Yes, there is positive evidence beyond the text itself. See a sampling here: Theology Network - Biblical Studies - The Factual Reliability of the Old Testament
1 Like
Thatâs a very informative link, @Guy_Coe . Iâm saving that one to study in greater depth.
I was glad to see within it the âanachronistic camelsâ issue. Iâve always found the claim that the patriarchs couldnât have had camels a silly and poorly attested argument. I would agree with said scholars that camels may not have been downright ubiquitous throughout the region during that eraâbut there is no reason to rule out wealthy nomads having purchased them from traders during their travels. I get the impression that camels may have been the Cadillacs (or Lincoln Continentals) of the prosperous long before they were bred to sufficiently great numbers that prices dropped and the average Canaanite could own one.
Iâve grown weary of the all too common assumption among skeptics that the Bible is somehow inferior as an historical text in comparison to all other ancient documents. Why the negative bias? The same people often accept without hesitation anything and everything found in even the most obscure ancient texts.
4 Likes
I found these discussions relevant. Was Socrates a Real Person? and Other Questions â How to Think Like a Roman Emperor
We must be consistent and apply the same standards to all texts. On the one hand, we should not be afraid of what we find if itâs not perfect or inerrant. On the hand, secularists should not be upset if applying the same standards across the board would imply that we should tentatively accept the existence of many biblical figures because we donât have any evidence to the contrary.
I think Enns probably summarizes the âscholarly consensusâ much better than Wikipedia.
Thomas McCall gives an analytic philosopherâs reponse to why any âcritical consensusâ is not the last word. This link, go to p.15.
2 Likes
Page 15, in the foreword by Woodbridge, seems to be missing from the link. Can you supply the quote?
So few seem to have any appreciation of how the âTablet theoryâ approach to the later, compended composition of prior sources by Moses answers so many of the minimalistsâ baseless assertions.
Another worthy link: Theology Network - Theology of Everything - Polemic Theology: How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us and here: Theology Network - Studying Theology+RS - Pentateuchal Studies Today
I was using the pdf numbering! The chpater in question is p33 on book numbering.
The negative bias comes from the ample evidence of politicization of the writings.
The internal evidence for Exodus places it just after the Pelest settle into the Levantine coast - circa 1130 BCE!
The Egyptian Harris Papyrus puts a matching attempt to plunder Egypt which turns into a rout back into Canaan just 30 years PRIOR to the Sea Peoplesâ arrival, say around 1230 BCE!
Any earlier and Exodus becomes impossible.
Yet another attempt foiledâŚ
https://watchjerusalem.co.il/590-camels-proof-that-the-bible-is-false
2 Likes
The first thought that hit me when I saw the â590 camelsâ was a chain-smokerâs weekly quota.
In any case, that is one fascinating article! I plan to delve further into some of its citations. Great stuff.
1 Like
This excerpt sums up my position when I last studied this topic of camels in the Levant.
Because they did not conclusively find evidence of domesticated camel remains earlier than 930 b.c.e., they concluded that camels were not domesticated any earlier than this for the wide Levantine region. This sweeping, sensational conclusion blows the Aravah Valley findings completely out of proportion. To posit that there could not have been any domesticated camels within Canaan or the Levantâthat the Bible is an outright fake, based primarily on findings from limited excavations in a limited areaâis absurd. Evidence shows that camels had been domesticated in surrounding regions for up to 2,000 years prior . It is irrational to conclude that over such a long time period, no domesticated camel or camel herd was ever brought into the Levant. Long-distance trade had already been established. The domestication of these animals in other locations would have been well known to people of the Levant. It would only make sense for them to have done the sameâif on a smaller scale.