Camels Harder to Swallow

Grasping at straws

It would seem that so many different arguments against the authenticity of the Bible have fallen by the wayside that some are trying to strain out some fringe “evidences” to uphold the dying idea of a late date for the writing of the Pentateuchal scriptures (the first five books of the Old Testament), particularly Genesis.

This particular argument has come from a lack of evidence of camels in Canaan around the time that Abraham and his family had been sojourning there. I stumbled upon this from a small newspaper article in a Sunday edition of our major metropolitan paper. It was short, and apparently referenced a larger report from some AP source or a more original article.

Considering that over the last few decades many new discoveries have solidly upheld the cultural environment of the various biblical eras and geography, even specific people, such as king Hezekiah, there has been little left for liberal atheistic media, such as AP and major newspapers, to write about in order to discredit the Bible. But that never keeps them from trying.

This story is really grasping at straws, in my opinion. There is no reason why it should surprise anyone to find no sign of camels being used in Canaan in Abraham’s day.

A straw out of place

But here’s the term that needs to be explained first: anachronism. Now in the middle of that word you will notice “chron,” which stands for time, like chronometer, or simply a watch. Basically, an anachronism is where some terms or words are used out of place or time for what really should be used in that context. A true anachronism would be something like a digital watch on an actor being filmed for a 1970’s era movie.

Are there anachronisms in the Bible? Well, yes and no; there are, in one sense, and not in another. Sometimes there is an emendation of a text to help explain more to a reader, but it doesn’t replace an original entry. Does that mean it is not reliable or no longer true? Not at all.

There were times when a scribe, reviewing some text of the scripture scratched his head at some reference, realizing that when others read this they would not relate it to anything of which they had any knowledge. So, the scribe would place a phrase or term into the text to add a timely explanation. Geographical place names are instances of this.

For example, in the beginning of Exodus, we read “Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with  their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Raamses.” Exodus 1:11

Now, this can be demonstrated to be an anachronism. The existence of the cities Pithom and Raamses was later than the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt should be dated. Because of what archeologists know about these cities in the delta of the Nile, they date the time of the exodus at about 1200 BC, at the time of Raamses II. Archaeology finds no mention of Moses, or the Israelites at this time in Egyptian history. Because of this, many archaeologists doubt the exodus ever actually happened, and that the Israelites evolved from the Canaanite people within the borders of Israel.

However, fairly recent discoveries over the past twenty years or so have shown sites of other cities underneath the strata, several hundred years older than Pithom and Raamses, one called Avaris, and they appear to have had a significant population of semitic people there, and the population suddenly left.

When the original text was written, it more than likely just read, “They built for Pharaoh supply cities.” After many years, when the memory of those cities’ names was fading, some scribes placed the names of Pithom and Raamses into the text to preserve the location current to their knowledge.

Sip on this straw

But back to this issue of camels in Canaan in Abraham’s time. It is my opinion this is NOT an anachronism. The whole weight of this argument goes like this:

1. There is no fossil evidence for camels being domesticated or used in day-to-day life in Canaan during the period of the Patriarchs (Abraham to Jacob).
2. The stories of the Patriarchs mention the use of camels.
3. Therefore the Patriarchs, if they ever existed, never used camels.
4. Therefore the mention of them in Genesis is an anachronism.
5. Therefore the Bible is (once again!) proved irrelevant and unreliable.

This argument falls apart when we simply explain why the mention of camels in the accounts of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not an anachronism. You don’t have to be an archaeologist to do this.

The camel breaks this straw’s back

First of all, it is understandable that the ancient Canaanites did not have camels. They were farming people, mostly. They raised crops and herded sheep, and so forth. They used donkeys for transportation. They would have no use for camels, and they probably couldn’t afford them.

Abraham on the other hand, was not a native to Canaan, but a nomadic immigrant from further northeast, Ur of the Chaldees. And what did he have to travel through to get from Ur to Canaan? You guessed it: desert.  What did they use to get across a desert? Right again! Camels. Camels were domesticated in the Arabian peninsula around 3000 B.C. and in the Mesopotamian region by 2500 B.C., so they were available to Abraham for his journey to the Promised Land.

The main point here is that one man or family emigrating into Canaan from northern Syria is not going to get any notice in the fossil record of the day-to-day life of the patriarchal Canaanites. Most of the things you find in archaeological sites are very commonly-used items.

Take for example our beloved Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Now just by observation, we can see the majority of cars used in the Twin Cities do not include Lamborghinis. In fact, if you went to all the car recycling centers around town, you probably would not find a single Lamborghini rusting away in their yards. Now the reason is obvious. Hardly anyone in the Twin Cities can afford a Lamborghini. But rest assured there is at least one Fortune 500 company executive living in the Twin Cities who owns a Lamborghini.

In that same way, you won’t find any archeological evidence for Abraham and his sons using camels around 2500 B.C., because they had such a small footprint during their sojourns in Canaan. Abraham’s use of camels is justifiable and not anachronistic.

God Speaks Using -- a Pair of Dirty Underwear?

For as the sash clings to the waist of a man, so I have caused the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah to cling to Me.

Perhaps this sounds strange. But there are many passages of Scripture that speak of certain unpleasant things, only the translators have been discreet in their choice of words to make things more presentable, especially considering public reading.

Even the scholars of the Septuagint were apt to do the same. Consider this verse from the Psalms:
“Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see; And make their loins shake continually.”
Psalm 69:23

Now this is how it reads in the Hebrew text. But the Septuagint, as quoted by Paul, says:
“Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, And bow down their back always.”

Now you might not think that is an accurate translation, nor even idiomatic equivalency, but it is an inventive way of being more discreet in saying about the same thing. Those translators used a symptom of the original words. I mean, guys, what would you be doing if your loins were shaking continually?

Anyway, before I get even more long-winded away from my topic, let me direct you to the passage in question.

Jeremiah 13: 1 - 11.

Just to make sure, I will paste the whole passage to encourage you to read all of it.

Jer.13.1-11 NKJV “Thus the Lord said to me: “Go and get yourself a linen sash, and put it around your waist, but do not put it in water.” So I got a sash according to the word of the Lord , and put it around my waist. And the word of the Lord came to me the second time, saying, “Take the sash that you acquired, which is around your waist, and arise, go to the Euphrates, and hide it there in a hole in the rock.” So I went and hid it by the Euphrates, as the Lord commanded me. Now it came to pass after many days that the Lord said to me, “Arise, go to the Euphrates, and take from there the sash which I commanded you to hide there.” Then I went to the Euphrates and dug, and I took the sash from the place where I had hidden it; and there was the sash, ruined. It was profitable for nothing. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Thus says the Lord : ‘In this manner I will ruin the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. This evil people, who refuse to hear My words, who follow the dictates of their hearts, and walk after other gods to serve them and worship them, shall be just like this sash which is profitable for nothing. For as the sash clings to the waist of a man, so I have caused the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah to cling to Me,’ says the Lord , ‘that they may become My people, for renown, for praise, and for glory; but they would not hear.’”

So Jeremiah was commanded to do a rather odd thing. Buy a sash, wear it all the time and don't ever wash it.

If you are not familiar with Jeremiah or other prophets, you would be interested to know that similar strange instructions were given to them. Such things as walking around naked, digging holes in walls, laying on one side for days while cooking food over a fire fueled by burning dung, and naming their kids' names more weird than Moon Unit, they were commanded to do, to mention a few. The purpose God had in all these and similar things was to illustrate the message to the people through the experience of the prophet, and so the prophet could be an emotional and empathic conduit for God's message.

This one request seems rather tame when you first read it, especially with our antiseptic translations. But if you look up other translations and do a word study of the term used here for sash, you can get the idea that it was more than just a belt or fanny pack.

In fact, the word actually means a loincloth. Back then they used these to gird up their privates, and in some really non-developed cultures today they may still use loincloths. Today’s equivalent would be a pair of underwear.

Knowing that, reconsider God's command to Jeremiah. He wanted him to put on a pair of underwear, keep wearing it, and never wash it! “Thanks, Lord,” Jerry said,  “that’s just what I need! I already am a menace and an annoyance to everyone in Jerusalem. Now I need to be stinky, too? Alright, what’s the reason for all this?”

Of course, the Lord had a very good reason for this. As the passage above states, God wanted to show  the Jews how He designed his relationship with them to be. “I have caused the whole house of Israel and Judah to cling to Me, just like this loincloth.” But it wasn’t a clean one, if you noticed, even before Jeremiah went and hid it away.

“Oh, my!” you exclaim, “That must mean God accepts me just as I am, even though I am all dirty and smelly with all my sin, that I have not stopped doing!"

No, that is not at all what God is saying. Keep in mind, in what Jeremiah did, he symbolized God and his loincloth represented the people of Israel and Judah. So whatever got the loincloth “dirty,” when it was on his body, came from the one it was clinging to, in other words, God. Umm, would that be sin? I don’t think so.

You see, this whole bit Jeremiah went through was an illustration of God's intimacy with the people of Israel, or at least the intimacy he wished for. So let’s take the idea one step further.

What is the most personal article of clothing you wear day in and day out? (And I am sorry if this seems to get a bit TMI.) Most of us would answer, of course, our underwear. What are the particulars about that? Well, you can safely say that whatever you experience through your day, your underwear is right there with you. It absorbs any sweat you give off, and takes on evidence of all of your private functions—everything. Now you are used to making sure you have a clean pair every day, but what would happen if you wore the same pair for a whole week? Perhaps it might get a little clingy. One thing’s for sure, it would certainly reflect you. Any forensics expert would be able to analyze it and say, “This has you all over it!”

“For as the sash clings to the waist of a man, so I have caused the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah to cling to Me,” says the Lord, “that they may become My people, for renown, for praise, and for glory; but they would not hear.”

So, what does God really want? He wants us to cling to a true relationship with Him, just as close and constant as that pair of underwear. Whatever He may do, His “sweat” should be absorbed by us. And it should show when others look at us, or observe our lives. Are we close enough to God to know what He feels about what’s going on around us? Are we willing to be that close? That’s what He’s always wanted of you and me.

Look how He has been disappointed so much in the past. He’s been overlooked, ignored, rejected and refused.

Let us not continue to contribute to God’s pain, but be ones close to Him to make Him happy.