BookTalk.org

The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein, is a superb scholarly summary of current scientific knowledge about the actual production of the Old Testament, or Hebrew Bible. Finkelstein shows that the far most likely scenario is that King Josiah, reigning in Judah in the Seventh Century BCE, arranged for books of the Bible to be collated ‘as though’ he had found them from ancient times.

Genesis and Exodus are full of anachronisms, places and people who existed in the seventh century but did not exist at the supposed time of the events in question, hundreds and thousands of years earlier. Finkelstein takes advantage of the massive archaeological study that has been conducted in Israel and nearby, to show that the idea of a mass Jewish Exodus from Egypt in about 1300 BC, as the Bible relates, is simply impossible. Archaeologists who themselves were Christian theologians thought that they could prove stories from the Bible by objective data. Indeed, many Biblical places were found by this method. However, the main narrative of the Torah emerged from this exhaustive process as revealed as a work of fiction, a national mythology rather like the work of Homer for Greece, or Virgil’s account of the origin of Rome in the Aeneid.

Camels are used extensively in Genesis, for example carrying Joseph to Egypt. But camels were not used as beasts of burden until about 1000 BC, and were not widely used until even later, making early dating for the Joseph story as it stands impossible. The Philistines came to Palestine after 1200 BC, so their mention in stories about Isaac, who supposedly lived about 2000 BC, are false. Many places that were significant in the 7th century did not exist hundreds of years before that, but still get cited in the Bible as locations of events. The Egyptians had a big row of forts that would have stopped any mass exodus. This is just the tip of the iceberg of how archeaology, through painstaking accurate work, shows up the Bible as a fraud.

All of this scepticism about the Old Testament is fairly widely known, but my interest is to apply it to the New Testament as well. Finkelstein observes that Josiah required a national narrative that could unite his people. It can well be argued that the same situation applied for the Jews after the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70AD. They required a narrative to combat Rome, and one that could be palmed off as true would be much more powerful than one that was openly fictional. It makes perfect sense that writers of the Gospels looked to the Jewish heritage of invention of historical facts for political advantage, and did exactly the same thing, inventing the whole story of Jesus Christ, pretending it was literal history, setting it sufficiently far back in the past that nobody would be able to refute it, and then aggressively attacking anyone who did dispute their fiction. The Bible is myth from start to finish.

Wrong again. It amazes me that Robert has time to summarize Finkelstein's book but not check the facts. I took the first point that really struck me, camels, and this is what I found.

Albright has argued that the camel was not extensively domesticated until the Iron Age (about 1200). He holds that the patriarchal references are somewhat anachronistic and that the common nomad of that day depended on the ass (SAC, p. 164-65). He does, however, allow that "partial and sporadic domestication may go back several centuries earlier." J. P. Free gathered evidence of earlier use of domesticated camels, though his proof need not be pressed to say that ass nomadism was not the more common (J. P. Free, JNES 3: 187-93.) K. Kitchen since then has brought out additional evidence to demonstrate that the camel was domesticated already in the Early Bronze Age (see Andre Parrot, Syria 32: 323).
Bibliography: Free, Joseph P., "Abraham's Camels," JNES 3: 187-93. Isserlin, B. S., "On Some Possible Occurrences of the Camel in Palestine," PEQ:50-53. Lambert, W. G., "The Domesticated Camel in the Second Millennium: Evidence from Alalakh and Ugarit," BASOR 160: 42-43. THAT, I, pp. 426-28. J.P.L.

http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php? ... 1&verse=17

4. SOME HISTORICAL PROBLEMS
I. ALLEGED ANACHRONISMS
(a) Camels in the Patriarchal Age
It is often asserted that the mention of camels and of their use is an anachronism in Genesis.1

This charge is simply not true, as there is both philological and archaeological evidence for knowledge and use of this animal in the early second millennium BC and even earlier. While a possible reference to camels in a fodder-list from Alalakh (c. eighteenth century BC)2 has been disputed,3 the great Mesopotamian lexical lists that originated in the Old Babylonian period show a knowledge of the camel c. 2000/1700 BC, including its domestication.4 Furthermore, a Sumerian text from Nippur from the same early period gives clear evidence of domestication of the camel by then, by its allusions to camel’s milk.5 Camel bones were found in houseruins at Mari of the pre-Sargonic age (twenty-fifth to twenty-fourth centuries BC),6 and also in various Palestinian sites from [p.80] 2000 to 1200 BC.7 From Byblos comes an incomplete camel-figurine of the nineteenth/eighteenth centuries BC.8 This and a variety of other evidence cannot be lightly disregarded.9 For the early and middle second millennium BC, only limited use is presupposed by either the biblical or external evidence until the twelfth century BC.

Ancient Orient and Old Testament
Kenneth A. Kitchen
Lecturer, School of Archaeology
and Oriental Studies, University of Liverpool
To
V.B.G. & T.S.F.

pp. 79-80
K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966. Hbk. pp.191.

D.J. Wiseman, "Ration Lists from Alalakh VII," JCS 13 (1959) 29, where text 269:59 reads 1 SA.GAL ANSE.GAM.MAL, "one (measure of) fodder - camel." In a following article, "Remarks on the Ration Lists from Alalakh VII," A. Goetze remarks (p. 37), "This early occurrence of camels to be fed and, therefore, domesticated, is worthy of special note."

The New International Commentary on the Old Testament
1990 W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan
The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 By Victor P. Hamilton, pg 384

Abraham's camels
J. P. Free
JNES 3

What makes their claims even more disturbing is that several pieces of evidence do exist (and have existed for some time) that prove camels were domesticated during (and even before) the time of Abraham (roughly 2,000 B.C.). In an article that appeared in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies a half-century ago, professor Joseph Free listed several instances of Egyptian archaeological finds supporting the domestication of camels [NOTE: The dates given for the Egyptian dynasties are from Clayton, 2001, pp.14-68]. The earliest evidence comes from a pottery camel’s head and a terra cotta tablet with men riding on and leading camels. According to Free, these are both from predynastic Egypt (1944, pp. 189-190), which according to Clayton is roughly before 3150 B.C. Free also listed three clay camel heads and a limestone vessel in the form of camel lying down—all dated at the First Dynasty of Egypt (3050-2890 B.C.). He then mentioned several models of camels from the Fourth Dynasty (2613-2498 B.C.), and a petroglyph depicting a camel and a man dated at the Sixth Dynasty (2345-2184 B.C.). Such evidence has led one respected Egyptologist to conclude that “the extant evidence clearly indicates that the domestic camel was known [in Egypt—EL] by 3,000 B.C.”—long before Abraham’s time (Kitchen, 1980, 1:228).

Perhaps the most convincing find in support of the early domestication of camels in Egypt is a rope made of camel’s hair found in the Fayum (an oasis area southwest of modern-day Cairo). The two-strand twist of hair, measuring a little over three feet long, was found in the late 1920s, and was sent to the Natural History Museum where it was analyzed and compared to the hair of several different animals. After considerable testing, it was determined to be camel hair, dated (by analyzing the layer in which it was found) to the Third or Fourth Egyptian Dynasty (2686-2498 B.C.). In his article, Free also listed several other discoveries from around 2,000 B.C. and later, which showed camels as domestic animals (pp. 189-190). [Quote from Kitchen is from The Illustrated Bible Dictionary.]

http://bleon1.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/ ... iarchs-pt-

One wonders how Finkelstein got a PhD.

The Bible Unearthed has been immensely popular, and it is not surprising to see a fundamentalist backlash. Critiques of Finkelstein's claims generally ignore his specific evidence and start from the religious assumption that the Bible is accurate history. Both these strategems are entirely unscholarly, but are to be expected.

The overall story is about how to understand the production of the Bible in a realistic way. The psychology of King Josiah in the seventh century is the decisive factor. The Bible Unearthed tells of how the story of Joshua's genocidal conquest of Canaan is utterly ridiculous when compared to historical facts. But it does make sense when seen as a way to legitimize Josiah's own efforts to expand his kingdom, creating ancient precedents that provided him with a moral mandate, and helped to inspire his community.

The psychology of the mutation of oral tradition is one of the most interesting factors here. A local ruin or cave can become the subject of folk stories, and gradually these stories can be unified and embellished to fit a political agenda, as storytellers seek to impress with their tales, and hearers welcome stories that reinforce their own prejudices and interests. This is a very common occurrence, and fully explains many Bible stories.

Hair rope? Really? I'll take a look at those other things in more depth, hopefully they are more convincing, but a hair rope is about as much evidence of domestication of camels as a bear skin rug is evidence of domestication of bears.

Robert Tulip wrote:The Bible Unearthed has been immensely popular, and it is not surprising to see a fundamentalist backlash. Critiques of Finkelstein's claims generally ignore his specific evidence and start from the religious assumption that the Bible is accurate history. Both these strategems are entirely unscholarly, but are to be expected.

The overall story is about how to understand the production of the Bible in a realistic way. The psychology of King Josiah in the seventh century is the decisive factor. The Bible Unearthed tells of how the story of Joshua's genocidal conquest of Canaan is utterly ridiculous when compared to historical facts. But it does make sense when seen as a way to legitimize Josiah's own efforts to expand his kingdom, creating ancient precedents that provided him with a moral mandate, and helped to inspire his community.

The psychology of the mutation of oral tradition is one of the most interesting factors here. A local ruin or cave can become the subject of folk stories, and gradually these stories can be unified and embellished to fit a political agenda, as storytellers seek to impress with their tales, and hearers welcome stories that reinforce their own prejudices and interests. This is a very common occurrence, and fully explains many Bible stories.

Wrong again. The material about camels was in the record before Finkelstein came along. He should have known about it and at least acknowledged it as is customary when presenting a theory which has contradictory information in the record. In this case, the question about domestication of camels has been around for a long time and is not something first claimed by Finkelstein.

I wonder if this is a significant nuance in Finkelstein's actual statement, but he does say that "camels were not domesticated as beasts of burden earlier than the late second millenium and were not widely used in that capacity in the ancient Near East until well after 1000 BCE."
Hence when stated that way, it doesn't sound so contradictory to some of the evidences I recall in a previous post. I mean he's specifically talking about their usage as pack animals, and not merely for milk, like goats or bovine, or for their hair, like sheep, but specifically their new found purpose as pack animals, since that's what Finkelstein emphasizes is their role here in the Joseph passage, is that they were being used in a trading caravan carrying merchandise popular in Arabia trade markets in the 8th & 7th century.

Had he simply stated domestication in general, then I would be more inclined to agree that the extant evidence posted earlier would refute him on that point. But since he stated domestication for a more specific purpose, I'll have to reconsider until I read more on this. I see it as like arguing when dogs started being domesticated in general, and when they started being bred specifically for sled pulling. You'd be dealing with two different time periods really.

Looks like I might be thinking in the right direction here. Just browsing around on google books revealed some claims that using camels specifically for burden came much later than the first domestication, mostly because a unique method for saddling had to be invented because of their humps.

A Brief History of Saudi Arabia By James Wynbrandt, Fawaz A. Gerges, p.17 -
"One of the major factors in the development of the overland trade was the domestication of the camel, which likely began in the third millenium B.C. Camels were hunted for food prior to domestication. Perhaps sometime between 1500 and 800 B.C., they were first used as pack animals after a method of saddling them was developed."

The British veterinary journal, Volume 140, p.618 - "It is likely that the camel was first used for meat and then later for milk. It was not until centuries later, perhaps millenia, that the possibilities of using the camel as a baggage animal were exploited, and that camels replaced the asses which were used until then."

A history of African societies to 1870 By Elizabeth Allo Isichei, p.199 - "Camels were domesticated in South Arabia, in the Hadhramaut - not as pack or riding animals, but for their milk, and as a form of accumulation. They were probably first used as pack animals in the incense trade, between south and north Arabia."

Vishnu wrote:Looks like I might be thinking in the right direction here. Just browsing around on google books revealed some claims that using camels specifically for burden came much later than the first domestication, mostly because a unique method for saddling had to be invented because of their humps.

A Brief History of Saudi Arabia By James Wynbrandt, Fawaz A. Gerges, p.17 -
"One of the major factors in the development of the overland trade was the domestication of the camel, which likely began in the third millenium B.C. Camels were hunted for food prior to domestication. Perhaps sometime between 1500 and 800 B.C., they were first used as pack animals after a method of saddling them was developed."

I missed any references in the material to backup the claims. As far as I can tell they are unsupported opinions and as such are not exactly useless but not much more than that.

vishnu wrote:The British veterinary journal, Volume 140, p.618 - "It is likely that the camel was first used for meat and then later for milk. It was not until centuries later, perhaps millenia, that the possibilities of using the camel as a baggage animal were exploited, and that camels replaced the asses which were used until then."

I don't see any fix for the dates. All I see is a claim that there was a time lapse between domestication and use for transportation. The claim also does not make sense, hundreds of years or a thousand years to upgrade their ride?

vishnu wrote:A history of African societies to 1870 By Elizabeth Allo Isichei, p.199 - "Camels were domesticated in South Arabia, in the Hadhramaut - not as pack or riding animals, but for their milk, and as a form of accumulation. They were probably first used as pack animals in the incense trade, between south and north Arabia."

Same comment as above. I have looked at a number of pictures of camels being ridden and used to carry things. The process does not seem challenging in either case. I find it hard to believe that camels would be around as domesticated animals without being used for transportation.

It would help if those who wished to comment on Finkelstein's book, especially making wide-ranging attacks, bothered to read it first. You might find that these questions are answered there quite well. Otherwise we run the risk of howlers like Stahrwe's ignorance of how many books there are in the Bible.

Robert Tulip wrote:It would help if those who wished to comment on Finkelstein's book, especially making wide-ranging attacks, bothered to read it first. You might find that these questions are answered there quite well. Otherwise we run the risk of howlers like Stahrwe's ignorance of how many books there are in the Bible.

Robert,
Which Bible?

The Hebrew Bible has 24
The Protestant Bible 66/39 OT 27 NT
The Catholic Bible 73/46 OT 27 NT
The Eastern Orthodox 78/51 OT 27NT

Figure 1 on page 7 of Finkelstein's book was labeled 'Hebrew Bible' but it listed the protestant OT books in the order they appear in the Hebrew Bible. He should have had a footnote explaining that he was using the Protestant OT names but the Hebrew order.

Who's howling now?