Camels and Inerrancy

Recently two professors from Tel-Aviv University issued a press release in response to their Carbon-14 analysis of some old camel bones. In that release, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen declare a couple things. First, the domestication of the camel in ancient Israel did not happen until the first millennium BCE. Therefore, the details of Genesis 24 (and a few other passages), which describe domesticated camels, miss the mark. Second, this anachronism is proof that the text (presumably of Genesis) was compiled late and its historicity questionable. To make things more interesting are the headlines referencing Ben-Yosef’s and Sapir-Hen’s release. For example, “Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say.” Such headlines set the table for some passionate responses.

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.

I do not believe that the Bible errs. It communicates what it intends, and it makes no mistake. This is why I freely use the term inerrant when describing Scripture. However, the trick is figuring out what is the intention of communication. Indeed, at times this is hard, for it requires navigating the literary-historical chasm that separates the modern reader from the ancient writer.

Graduate Education and Financial Sense

Over the past week or so, I got my hands on two interesting pieces of information. The first was a jobs report released by the Society of Biblical Literature (one of the premier societies devoted to biblical scholarship in the world). Among other things, it declared that the jobs market for biblical scholars was stabilizing around 2004-05 levels. Indeed, this is not the level just before the bottom dropped out of the economy in 2008-09, which effectively terminated over night every job search for 2 years and almost caused the world to stop spinning. But at least the report used "stabilize." Here's to small victories...

The other piece of information was a short article written by Audrey William June and published on chronicle.com. You can find it here. June's article communicated the findings of Karen Kelsky's "PhD Debt Survey," which solicited testimonials from PhDs or aspiring PhDs regarding their accumulated debt.


YIKES!


...and remember, student loans are exempt from bankruptcy claims!

One of the questions that June asks is whether borrowing is inevitable. June suggests it is. I would certainly agree...to an extent. I have often said that specialized education will likely require borrowing of some sort. However, I also firmly believe that it can be offset by working while you attend school. And before you say something like, "I need to focus on my grades," I do not buy it. I am sorry. There is no reason why a graduate/post-graduate student who is capable of working should not work at least a part-time job to minimize the amount of money borrowed. When I was in my post-graduate program, I looked for every opportunity to reduce rent and make a few hundred dollars a week. At points, I was working up to 40 hours per week while attending post-graduate school. Sure it was hard, and it produced a lot of long nights. But I am here to tell you that it was worth it.

All of this brings me to another small issue I had with June's article. Kelsky interprets her data and concludes that family money or a benefactor is the way to avoid debt. That June does not disagree suggests that she agrees, at least up to a certain point. However, I disagree with the  notion that a debt-free education presupposes outside money. Undoubtedly, outside money helps, but working on the side as much as possible and reducing your living expenses also helps. Again, I am convinced of this because of personal experience. I worked my tail off during graduate and post-graduate school and graduated debt-free. It was hard and it took sacrifices from my wife and I, but that albatross is no longer around my neck.

It has been said that student loans are the next bubble to burst. If more and more people file for loan forgiveness, as Kelsky's survey suggests, that bubble will burst. However, graduate and post-graduate school need not be anyone's "big mistake." What I tell people is that is has the potential to be one of your greatest experiences of your life. But if you do not plan for it financially, it could ultimately become your greatest regret. Therefore, what students must do is sit down before they take the plunge--sit down and think. Think hard, and think long! One of the most important considerations is an assessment of your projected salary against your expected debt. If it is not financially feasible, do not take on the debt! Quite frankly, the only people who should rack up six figure school debt are doctors and lawyers...not professors or clergymen or women.

For evangelicals, there is another very real and very critical dynamic that must be considered when making a financial assessment. We believe in a "calling to serve," and this conviction may cut across all signs of logic. However, we cannot just accept our belief in a calling to be the trump card. A calling must be reinforced. In other words, if you are convinced that God is calling you to service that requires graduate school or post graduate school, and you realize that this path may set you up for some potentially negative financial repercussions (i.e. significant debt), you must seek council from mentors and other members of the Christian community, which will in turn provide the reinforcement that you need. At the very least, you must seek ways to minimize debt, often through scholarships and working.

Graduate and post-graduate school is not easy, and the financial repercussions can be devastating. I say these things because in my experience the tough financial discussions are not discussed among Evangelicals who "set off to graduate school because God has called me to be an X, Y, or Z." Too often people just jump in, sign up for loans, and retreat behind the mantra that "God will provide." Indeed, God provides, but this reality does not excuse us from having very serious financial discussions. Do not become another of Kelsky's statistics, and I believe that this begins with understanding that a calling to serve the Kingdom of God is more fluid than first thought. Perhaps this is where advice should begin. 

More on the Annihilation of the Egyptian and Neo-Assyrian Armies…

Okay…so now I am finally ready to finish my postings on the annihilation of the Egyptian and Neo-Assyrian armies. Forgive me, as there have been a couple other posts in between. First, I wanted to push my newly published book review in JESOT (…I mean who wouldn’t?). Then came the Robertson controversy. However, now we are back!

In my previous post, I drew attention to 7 points of contact between the narratives that recount two of the greatest Israelite military victories. Those points of contact range from the semantic, to historical, to thematic. I suggested that when viewed together, as a whole (synergism), they point to a fascinating literary connection. I want to unpack the nature of that connection here.

I believe that the literature is suggesting a typological relationship between these events—that the writer of Kings presented the event of Neo-Assyria’s failed siege of Jerusalem in a manner that would encourage his readers to invoke the memories of Israel’s victory of Egypt for context and significance. Let’s briefly look at Michael Fishbane’s methodological framework (See his work, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Claredon Press: Oxford, 1988, Reprint, 2004).

Fishbane argues that inner-biblical typology is “a literary-historical phenomenon which isolates perceived correlations between specific events, person, or places early in time with their later correspondents” (351). Such a relationship “celebrates new historical events insofar as they can be correlated with older ones as a disclosure of the plentitude and mysterious workings of divine activity in history” (352). According to Fishbane, syntactical and lexical features most clearly set off such a connection, but ultimately the content of the relationship most appropriately signals and defines the typology. Assuming this scheme in the example offered here, the typology is ops the historical type as it correlates two events within Israel’s history—the annihilation of the Egyptian and Assyrian armies. More specifically, it is a retrojective historical typology as the prototype event provides the framework for the antitype’s presentation and interpretation. In other words, the Exodus narrative, the prototype, provides the intellectual and theological framework within which the Kings narrative, the antitype, is presented and understood.

I believe that this explains the numerous points of connection observed between the two narratives, particularly the distinct usage of the verb ידע that is relatively foreign to the books of Kings. The writer wants his readers to realize that the annihilation of the Neo-Assyrian army is more than just a salvific event along the historical continuum of the Lord’s people. Rather, Jerusalem’s salvation is another foundational moment for Israelite history whereby the Lord displays his mighty protection of his people.

Yet, the nuances of this correlation appear to go deeper. If you recall in the previous post, in the Exodus narrative the substantiation for salvation is rooted in the self-glorification of the Lord (Ex 14:4, 7). In the Kings narrative, the salvation is also rooted in the glorification of the Lord (2 Kgs 19:19). However, in the case of the Kings narrative the substantiation for Jerusalem’s salvation is also rooted in David’s legacy. According to 2 Kgs 19:34, which is contextualized in an oracle that is given in response to Hezekiah’s prayer (2 Kings 19:14-19), the Lord declares that he will protect the city for his sake and “for the sake of David” his servant. Hezekiah anchors his appeal for salvation in the character of the Lord, and the Lord vows to oblige his request, but in doing so, the Lord acknowledges that the salvation of Jerusalem is equally substantiated by the legacy of David.

Consequently, the correlation between narratives testifies to continuity and development. The God who protected their ancestors still protects them, even from the world’s most formidable military powers. Yet the community has evolved, and the Davidic dynasty has become a foundational component that defines their relationship with the Lord.

So are there any further implications for this proposal? I believe that there are. Indeed, the comments that ensue will open the door to a more robust and complicated discussion, which is for another time. However, if this proposal has merit, then it is another example of why scholarship needs to reconsider the nature and extent of Israel’s grand historical narrative that was composed during the latter portion of Iron Age II.

Ever since the late Frank Moore Cross and his students (namely Richard Nelson) proposed the so-called double redaction theory for the Deuteronomistic History, it has been commonplace for scholars to view the confines of Israel’s pre-exilic, grand historical narrative in terms of (some form of) Deuteronomy to (some form of) 2 Kings. Only later in the exilic and post-exilic period was this historical narrative redacted, eventually taking on the shape that you and I recognize. However, there have always been those who recognize the similarities of the Deuteronomistic material and some of the traditions in the Pentateuch, and biblical scholarship over the past couple of decades has seen the rise of arguments for an Ennateuch as the confines for Israel’s grand historical narrative (i.e. from Genesis-2 Kings). One very interesting theory that is rethinking the record of Israel’s historical accounts comes from Konrad Schmid, who essentially argues for two Israelite historical traditions that were amalgamated in the Persian Period (Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Trans. byJames D. Nogalski; Siphrut 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010).

One of Schmid’s historical traditions is called the Moses Story, which spans (some form of) Exodus to (some form of 2 Kings). I find this intriguing, particularly to make sense of the typology that I am proposing above. [In addition, we also have the weird notation of Hezekiah’s destruction of the Nehushtan in 2 Kgs 18:4 that is left without an antecedent if one assumes the traditional confines of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings.] Could it be that the Hezekian edition of Israel’s national history transcended the boundaries of Deuteronomy-2 Kings to include elements of the Pentateuchal traditions? [Yes…I am a proponent of the view that Hezekiah’s tenure as Judah’s king saw the extensive composition of literature, including some type of a “Hezekian history.”]

I think so…perhaps…