Camels in Genesis

[Raphael]

Also, don't ignore or overlook the paper that I recommended on page 2:
http://moodle.tau.ac.il/pluginfile.p...tion%20ANE.pdf

I don't know who wrote it, but it is well footnoted and seems to have a good bibliography.

I found that interesting and informative.....thanks. If the Amen function was working I would use it, instead I'm going to send you some points.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Also, don't ignore or overlook the paper that I recommended on page 2:
http://moodle.tau.ac.il/pluginfile.p...tion%20ANE.pdf

I don't know who wrote it, but it is well footnoted and seems to have a good bibliography.

Honestly, I think Outis (and others) would just think them biased (but the camel depiction does look good)

[Outis]

Honestly, I think Outis (and others) would just think them biased (but the camel depiction does look good)

You would be in error. Perhaps asking instead of assuming is a better course of action?

[DesertBerean]

Also, don't ignore or overlook the paper that I recommended on page 2:
http://moodle.tau.ac.il/pluginfile.p...tion%20ANE.pdf

I don't know who wrote it, but it is well footnoted and seems to have a good bibliography.

Can't open the file.

[Outis]

Can't open the file.

Do you have a PDF reader loaded on your computer? I was able to open it with no problems.

[Quantum Weirdness]

You would be in error. Perhaps asking instead of assuming is a better course of action?

Miller presented the same thing through the use of scholars I think. Didn't you call them selective?

[Outis]

Miller presented the same thing through the use of scholars I think. Didn't you call them selective?

There is a difference between "selective" and "biased."

More to the point, the article did present the contrary evidence. The author of the article emphasized some things that I might have deprecated, but in the end, he or she came to his own conclusion.

You see, QW, it bothers me not one bit if someone looks at all the evidence and interprets it differently than I do, provided their interpretation is honest. I can be honestly right, or honestly wrong, as well as the next guy. What bothers me is rejection of evidence.

[Quantum Weirdness]

There is a difference between "selective" and "biased."

Ok what is the difference between selective and Biased? Why is Miller selective but not biased?

More to the point, the article did present the contrary evidence. The author of the article emphasized some things that I might have deprecated, but in the end, he or she came to his own conclusion.

Both of them did talk about how certain scholars support the late domestication theory (in fact, they mention, more or less the same set of scholars). The only "contrary evidence" I read was

Quote "It could be argued that the riders are gods, not humans, possibly indicating that the artist believed humans could not ride the camel at that time, but this is merely an assumption." and Miller (it seems) doesn't even reference this one.

The others are presented without any contrary evidence. And Miller does have a reference to evidence which is said to be disputed as well as Bulliet saying certain things taken as evidence are doubtfully camelline or not necessarily domestic. So I don't think this is a good point of comparison at all. Interestingly, they both come to similar conclusions.

You see, QW, it bothers me not one bit if someone looks at all the evidence and interprets it differently than I do, provided their interpretation is honest. I can be honestly right, or honestly wrong, as well as the next guy. What bothers me is rejection of evidence.

And Miller rejected evidence?

[Outis]

Ok what is the difference between selective and Biased? Why is Miller selective but not biased?

For me to attribute bias in an academic context, I have to know the mind of the person. I've never met Miller.

And Miller rejected evidence?

A considerable amount. Far more than I can list in a single post, or even a series of posts. This is why I recommended getting that book.

[Quantum Weirdness]

For me to attribute bias in an academic context, I have to know the mind of the person. I've never met Miller.

So what does selective mean then? Can you define these terms? I'm somewhat confused

A considerable amount. Far more than I can list in a single post, or even a series of posts. This is why I recommended getting that book.

I'm assuming that this article did as well and was also selective?

[rogue06]

And here is a more scholarly article that supports the same thing. To summarize: evidence from inscriptions, drawings, and figurines show that camels had been domesticated in the ancient near east (ANE) by 2000 BC. Domesticated camels were known in Iran, Turkmenistan, and Egypt by this time. It is reasonable to assume that they would have been used on the major E-W trade routes that passed through Palestine. If so, it is reasonable that the Patriarchs could have purchased domesticated camels from these traders, even if there were no camel breeding and domestication efforts in Palestine itself. The Patriarchs were few in number and were nomadic, so there is no expectation that we would find archaeological evidence of camel use specifically from them.

This article Camels and the Composition of Genesis might be of interest.

Hat tip to cre8id at CARM

[Outis]

So what does selective mean then?

"Ignoring or discounting relevant evidence."

Are my skills with English that poor?

I'm assuming that this article did as well and was also selective?

Not particularly.

[Kbertsche]

There is a difference between "selective" and "biased."

More to the point, the article did present the contrary evidence. The author of the article emphasized some things that I might have deprecated, but in the end, he or she came to his own conclusion.

You see, QW, it bothers me not one bit if someone looks at all the evidence and interprets it differently than I do, provided their interpretation is honest. I can be honestly right, or honestly wrong, as well as the next guy. What bothers me is rejection of evidence.

FYI, the hallmarks of a scholarly article include the following:
1) it tries to give an honest, unbiased account of the history of the issue
2) it tries to fairly represent all major sides of the issue
3) it documents these points with references to peer-reviewed publications or published books

The author may or may not go on to argue for a particular interpretation of the evidence. But if he does and has done a good job of the above points, the reader can feel confident to decide for himself whether or not the author's evidence is persuasive. The author has presented and discussed the evidence which is contrary to his position.

On the other hand, if the author suppresses and excludes contrary evidence, he only convinces the naive. Anyone else senses that he is hiding something, and he loses trust and respect. If his position is strong and well reasoned, he should not shirk from presenting contrary evidence.

[Outis]

FYI, the hallmarks of a scholarly article include the following:
1) it tries to give an honest, unbiased account of the history of the issue
2) it tries to fairly represent all major sides of the issue
3) it documents these points with references to peer-reviewed publications or published books

The author may or may not go on to argue for a particular interpretation of the evidence. But if he does and has done a good job of the above points, the reader can feel confident to decide for himself whether or not the author's evidence is persuasive. The author has presented and discussed the evidence which is contrary to his position.

On the other hand, if the author suppresses and excludes contrary evidence, he only convinces the naive. Anyone else senses that he is hiding something, and he loses trust and respect. If his position is strong and well reasoned, he should not shirk from presenting contrary evidence.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your post, I am somewhat confused. Was this in disagreement to my post, in amplification, or just a good place to post it?

[Paprika]

[url]
... a scientific report establishing that camels, the basic mode of transportation for the biblical patriarchs, weren’t domesticated in Israel until hundreds of years after Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are said to have wandered the earth.

What the paper establishes is that camels were used in the copper production sites Avanah valley only starting around later third of the 10th century. Why this should be an acccurate proxy is for the introduction of domesticated camels for the whole of the Southern Levant, IMO, is not well argued in the paper.