient Near East until well after 1000 BCE (2001, p. 37,)."

The following article presents proof of the opposite.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1781

It seems that this may be too untidy to create a compelling agrument for anachronism in Genesis. Right or wrong?

Huon

You could look here : Anachronisms in the Bible
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...el#post2433075
especially the posts of Notsri and anat :
Notsri : post # 2433075 / #10 in the thread
anat : post #2433782 / #12 in the thread

Aspirin99

Thanks. Very helpful.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

The Paul Tobin skeptic article (Pascal's Wager) is particularly belligerent and obtuse (and worse, Tobin apparently is using this as his major Penteteuch anachronism).

Tobin refers to supposed 'fatal flaws' in the abundance of evidence (and the Christian article he references does not have as much as the Apologetics Press article) and yet he does not even reply directly to this one --

http://www.bga.nl/en/articles/camel.html
Domesticated Camels in the Book of Genesis
"Definite proof that dromedaries were already domesticated in early times was given in 1912. Near Aswan a rock painting was discovered which showed a man pulling along a dromedary on a rope, plus seven hieroglyphic characters. On account of the writing G. Möller dated the inscription to the period of the sixth dynasty (2320-2150 B.C.), and G. Schweinfurth concluded to the same period for the painting on account of its style."
M. Ripinsky, `The Camel in Dynastic Egypt', JEA 71, 1985, p. 136.

Note that this is from an article that Tobin references !

And there is a lot of the history of this claim given by Glenn Miller, from his 1998 article !
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnocamel.html
...was the Bible wrong about Abraham having camels that early?

Is this camel anachronism claim an example of the current state of Finkelstein and Silberman scholarship ?

And can anybody really look carefully at the Paul Tobin article without noticing how illogical and skewered is his argumentation ?

Even within his own hands-firmly-over-eyes approach Tobin makes the flying leap from -

This suggests that camels were domesticated around the 12th or 11th century BC.

to..

Thus there could have been no domesticated camel during Abraham’s lifetime.
It must be, then, that the above stories are later additions to the legend of Abraham.

So I have sent Paul Tobin a note asking him to explain why he would keep this argument up on his website (or better yet, I would simply encourage him to update the section, replacing the camel anachronism argument with a clear correction and explanation that some skeptic arguments will be removed when they are simply untenable).

As currently stands, Tobin's major arguments seem to be -

a) why don't Finkelstein and others see this evidence ..
(obvious response .. ask them)

b) selectively reject discomfiting archaeology from before 1970

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Huon

Cool ...

Huon

Here are some quotes, about "camels" (dromedaries).
Genesis 12
16. Therefore he treated Abram well for her sake; and gave him sheep and oxen and donkeys and male and female servants and female donkeys and camels.
Genesis 24
10. Then the servant took ten camels from the camels of his master, and set out with a variety of good things of his master's in his hand; and he arose and went to Mesopotamia, to the city of Nahor.
11. He made the camels kneel down outside the city by the well of water at evening time, the time when women go out to draw water.
...
30. When he saw the ring and the bracelets on his sister's wrists, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying, "This is what the man said to me," he went to the man; and behold, he was standing by the camels at the spring.
31. And he said, "Come in, blessed of the LORD ! Why do you stand outside since I have prepared the house, and a place for the camels?"
32. So the man entered the house. Then Laban unloaded the camels, and he gave straw and feed to the camels, and water to wash his feet and the feet of the men who were with him.
Genesis 30
43. So the man became exceedingly prosperous, and had large flocks and female and male servants and camels and donkeys.
Genesis 31
17. Then Jacob arose and put his children and his wives upon camels;
34. Now Rachel had taken the household idols and put them in the camel's saddle, and she sat on them. And Laban felt through all the tent but did not find them.
Genesis 32
7. Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed; and he divided the people who were with him, and the flocks and the herds and the camels, into two companies;
15. thirty milking camels and their colts, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty female donkeys and ten male donkeys.
Genesis 37
25. Then they sat down to eat a meal. And as they raised their eyes and looked, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing aromatic gum and balm and myrrh, on their way to bring them down to Egypt.
Exodus 9
3. behold, the hand of the LORD will come with a very severe pestilence on your livestock which are in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the camels, on the herds, and on the flocks.

Leviticus 11
4. `Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you.

Deuteronomy 14
7. "Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these among those which chew the cud, or among those that divide the hoof in two: the camel and the rabbit and the shaphan, for though they chew the cud, they do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you.

Judges 7
12. Now the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the sons of the east were lying in the valley as numerous as locusts; and their camels were without number, as numerous as the sand on the seashore.

1 Samuel 15
3. Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
1 Samuel 27
9. David attacked the land and did not leave a man or a woman alive, and he took away the sheep, the cattle, the donkeys, the camels, and the clothing. Then he returned and came to Achish.
1 Samuel 30
17. David slaughtered them from the twilight until the evening of the next day; and not a man of them escaped, except four hundred young men who rode on camels and fled.
1 Kings 10
2. So she came to Jerusalem with a very large retinue, with camels carrying spices and very much gold and precious stones. When she came to Solomon, she spoke with him about all that was in her heart.
2 Kings 8
9. So Hazael went to meet him and took a gift in his hand, even every kind of good thing of Damascus, forty camels' loads; and he came and stood before him and said, "Your son Ben-hadad king of Aram has sent me to you, saying, `Will I recover from this sickness?' "
1 Chronicles 5
21. They took away their cattle: their 50,000 camels, 250,000 sheep, 2,000 donkeys; and 100,000 men.
1 Chronicles 12
40. Moreover those who were near to them, even as far as Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought food on donkeys, camels, mules and on oxen, great quantities of flour cakes, fig cakes and bunches of raisins, wine, oil, oxen and sheep. There was joy indeed in Israel.
1 Chronicles 27
30. Obil the Ishmaelite had charge of the camels; and Jehdeiah the Meronothite had charge of the donkeys.
2 Chronicles 9
1. Now when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, she came to Jerusalem to test Solomon with difficult questions. She had a very large retinue, with camels carrying spices and a large amount of gold and precious stones; and when she came to Solomon, she spoke with him about all that was on her heart.
2 Chronicles 14
15. They also struck down those who owned livestock, and they carried away large numbers of sheep and camels. Then they returned to Jerusalem.
Ezra 2
67. their camels, 435; their donkeys, 6,720.
Nehemiah 7
69. their camels, 435; their donkeys, 6,720.
Job 1
3. His possessions also were 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 female donkeys, and very many servants; and that man was the greatest of all the men of the east.
17. While he was still speaking, another also came and said, "The Chaldeans formed three bands and made a raid on the camels and took them and slew the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you."
Job 42
12. The LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; and he had 14,000 sheep and 6,000 camels and 1,000 yoke of oxen and 1,000 female donkeys.
Isaiah 30
6. The oracle concerning the beasts of the Negev. Through a land of distress and anguish,
From where come lioness and lion, viper and flying serpent,
They carry their riches on the backs of young donkeys
And their treasures on camels' humps,
To a people who cannot profit them;
Isaiah 60
6. "A multitude of camels will cover you,
The young camels of Midian and Ephah;
All those from Sheba will come;
They will bring gold and frankincense,
And will bear good news of the praises of the LORD.
Matthew 3
4. Now John himself had a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.
Matthew 19
24. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 23
24. "You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
Mark 1
6. John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey.
Mark 10
25. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Luke 18
25. "For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

I'm curious.

After seeing how Paul Tobin (Pascal's Wager) fights evidence
and argues in such an illogical manner on the camel/anachronism issue ...

Is he simply a gadfly among the skeptics, does his site have credibility ?

(Tobin declined the request to try to explain or defend his
illogic, or to update and correct the website.)

And does anybody have any explanation for why Finkelstein and
Silberman would also ignore rather extensive evidence to offer
an argument from silence that should have long been discarded
due to lack of silence ?

Another discussion of the camel/anachronism issue.
Here is an extract.

http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_26B/26Bcc_457-477.htm
THE BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY - Randall W. Younker
the ancient site of Hama in Syria ... a figurine from the 2nd millennium which the excavator thought must be a horse, but the strange hump in the middle of its back made one think of a camel. I looked at the photograph and the figurine was obviously that of a camel! This scholar was so influenced by the idea that camels were not used until the 1st millennium, that when he found a figurine of one in the second millennium, he felt compelled to call it a horse! This is a classic example of circular reasoning.

Apparently the skeptical bias can become so much of a fog
that obvious camels are labeled as horses.

Simply because Silberman & Finkelstein have the error, it gets trumpted here and there.

http://skeptically.org/oldtestament/id7.html
Professor Thompson's brief presentation of traditional critical commentary on Old Testament History

A longer list of camel domestication citations,
and an interesting comparison with the situation with horses.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/ar...chaeology.html
Archaeology & the Patriarchs - Robert I Bradshaw

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Paul Tobin has now expressed some interest in discussing this further.

Not as a politicized discussion (his concern was how folks on a forum
such as this can be more involved in 'face-saving' rather than seeking the
truth, a point that is very true).

So I have requested that Paul would continue here nonetheless, that this forum tends to be very good on issues like this one.

And perhaps Paul would begin by discussing what he sees as the 'fatal flaw' in the Aswan rock painting evidence. (Where we have not looked at the primary sources or possible counter-arguments, but there does seem to be the potential for being a full refutation of the no-domestication viewpoint).

And also Paul would explain how a concept that is only something that he claims the archaeological evidence 'suggests' could logically be the basis for his definitive conclusions. (Even assuming for that part of the discussion a dearth of contrary evidence to the assertion.)

And we could take it from there.

Oh, I would add that we probably should discuss the 'appeal to authority' to Finkelstein and others. Does that have any real value if they have not very specifically responded to the various evidences in a clear and comprehensive manner ? And to the logical tension of asserting a definitive conclusion from an evidence from silence where the data pool is small.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Sven

Just that other people know what you are talking about:

Tobin, Paul N. (2000), “Mythological Element in the Story of Abraham and the Patriachal Narratives,” The Refection of Pascal’s Wager [On-line], URL: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abraham.html

It's basic courtesy to provide a link to an article one critizes.

Having said this, this topic sounds interesting. I'm looking forward to this discussion!

Steven Avery

Thanks. I had missed putting in the link. Notice that there is another Pascal's Wager thread just started up. "Great Geosite: Rejection of Pascal's Wager".

Paul Tobin has not responded to my follow-up asking him to discuss here rather than a private correspondence (after all it really is a home court) .. and nobody else has seemed to want to take up the banner of camel domestication anachronism.

Honestly, I think it is just about a dead issue. I didn't even find too many skeptics ready to be hoisted on their own camel petards on the net.

It will simply remain an embarrassment for Pascal's Wager. a point of discreditation, unless Paul wakes up and smells some Teccino and Rocamojo combined with swiss-water-decaf coffee.

I really don't think anybody who isn't already trapped into arguing a pretty absurd claim will want to start afresh.

It would be good to approach good ol' Finkelstein & Silberman ... hmmm.. maybe a letter to BAR if you could find a hook to one of the articles.

This is supposed to be a real big anachronism, too. So it is almost like a death-blow to the anachronism camp. There is only one other I remember getting involved in .. Ur of the Chaldees, in that one they simply don't read the Bible well and check the maps and placed the Chaldees in the anachronisitic location (Babylon, Southern Iraq).

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic