One Man and the missing Camels?

[TMC]

Okay. So you don’t have to have this literal view? How could you trust it to be true?

Catholics are not “fundamentalists”. Did Abraham own camels long before anyone else in his area? Probably not. Did some copying scribe, oral historian or redactor along the way misunderstand, mistranslate, or otherwise mistakenly insert “camel”? Probably. Does any of that matter to either faith or the meaning of these scriptures - absolutely not.

 

[Pathway2]

but how? Should we read it as a theological truth.

 

[TMC]

but how. Should we read it as a theological truth.

I don’t see any theological meaning to Abraham’s livestock. Or do you mean scripture more generally? Here is a link to the Pontifical Biblical Commission website: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_doc_index.htm

The Catechism also teaches on this (more briefly), here is one of the more relevant sections: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM

 

[angel12]

Should we read it as a theological truth.

Why would the species of pack animal he used be “theological truth?”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If you actually read the rest of the references posted in this thread by other people, you’ll see that there is scholarly debate over the issue of when camels came to Israel and what camels were used for. Unfortunately, the news article you posted gives one set of scholarly findings like they are the absolute truth. You shouldn’t just rely on one source for your knowledge about an issue.

And, as angel12 said, I’m failing to see what this entire camel issue has to do with “theological truth”. Clearly Abraham used some kind of pack animal, but whether it was a camel or a donkey doesn’t have anything to do with the main point of Abraham’s story, which is his relationship with God. It’s like you’re missing the whole forest while you’re looking at a tree, or in this case, a camel.

 

[Mintaka]

Finding large numbers of camel bones requires finding a settlement where camels exist in large numbers, and where the camel bones are discarded instead of being ‘used up.’ For example, diseased camels, camels considered non-kosher, or camels sacrificed to gods that had bones burnt.

The Israelites do not seem to have sacrificed camels or eaten camels much, after the Exodus and kosher rules, but they seem to have had no problem with camel soup before then. If you cook the whole camel and gives the soupbones to the dogs after making broth or stock from them, what amount of bones are left for the midden?

And there were no permanent settlements until rather late in time. Abraham was a nomad. He seems to have improved some campsites, but that is about it. A midden/ garbage pit would be in a different spot every time.

So an absence of camel bones does not prove much about the absence or presence of camels.

OTOH, if you have literary evidence for camels, and you have a nomad who comes from a place with camels and who travels around countries that have camels, it is reasonable to assume that the literary evidence is not wrong.

 

[Pathway2]

but wouldn’t there be mummified camels/camel remains in Egypt even before Abraham arrived there? I view the certain parts of the bible is allegory and poetry ect. now as allogory but this could be a good question to look at.

 

[Gorgias]

Camels were domesticated 10th century BC

No, that’s not what the article you cite actually says. It says, “[l]arge quantities of camel bones appear only in the levels dated from the last third of the 10th century through the 9th century B.C.”

So… couldn’t there have been relatively small numbers of camels owned by relatively few wealthy families, prior to the widespread introduction of domesticated camels in the 9th century B.C.? If not, then why not?

Did Abraham own camels long before anyone else in his area? Probably not.

This is gonna be fun. OK, then: how do you reason to this conclusion?

but wouldn’t there be mummified camels/camel remains in Egypt even before Abraham arrived there?

What does that have to do with the question at hand (namely, the date of the arrival of domesticated camels in the Levant)?

 

[TMC]

This is gonna be fun. OK, then: how do you reason to this conclusion?

What do you take to be “fun” - I suppose you are convinced you are smarter than I and will enjoy proving me wrong?

I say probably not because the best science says that camels likely did not exist in that area in that time. Of course, the term “probably” leaves some room for the possibility, but I think it unlikely. Why do you think that is incorrect?

 

[dochawk]

Leaving aside that camels were a useful source of transportation, and would have a small presence long before generally present, and would seem to be a likely thing for a traveller to pick up if he needed to go home a long ways off . . .

Camels do get around. They were actually introduced to Nevada in the gold rush, with the reasoning that they were a desert beast of burden, and we had a lot of desert.

As it turned out, they’re a royal pain, and just not worth dealing with in an environment where horses are can option.

Eventually, we let them all go, but they are known to have had at least two generations of wild-born offspring. They haven’t been sighted in something like a century, and are believed to have died off. (the descendants of the escaped horses, however, are alive and well [except when they over-breed past the forage available], and have an extremely potent lobby . . .)

hawk

 

[adgloriam]

The things i learn on caf…

 

[dochawk]

[the warm feeling from knowing that, from my efforts, another person will not be tempted to buy a camel]

:crazy_face:

 

[Dan_Defender]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6035113.stm
Giant camel fossil found in Syria
Archaeologists have discovered the 100,000-year-old fossilised remains of a previously unknown giant camel species in Syria

 

[Gorgias]

What do you take to be “fun” - I suppose you are convinced you are smarter than I and will enjoy proving me wrong?

Nah. It just seems like your assertion isn’t going to have much meat behind it, and it will be interesting to see how you support your claim. We’ll see…

I say probably not because the best science says that camels likely did not exist in that area in that time.

I’m assuming you’re going from a source similar to the OP’s? If so, then that’s not at all what they said. What they did say was that the evidence of large-scale camel use as beast of burden at a particular site (within the Levant) doesn’t appear until the 9th century B.C. That doesn’t rule out small-scale usage prior to that time, nor use by nomads (as mentioned upthread by @Mintaka).

So… no. I don’t think you can even say “probably not”, let alone “unlikely.” To say that they weren’t present at all isn’t what anyone is saying, and is what is unlikely. The reason the peninsula is such hotly contested territory, historically speaking, is that it’s a trade route. Even if the inhabitants weren’t using camels, it’s unlikely that all traders likewise weren’t, especially given the attestations of the presence of camels in their locales.

[the warm feeling from knowing that, from my efforts, another person will not be tempted to buy a camel]

LOL!