Camels werent domesticated during Abraham's time? (page 2)

hamsterbait

I have a commentary on the Bible (Peak's) which ppoints out that the story of Isaac getting his wife must have been written much later for this very reason.

The writer was obviously unaware that camels had not been domesticated at the time of the purported events.

(This commentary also proves that Moses didnt write Job, as it contains aramaic idioms that didnt exist then.)

In all fairness though, the WT did show a picture of Abram taking his wife and family out of Ur and Sarai is seated on a donkey.

HB

glenster

Genesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

Judas at meal
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/86242/1/Judas-at-Lords-Evening-Meal

Nathan Natas

Camels evolved in the part of the world now called North America. Camel fossils found here are older than those found anywhere else.

So much for Cap'n Noah.

behemot

For an attempt of harmonization between the Bible account and archaeological data see here:

John J. Davis, The Camel in Biblical Narratives, in Walter C. Kaiser, Ronald F. Youngblood (ed.), A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Chicago, Moody Press 1986, pages 141-152

Dromedaries were probably domesticated in coastal settlements along the southern Arabian peninsula somewhere between 3000 and 2500 BC. The earliest reference to camels in Arabia is the Sihi mandible, a camelid bone direct dated to ca 7100-7200 cal BC, or about 8200 RCYBP. Sihi is a Neolithic coastal site in Yemen, and the bone is probably a wild dromedary. The earliest camels in Africa are from Qasr Ibrim, Nubia, 9th century BC.

Evidence for the domestication of Bactrian camels has been found as early as 2600 BC at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran.

TheOldHippie

...was the Bible wrong about Abraham having camels that early?

Someone sent in the following question:

I recently had a professor of mine state that the Bible must have made up the story about Abraham having camels. He said that camels were not domesticated until much later, and so someone must have made up the whole story.
Is this true? Please help.
Unfortunately, this is another case of someone using 'old data' and not keeping up with the information. (A very similar situation occurs with

the old JEDP "Documentary Hypothesis"

--many professors learned this decades ago, and haven't updated their view as the rest of the scholarly world has increasingly abandoned the whole superstructure.)

HI:TCAW:

35-36]

HI:TCAW:

36]

HI:TCAW:

46]

"These five pieces of evidence, needless to say, may not convince everyone that the domestic camel was known in Egypt and the Middle East on an occasional basis between 2500 and 1400 B.C. Other early depictions, alleged to be of camels, which look to my eyes like dogs, donkeys, horses, dragons or even pelicans, might be more convincing to some than the examples described above." [HT:TCAW:64]

64].

79-80]

186]

155]

177, 183]

28]

176]

50]

56]

156]

64-65]

66-67)

301]

ECIAT: 271,n.63). Finkelstein, however, cites Bulliet as the 'most thorough treatment to date' in his 1995 work LOF:

121, but omits any reference to early evidence (although his argument is focused on widespread use of the camel). It is perhaps understandable that normal college professors with specialties elsewhere would not necessarily be aware of this data, but the minimalists need to confront this issue if they intend to continue accusing the bible of such errors.

Mad Sweeney

Ok, so apparently cyberjesus is wrong and camels WERE domesticated in Abraham's time.

I've put in a couple calls to Beth Sarim and confirmed this with Abraham himself, so it's all good.

Leolaia

This question is a lot more complex than it seems on the surface. First of all, domestication is a gradual process involving several stages, e.g. capture of wild animals < raising of animals in captivity (not involving behavioral or physical changes) < altering of the animal's behavior and apperance (which involves many generations); a date of domestication may thus pertain to the earliest stage or the latest stage, when the animal could be considered fully domesticated. It is thus not always clear from burial of animal bones to tell at what stage the animal is representative. The other issue is that once an animal is put through the domestication process, it could be used for different purposes and its place in society can vary. The claims of anachronism (whether well-founded or not) made by WF Albright have this consideration in view. The dromedary camel was initially used for the production of milk (which is better suited to desert conditions than cattle) and for use as food; its use as a pack animal and mode of transport is what is considered to be a later development. The patriarchal narratives construct a particular picture of the place of camels in society: they are used for transport in caravans between Palestine and Mesopotamia, they have their own furnishings (owing to their use as transport) as related in the teraphim story, the camel is described as part of the bride's price, etc. It is this that is thought to have been anachronistic, as more reflective of the first millennium BC than the Middle Bronze Age when donkeys and other pack animals filled this niche (as Mari texts and other sources purportedly show).

Again, I think the evidence is ambiguous and certainly not the clearest example of anachronism that one could cite.

OnTheWayOut

I don't know much about camels, but I am currently reading THE BIBLE UNEARTHED. It's a great book. I have read previous sources that discussed how the Bible account is not literal, nor possible for even the stuff that is not considered miraculous.

I can't help but reflect on historians and archeaologists and those who examine literature and I get kinda saddened when I see how much of the world is bogged down in Judeao-Christianity. I am saddened because it is pretty well established (granted, controversial) that NOBODY EVER LIVED UNDER THE MOSIAC LAW. NOBODY is referring to [any group of people] as it is possible that a priest or a rabbi here and there has tried. But there was never a united 12-tribe Israel that lived under such a law in any period of time, nor did even one of those tribes live by that law.

By the time the law was made public to the people, David and Solomon were dead history. The people were not exclusively worshipping YHWH at that time and never had before. While the priests at the temple hoped people would start to consider themselves unclean for various reasons and that they would have no other gods before themselves, and all the myriads of DO's and DON'T's, it never really caught on until later. By that time, even the strictest Jews only picked and chose parts to obey. I doubt they ever stoned their own rebellious children or told people they were unclean yesterday because of something they did with the wife, so they stayed away.

Leolaia

BTW, I've eaten camel (specifically the hump), and well, it's not my favorite.

Camels werent domesticated during Abraham's time?

Share this