Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Camels in Genesis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    In your humble opinion, right?
    Not my opinion. That's the mainstream scholarly consensus. The arguments that I can evaluate are sound, and the evidence, in sum, agrees.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      In your humble opinion, right?
      Pretty much by the evidence.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Outis View Post
        Not my opinion. That's the mainstream scholarly consensus. The arguments that I can evaluate are sound, and the evidence, in sum, agrees.
        But the issue is not a slam-dunk. There are also scholarly arguments for a much earlier composition of the Pentateuch, and a number of conservative scholars who hold this position.
        "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
          But the issue is not a slam-dunk. There are also scholarly arguments for a much earlier composition of the Pentateuch, and a number of conservative scholars who hold this position.
          What is this term supposed to mean?
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
            But the issue is not a slam-dunk. There are also scholarly arguments for a much earlier composition of the Pentateuch, and a number of conservative scholars who hold this position.
            'a number of conservative scholars?'

            I would like to here more the 'recent' scholarly arguments.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              'a number of conservative scholars?'

              I would like to here more the 'recent' scholarly arguments.
              You all might want to debate this over here to avoid derailing the thread.
              http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...g-of-the-Torah
              -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
              Sir James Jeans

              -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
              Sir Isaac Newton

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                You all might want to debate this over here to avoid derailing the thread.
                http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...g-of-the-Torah
                I have been on this thread, and I may respond more, but as it ended I did not see anything that reflected physical nor linguistic evidence. The conservative scholars rely on internal scripture arguments and tradition to justify earlier dates, and I find this inadequate.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  I have been on this thread, and I may respond more, but as it ended I did not see anything that reflected physical nor linguistic evidence. The conservative scholars rely on internal scripture arguments and tradition to justify earlier dates, and I find this inadequate.
                  One comment here
                  How much physical evidence would you expect (especially if orality was valued over written word)?
                  The linguistic evidence isn't exactly much and the text we have now could have been a transliteration.

                  Here BTW is Glenn Miller's argument for a pre-exilic date.
                  http://www.christianthinktank.com/qmoses1.html
                  -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                  Sir James Jeans

                  -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                  Sir Isaac Newton

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    'a number of conservative scholars?'

                    I would like to here more the 'recent' scholarly arguments.
                    Sorry for any confusion. Here I meant theologically conservative, not politically conservative. The term is not well defined, and is often used as a comparative term to theological liberalism rather than as an absolute term. In general, theological conservatives tend to lean more the divine inspiration and accuracy of Scripture, while theological liberals tend to lean away from these things. Some people use the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus as a litmus test for theological liberalism vs conservatism.

                    As someone else suggested, this issue is probably best discussed in the JEDP thread so as not to derail the discussion of camels. Most theological conservatives reject the documentary hypothesis (JEDP), though some who accept it would still call themselves theologically conservative (I suspect Peter Enns might fall into this category).
                    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                      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 believe this article was written by Titus Kennedy, who is connected with Biola University. He is mentioned in a very recent Christianity Today article on the camel issue, along with Martin Heide:
                      http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...tic-camel.html

                      I had coincidentally just received a copy of Martin Heide's paper from a mutual friend:

                      "The Domestication of the Camel: Biological, Archaeological and Inscriptional Evidence from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel and Arabia, and Literary Evidence from the Hebrew Bible" -- Martin Heide, Marburg

                      http://www.academia.edu/2065314/_The...g_2011_331-384

                      Here are the first two paragraphs of his "tentative conclusion":
                      Originally posted by Martin Heide, The Domestication of the Camel
                      A tentative conclusion

                      The archaeological evidence points to the fact that the Bactrian camel was domesticated before the dromedary and was put into use by the middle of the 3rd millennium or earlier. The gradual spread of the Bactrian camel from the areas east of the Zagros Mountains to the west seems to have reached the Mesopotamian civilization sporadically by the middle of the 3rd millennium and more frequently at the end of the 3rd / beginning of the 2nd millennium.

                      The “camel” (ָּג ָמל gāmāl) in the patriarchal narratives may refer, at least in some places, to the Bactrian camel. Abram is seen as having employed camels for long-distance journeys in north-south direction, very probably commencing in upper Mesopotamia. From there, he migrated to Canaan and moved further down to Egypt (Gen 12:5.9.16). The same can be said for the opposite direction, from Canaan to upper Mesopotamia and back again (Gen 24:10–64). His son Isaac, who dwelt all his life in Canaan, is not portrayed as having used any camels. His grandson Jacob, however, who spent a considerable time of his life in upper Mesopotamia, did not only use, but bred a small herd of camels (Gen 30:43; 31:17; 32:7.15). After he had settled down in Canaan again, camels are not seen as belonging to his moveable property any more. Albright’s dictum that “any mention of camels in the period of Abraham is a blatant anachronism” (Albright, 1942, 96) is questionable. The archaeological and inscriptional evidence allows at least the domesticated Bactrian camel to have existed at Abraham’s time. In the daily life of the patriarchs, however, the camel played a minor role. The later Hebrews never adopted it and regarded it as unclean (Lev 11:4).
                      In other words, the literary evidence from Genesis seems to be consistent with archaeological evidence from the ancient near east.

                      (Question: where did the "cite" tag go, or what was it replaced by?)
                      "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                        But the issue is not a slam-dunk.
                        To those to whom literalism is an a priori belief, no evidence would be a "slam dunk." When one takes an a priori position, evidence is subservient to belief.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                          One comment here
                          How much physical evidence would you expect (especially if orality was valued over written word)?
                          I do not see any culture in history valuing oral communication over the written word, and find no evidence that the Jews did. All the cultures and kingdoms around Israel had the written word. It s likely that if Jews used the written word at all it was Canaanite or Babylonian. Up until sometime after ~1000 BCE the Jewish tribes were more predominantly a pastoral people.

                          The linguistic evidence isn't exactly much and the text we have now could have been a transliteration.
                          The only evidence we have of a translation is from existing Canaanite Ugarite and Babylonian cuneiform tablets, actually with residual vocabulary and religious beliefs

                          Here BTW is Glenn Miller's argument for a pre-exilic date.
                          http://www.christianthinktank.com/qmoses1.html
                          Glenn Miller is an AT executive apologist and not a scholar. He mainly relies on internal scriptural evidence and tradition, which I find inadequate. Miller provides conjecture that Moses wrote the 5 books in an earlier Canaanite or Babylonian script lacks any tablets at all to confirm the claim. It also presents a different claim then your 'preferring oral over the written word. I have no doubt oral Jewish traditions were included in the 5 books when written at some time after 1000 BCE likely about 700 BCE when camels were present as animals of burden and the Jewish tribes were trading, and developed a language.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Outis View Post
                            To those to whom literalism is an a priori belief, no evidence would be a "slam dunk." When one takes an a priori position, evidence is subservient to belief.
                            Perhaps. But the same argument could be made of those who take an a priori position of atheistic naturalism (i.e. God does not exist, God did not inspire any holy books.) Evidence for God is subservient to their atheistic commitment. The argument applies both ways.
                            "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                              Perhaps. But the same argument could be made of those who take an a priori position of atheistic naturalism (i.e. God does not exist, God did not inspire any holy books.) Evidence for God is subservient to their atheistic commitment. The argument applies both ways.
                              That doesn't apply with someone like me who takes no position on the existence of God. That also does not work for those mainstream scholars who are theists, or even Christian. There is a large middle ground that does not fit into your proposed dichotomy.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Outis View Post
                                Now, one potentially huge problem with the article: while this is the earliest they have discovered, what happens if there are more skeletons out there that have not been discovered? This is the biggest pitfall of such claims.
                                Right, they're arguing from silence, in archaeology, no less! Not a good idea.

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 05:38 AM
                                0 responses
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by tabibito, 09-07-2023, 02:41 PM
                                30 responses
                                134 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X