First, the issue of camels in Genesis is nothing new. The
apparent domestication of camels in Gen 24 is a detail that has solicited
commentary for generations. However, for the purposes of this post, I want to
move beyond “camels in Genesis” in order to discuss something more fundamental.
And no...I do not want to come at this from the evangelical stance of "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Such stance is common amongst evangelicals, and it has already been taken by Darrell Bock. Read it here.
As I just stated, the researchers are flaunting their data as proof that 1) the
text’s historicity is flawed and 2) the text is late. Are these claims warranted?
Is this an isolated instance, or grounds for a sweeping generalization against
the credibility of the Bible (which appears to be an unstated implication)?
Let us first tackle the idea of the text’s “late
composition.” What one must first understand is that literacy and literary
composition assumed a different set of rules in antiquity. So much so, that if
you or I were transported to that context, we would be perplexed. Furthermore,
a “textual revolution” did not occur in ancient Israel until Iron Age II (~ the
end of the eleventh century or early tenth century). This means that the
earliest traditions of the Old Testament, and the Patriarchal narratives are one
of them, were likely not written (at least with any fervency) until Iron
Age II. So, the researchers claim that the texts were written late does not
bother me. In fact, they are probably correct. The Patriarchal narratives were
probably not textually preserved until a few hundred years after the
fact.
Granted this position, other questions naturally follow.
If a tradition was not immediately preserved textually, does it undermine the
credibility of its testimony? Is its historicity brought into question, and
does an apparent anachronism constitute an “error” that compromises the Bible’s
credibility? These are loaded questions. To answer them one must begin by
remembering the human dimension of Scripture. Indeed, I believe that Scripture
is God’s revelation to humanity, but it is God’s revelation to humanity through
humanity. God chose to divulge his revelation through conscious, ancient
writers. Consequently, these people not only utilized the literary conventions
of their day, but they also may have succumbed in places to the finitude of
humanity. The occasional anachronism is one such example. Yet more to the
point, an anachronism referring to a secondary detail of the narrative, which
is what this camel thing is, does not warrant the posture that Genesis’
credibility has been compromised.
Kenton Spark a few years ago published God’s Words in
Human Words. In my opinion, this is a must-read for all evangelical
graduate students, or anyone else who wants mental exercise. While I do not
espouse everything that Sparks says, I fully appreciate his emphasis that
because God’s revelation came through humanity there are a set of dynamics that
have to be weighed when evaluating the witness of Scripture, which include
ancient contexts, ancient literary conventions, and the principle of
accommodation. Moreover, it is my conviction that an assessment of Scripture’s
credibility, historical veracity, or anything similar cannot come from the assessment
of secondary details in isolated episodes. It must arise from something more
nuanced, which includes the intention of the text/author in accord with ancient
literary canons. 