Introduction: Camels that DO hold water

In my time on online forums, I have been routinely challenged by skeptics and atheists alike to demonstrate the credibility of the Bible. Of course, these skeptics have already typically been aware of some of the more theologically liberal works that have challenged the credibility of Scripture.

At times, objections come along the lines of the zombified interpretation theory known as JEDP Theory (a.k.a., “Documentary Hypothesis”). One of the best defenses of JEDP Theory ironically comes from archaeology minimalist Israel Finkelstein, in the book The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.

Having read most to all of The Bible Unearthed and already having dismissed JEDP theory as being ad hoc, as well as having already been aware of a vast amount of archaeological findings supporting Biblical details, Finkelstein’s book seemed to me to be already outdated. And that only 13 years after it was written!

Actually, though, a small part of the book itself was actually false when written, and demonstrably so. For example, we in the apologetics community in 2014 dealt with, say, the issue of Abraham and the camels. The findings related to this issue, as it concerned the archaeological community, well, let’s just say that, apparently, many in the community apparently ignored or were otherwise unaware of the findings. And this for decades after the findings had demonstrated the plausibility of camels being present during the years and regions in which Abraham is supposed to have lived!

In February 2014, the mainstream media echoed and parroted the words of an archaeologist who declared that Abraham simply could not have had camels because such camels would not have been available to him at the time. News agencies from the U.S. (Fox News), Britain (Daily Mail), and New Zealand picked up the story. Interestingly enough, Fox News was one of the most objective in reporting the story, giving the implication of mainly reporting what the archeologist said as being what he said.

Still, this was not news, except for the shock value interest. That view was not new to the archaeological community.

Thanks to JSTOR, however, one can note that back in the middle and late middle of the 20th century, a few scholars (Joseph P. Free and M. Ripinski) were already aware of evidence for camels in the years and regions in which Abraham reportedly lived (or even prior to that time!). But what dates are we talking about concerning this findings? 1944 and 1985. And yet, even in 2001 (i.e., Israel Finkelstein) and in 2014 (i.e., Erez Ben-Yosef), we still had archaeologists denying the plausibility of the accessibility and or use of camels in Abraham’s lifetime.

While one commentator did question one of the several pieces of evidence put forth for this, much of the rest of the archaeological community seemed silent on the issue. (This is not to say that they were silent on their views concerning camels, however. As Peter Rowley-Conwy noted, ancient camel remains in Egypt “are remarkably rare” and difficult to come by, for whatever reason.)

Now, admittedly, one ought not to then jump on the other side of the spectrum and claim that camels were plentiful. Doubtless, the passages mentioning all of the livestock of Abraham in some sense would have suggested that Abraham was a man of means—a wealthy man in his lifetime. Camels may have been a status symbol at that time, at least among travelers. Moreover, it is of note that the evidence suggests dromedary (single-hump) camels were present.

The First Way of Building Credibility

But this discussion all brings us to the first way to build credibility in Scripture. Yes, that’s right. Let’s just go the traditional route on this one and say archaeological confirmations. My fellow CAA member Mark McGee has written blog articles about the wealth of archaeological findings supporting Scripture in his series, “Convince Me There’s a God – Archaeology.” McGee has made over 20 articles in this series, some more directly relevant than others, but there is still quite a bit of good info there.

The Hittites. King David. Baruch. The list goes on and on and on, just like tunes of Don’t Stop Believin’ by Journey.

Although archaeology has its limits, and particular findings give evidence at different levels, archaeology is one of those fields that has time and time again confirmed Biblical details, from the lifetime of Abraham onward, at least.

The Second Way of Building Credibility

The second way? The so-called “Undesigned Coincidences.” The second major way of building credibility comes from a conclusion that I made after examining the Argument from Undesigned Coincidences, as well as other arguments and historical context details.

I soon came to recognize that Undesigned Coincidences, when properly defined, are vastly more important than they appear to be at first glance. At first glance, Undesigned Coincidences appear to simply demonstrate that different sources have independent information. However, when applied in the contexts of text analysis, and when fully demonstrated as an argument, Undesigned Coincidences offer something totally more advantageous.

This is because Undesigned Coincidences can do more than simply demonstrate independent information. They can actually, when put together, substantiate the use of multiple attestation between documents. (Now, one may need more than mere Undesigned Coincidences alone, but the argument is workable.)

What this means is that, in light of the presence of Undesigned Coincidences done in such a configuration as to make documents mutually explanatory….

If undesigned coincidences do form such a configuration, then multiple attestation is allowed for the documents in question.

What this means is that one can build a case for the credibility of the Gospel accounts starting at undesigned coincidences and moving outward. And if this is the case, then as it concerns the Four traditional Gospel accounts, multiple attestation confirms a litany of details in the Gospel accounts. We therefore would also be better to take the Four Traditional Gospel accounts as being four separate documents. With Undesigned Coincidences and Multiple Attestation in place, one can then proceed to the other criteria-satisfaction arguments.

The Third Way of Building Credibility

This brings us to the third way of building Bible credibility. This involves prophecy fulfillment, but put under a criteria-satisfaction argument. This sort of argument also qualifies as an argument for theism. But more specifically, since the prophecies come in a particular religious tradition context, that religious tradition also is demonstrated through the fulfilled prophecies.

Each fulfilled prophecy (if it meets the criteria) can then be counted as evidence for both theism and the particular religious tradition of the prophet. What this means is that an Evidential Apologetics argument can be made out of an argument from prophecy.

But there is much more to this than what first meets the eye. Prophecy stands as one of the ways to demonstrate theism in a way that many other arguments just don’t stack up with.

Conclusion: Cart Before the Camel?

Okay, so now that I’ve given conclusions before actually demonstrating them, perhaps your interest has been aroused a bit in these topics. Hopefully, time will be gracious enough for me to elaborate about this more. Later.

Recommended References, Archaeology:

1. Michael Ripinsky. “The Camel in Dynastic Egypt.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 71, pages 134-141. Egypt Exploration Society, 1985. Accessed 2014. Web.

2. Joseph P. Free. “Abraham’s Camels.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, pages 187-193. University of Chicago Press, Jul. 1944. http://www.jstor.org/stable/542916. Accessed 2014. Web.

3. Peter Rowley-Conwy. “The Camel in the Nile Valley: New Radiocarbon Accelerator (AMS) Dates from Qaṣr Ibrîm.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 74, pages 245-248. Egyptian Exploration Society, 1988. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3821774. Accessed 2014. Web.

4. Christian Apologetics Alliance internal discussions in social media forums. Quotes omitted in accordance with CAA policy.

5. Werner Keller. The Bible as History.**

6. Fox News, Daily Mail, and New Zealand Herald articles concerning Erez Ben-Yosef‘s position on the topic of Abraham and the camels. (Note, I am not responsible for news agencies pulling down their own articles, as some do after some time has elapsed. These articles were from Feb. 2014.)

Really, I’m going to stop here, because you probably don’t care to read dozens of recommended references on archaeology. Or do you?

Endnotes:

**I did read this resource, The Bible as History, from my local free public library, which happened to have an excellent (though 1980s) version of it. Some versions of this book that you may find online will lack some valuable features of the book. Buyer beware! Make sure you get a version that includes the photos and diagrams, etc. Unfortunately, at least in the 1980s version, Keller also takes issue with the Abraham and camels debate, apparently not having been aware of the few findings already made by that time. Fortunately, JSTOR has fortunately given people much greater access to important archaeological articles.