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.

The Breath of Life

When we look at the creation of mankind in Genesis, an important aspect of that event discloses a very special insight. Of course, I have to talk about the Hebrew text in particular.

Let’s look at the verse in question.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 2:7

The specific phrase I am focusing on is “the breath of life.” In the Hebrew it is pronounced neesh-maat cha-im. It is a compound noun of two words. Want to guess what they are?

This phrase is not used many times, but it is actually easy to discern the meaning of its context. “The breath of life” is the special thing God imparted to mankind to bring him moral agency and self-awareness. Let’s analyze this verse before going on. A few points are in order.

Perhaps you may recall that with all other aspects of creation, it was done as “God said” and it was so. God apparently made everything outside of himself, very distinctly. The impartation of life to man was different, because it is the only instance mentioned.

The neesh-maat cha-im was something DIRECTLY imparted to man by God. It notes he breathed into man this breath of life. Not until here is such a direct, intimate connection borne between the Creator and his Creation. Scripture is very clear that up to this point, God spoke and it came to be—God’s previous operations were less direct than this.

This phrase is important, and it’s easily distinct from another phrase related to animal life in general. Animals are said to have a “breath of life,” but in Hebrew it is ruach cha-im, and ruach could also be rendered soul, spirit, wind and, in general, air, because ruach can be very broad in its usage and meaning.

But the Bible gives significance to phrases. For example, in the New Testament, Paul uses two specific phrases using the word baptize: one is “baptized into the name of Christ;” the other is “baptized into Christ.” Each has a distinct meaning and refers to different things: the first refers to water baptism; the other refers to an effective result of one’s conversion to Christ.

The same is true about these two phrases: ruach cha-im refers mostly to animal life, and man in general with them as animate life; neesh-maat cha-im refers, I believe, to the life of mankind specifically. I think the context of this can bear this out.

So, the next time this phrase comes up is in Genesis 7:21-23.

And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air.

Now some translations read the 22nd verse as if it applies to all living things on the land. But a case can be made in the Hebrew text for it to read as a parenthesis expanding on the mention of man, something like: “and every man—all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all who were on the dry land—died.”

Here the phrase is compounded with ruach, neesh-maat ruach cha-im.

The point here is that ruach may also apply to man, but neesh-maat (breath of) does not apply to animals. If you would look up all the other uses of this word, breath, you would see it either applies to man or to God.

So, what’s the point or insight of all this? I conclude from the nature of this phrase, and its implication of being God’s direct imparting of spiritual life to man, that that spiritual nature of man is immortal, or eternal. Not in the complete sense as equal to God’s immortality, because God is self-existent and fully eternal (without beginning or end). But mankind is, may I say?, half-eternal. That is, though people have a beginning of life, their spiritual existence will be forever.

There is no other scripture that may explicitly say so, but is there need for more? What, would you say, is the nature of God’s breath? Would it not to some extent have the same essential nature and qualities as God, not in degree but in kind?  These qualities include mind, free will, emotions, as well as immortality. Do you think God can or could or would wipe out his own existence? Can God “stop”  his breath? In the same way, I think, it would be against God’s nature or character to wipe out man’s spiritual existence. Though I would not go so far as to impinge upon God’s omnipotence.

Therefore, I don’t think there is any basis for saying that the immortality of man’s soul is only conditional, or granted on salvation, or that we will be annihilated if we are lost. We each in our conciousness have an eternity to face.

Cain’s Contradiction

And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.

So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

Genesis 4:3-7 (NKJV)

Wait a minute, something in these verses just blew my mind! I mean, something wrong has been said here. I get the feeling that God is misleading Cain, or intentionally giving him wrong information! Or is there some real contradiction going on here? I mean, a contradiction from what I have been always taught in every church and Sunday school, save a very few.

Here is Cain, with a long face, angry heart and feeing rejected, and obviously growing jealous of Abel the more he thinks about this situation. I mean Abel’s offering was accepted, and his was rejected, however the evidence for that bore out to them. That’s not the problem. Well, that’s Cain’s problem; not mine.

Mine is with what God said to Cain before the big first murder. It just doesn’t make sense! Here’s Cain, the very first person recorded that was born from Adam and Eve, right? That is the first person directly born from the first human sinners. What was supposed to have happened after the Fall, and the curse and all that? Well, everyone else after that is supposed to be born sinful, right? I mean, guilty and powerless to do good, right?

So, why is God lying to him? OK, so at least only misleading him into thinking something different! Why is God saying he can either equally do good or do bad? Do well, be accepted, get these good consequences. Do not well, be threatened to be invaded with sin—because, it’s at the door, not in the door, not inside yet, but just at the entrance (they had doors then?). 

Wait a minute! If there was ever a time to set the record straight, it was right then, with the first person to be born from these first sinners, that he was born with a sinful nature, and was guilty, and so forth, passed on to him from his parents. Why didn’t God do that? Instead he misleads Cain into thinking that he could have mastery over sin!

Why didn’t God tell him the plain truth, letting him know that 3,500 years down the road, someone named Augustine would set the record right, informing us that no one born from Adam and Eve has any chance of equally choosing between good and evil, that we can only choose to sin, unless our nature (physical or metaphysical being) gets recreated by God?