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.