Mythological Elements in the Story of Abraham and the Patriarchal Narratives
From obviously mythical characters such as Adam and Eve and Noah we come now
to characters that even the more "liberal" Christians accept as historical.
We will look at the patriarchal narratives, the stories in Genesis about
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.
These characters are accepted as historical primarily because they refer to
elements in their story which seemed historical. Thus we find in the
patriarchal narratives stories relating to domesticated camels, caravan
trade routes, neighboring peoples (Philistines, Ishmaelites etc) and actual
cities (such as Gerar). Certainly some of these, domesticated camels and
camels used as beasts of burdens, can still be seen in the Middle East
today. The neighboring peoples were real and the cities have been found.

It is "historical" elements such as these that separate the stories in the
patriarchal narratives from the myths of many other religions in the region.
Let us see how strong this position is today.


a.. First we note that there is a large gap between the time in which
Abraham supposedly lived and the earliest written accounts about him.
b.. In the patriarchal narratives, we find that there are anachronistic
references to:
a.. domesticated camels
b.. the Arabic camel caravan trade
c.. circumcision
d.. the Philistine city of Gerar
c.. Conclusions

The Large Gap Between Abraham's Life and the Written Account
First we will need to get a firmer date on the earliest possible sources on
the character mentioned in the Pentateuch. We show elsewhere that Moses
could not have written the first five books of the bible; and that, in fact

they were written at a much later date. There is a verse that reveals to us,
the earliest possible date for its composition:
Genesis 36:31
These are the kings who reigned in the land of Eden, before any king
reigned over the Israelites.


It is obvious from the verse above, the author was writing at a time when
the Israelites already had, at least, a king. The first king of the
Israelites was Saul who became king around 1025 BC. [a] Thus the earliest
possible date for the composition of the Pentateuch, or parts of it, would
be the tenth century B.C. Scholars vary in their estimate on exactly when
the oldest portion (called the "J" document) of the source document for
these books was written. Some estimate the document to be written as early
as the tenth century BC (during the reign of Solomon, David's son), while
others estimate it to have been written as late as the sixth century (during
the time of the Babylonian exile). These estimates are not relevant to our
current analysis. The only point worth noting is that the verse above, have
set an upper limit on the date of composition of the Pentateuch. [1]

Now calculating from our table of biblical chronology, Abraham lived around
the twentieth second century BC. (As a mark of the historical uncertainty
surrounding this date, there exist many different estimates for these dates.
Abraham has been estimated to live in the 25th, 21st, and the 16th century
BC; i.e. the estimates fall within a span of 1,000 years! [2]) Taking the
latest estimated dates for these patriarchs and the earliest estimated date
for the composition of the "J" document -in other words the "best case"
scenario for believers- we still have a gap of 600 years between the
"historical" Abraham and his story in Genesis! The historian Robin Lane Fox
(b.1946) has this to say about the effect of this time gap on the
historicity of the Pentateuch:

Its chances of being historically true are minimal because none of
these sources [the source documents for the Pentateuch] was written from
primary evidence or within centuries, perhaps a millennium, of what they
tried to describe. How could an oral tradition have preserved true details
across such a gap? At most, it might remember a great event or new
departure: like... the Israelites Exodus from Egypt...As for...the exploits
of Jacob or Abraham, there is no good reason to believe any of them. [3]


Thus save for very rough social memories of major events or turning points
in the history of these people, we should dismiss all the rest as myths
accreted through the centuries of oral transmission. Note that we are not
simply dismissing the rest as myths without any evidence. In fact in many
cases where references were made to events or things that could be verified
historically, we find the stories in the Bible to be false or anachronistic.
Such is the case with the following examples taken from the patriarchal
narratives.

Back to the top


Anachronism #1: Domesticated Camels
In our first example. note that there are two references to domesticated
camels in the story of Abraham:
Genesis 12:14-16
[W]hen Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that
she was very fair. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her
before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. And he
entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses,
and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.


Genesis 24:10-11
And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and
departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose,
and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor. And he made his camels to
kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening,
even the time that women go out to draw water.


As noted earlier, Abraham's lifetime has been estimated anywhere between the
25th century BC and the 16th century BC. The above passage implies that
camels were already domesticated and in use during that time.

However, based on every other available evidence we have, tame camels were
simply unknown during Abraham's time. Egyptian texts of that era mentioned
nothing of them. Even in Mari; the kingdom that is situated next to the
Arabian deserts; which would have had the greatest use for camels; and of
which archaeologists have a large collection of documents; not a single
mention is made of camels in contemporaneous text.

In fact, it was only in the 11th century BC that references to camels
started to appear in cuneiform texts and reliefs. After the 11th century,
references to camels become more and more frequent. [4] This suggests that
camels were domesticated around the 12th or 11th century BC. [b]

Thus there could have been no domesticated camel during Abraham's lifetime.
It must be, then, that the above stories are later additions to the legend
of Abraham.

Back to the top


Anachronism #2: The Arabic Camel Caravan Trade
The next anachronism concerns the story of how Joseph's brothers planned to
sell him off to slavery. The brothers initially threw Joseph into a pit
(Genesis 37:22-23). They then left the pit for a while and this is how the
next phase is narrated
Genesis 37:25-28
And they [Joseph's brothers] sat down to eat bread: and they lifted up
their eyes and looked, and, behold, a company of Ishmaelites came from
Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry
it down to Egypt. And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we
slay our brother, and conceal his blood? Come, and let us sell him to the
Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our
flesh. And his brethren were content. Then there passed by Midianites
merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold
Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought
Joseph into Egypt.


Before analyzing further we need to make known some archaeological facts.

In the first place, as we have shown in anachronism #1, camels were not yet
domesticated during that time. Furthermore excavations in the southern
coastal plain of Israel found that camel bones increased dramatically only
in the seventh century BCE. More importantly these bones were of adult
camels, as one would expect of beast of burden used in traveling to
different places. For if they were bred there one would expect to find a
scattering of young camel bones as well. This means that camels were
commonly used in the caravan trades during that time.

This is further supported by Assyrian sources that mentioned camels being
used as beast of burdens in caravans during that time. The items being
traded, gum, balm and resin, [written as "spicery, balm and myrrh" in the
KJV above] were Arabian exports that were traded commonly only from the
eight and seventh century BCE under the control of the Assyrian empire.

Now on to a bit of chronology. Even if we accept the rather unusually long
ages of the patriarchs, we will see that the incident referred to must have
happened only around 260 after Abraham was born (refer to the biblical
chronology). Thus during the time of Joseph, camels were still not
domesticated, there were still about (at the very best case) another five
hundred years before Arabic (Ishmaelites was the Bible name for Arabs) camel
caravan trade in gum, balm and resin, could be referred to in an "incidental
manner" as above. [5]

Thus the story of Joseph's abduction, specifically the mention of the Arab
camel caravan trade and the Arab traders buying Joseph, is also littered
with anachronisms.

Back to the top


Anachronism #3: Circumcision
The second story from Abraham we will look at is the one regarding the
institution of circumcision.
Genesis 17: 9-11
And God said to Abraham, "...This is my covenant, which you shall
keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among
you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your
foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you."


This is definitely another late accretion to the Abraham legend. We know
that circumcision was widely practiced in ancient times in the fertile
crescent; in particular, the Egyptians and the Canaanites, the people
Abraham would have had most contact with, practiced the rite.

Thus the question arises, how could the act of circumcision be "a sign of
the covenant" between God and Abraham when everyone else is doing it? It was
only during the time of the Babylonian captivity, during the sixth century,
that this custom could have set the Jews apart. For the Babylonians of that
time did not practice circumcision. [6]

Thus, the story of circumcision being a sign of covenant between God and
Abraham is also mythical.


Anachronism #4: The Philistine City of Gerar
Next we discuss an incident from the story of Isaac, son of Abraham:
Genesis 26:1
And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was
in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the
Philistines unto Gerar.


Now Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis 21:5). Thus the
events narrated above happened (if it did happen) somewhere between 24th and
15th century BCE, depending on where Abraham is located in time. (The
Biblical chronology points to 24th century BCE.)

Archaeological evidence shows that the Philistines did not have any
settlements in the coastal plain of Canaan until after 13th century BCE.
Archeological excavation at Gerar (now identified as Tel Haror northwest of
Beersheba) shows that it was no more than a "small, quite insignificant"
village during the initial settlement of the Philistines during the Iron Age
I (1150-900 BCE). Gerar only became a significant city only in the seventh
century BCE.[7]

Thus there would have been no city of Gerar and no king of the Philistines
to meet with Isaac during the historical period in which he would have
lived.

Back to the top


Conclusions on the Patriarchal Narratives
What can we conclude from the above?
Firstly, at the very least, we can conclude that many elements in the
patriarchal narratives are unhistorical. The story of Isaac meeting the
Philistine king in Gerar for instance could not have happened because there
was simply no Philistine settlement in Canaan during that time and Gerar has
not yet existed. The story of how Joseph got shipped to Egypt is in the same
boat (pardon the pun). For there were simply no Arabic camel caravan trade
groups during the time of Joseph.

Secondly, there is a more disturbing (for believers) conclusion. Thomas
Thompson, Professor of Old Testament at the University of Copenhagen, noted
that if the specific references in the patriarchal narratives have been
shown to be anachronistic, then they add nothing to the story; but these
very references were the historical anchors that supposedly rooted the
narratives into history in the first place. Without them how are we to
distinguish the narratives from other completely mythical folk tales?[8]

Back to the top


Notes
a. This verse is taken from the portion of Genesis believed to have
formed part of the original "J" document. The "J' document is generally
believed the be the oldest source documents for the Pentateuch.
b. The general consensus among archaeologist about camels and their
domestication can be summed up by the two quotes: The first quote about the
domestication of camels is from, Lawrence Stager, Dorot Professor of the
Archaeology of Israel and Director of the Semitic Museum at Harvard
University, who had excavated in Israel, Tunisia and Cyprus, in his article
in the recent book Oxford History of the Biblical World (1998):
W.F. Albright's Assessment, based on contemporary texts and
limited faunal remains, that dromedary camels became important to the
caravan trade only towards the final centuries of the second millennium BCE
is still valid.[9]


The second, is from another archaeologist, Wayne T. Pitard of the
University of Illinois, has this to say about camels and their uses :

Scholars have also observed a number of anachronisms in the
stories, another characteristic of oral literature.Camel caravans are
mentioned in Genesis 26 and 37, but camels were probably not used before the
beginning of the iron age (1200 BCE) when Israel was already emerging as a
nation.[10]


Fundamentalist apologists have tried to present this by providing what
they claimed are examples of camel domestication. One such example is this
website. However a close examination of their "evidence" reveals a few fatal
flaws:


a.. Camel bones and artifacts made from camels found in ancient
settlements. These by themselves only show that camel parts were used by the
community. For instance in the website sited, much is made of camel bones
found at Umm an-Nar (Oman) excavation. Yet the fact that dugong (a sea cow)
bones were found at the same location is ignored. Nobody would suggests that
finding the sea cow bones in the settlements indicate that they were
domesticated! (A good write up on the Umm an-Nar finds can be found here.
This website correctly summarized the archaeological evidence favors a late
second millennium date for the domestication of dromedary (i.e. one hump)
camels.) Obviously the bones signify the animals were hunted and were eaten
and leftovers used to make rope, tents etc. Thus such evidence does not show
domestication.

b.. Carvings and potteries. Most of the evidence for camel
domestication prior to the end of the second century BCE depends more on the
interpretation of ambiguous carvings and potteries. As the reader can see
from the Christian apologist website referenced above, even drawings that
merely show the camel lying down is taken as "evidence" of domestication!
Animals represented in pottery, carvings of drawings were not exclusively
domesticates. In the Umm an-Nar site, relief drawings include camels, oxen,
oryx and serpents!

c.. The "conclusive evidence" referred to in the website involved
"finds" in the early twentieth century. The two archaeologists referred to,
G. Möller and G. Schweinfurth , were active during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth century! This should give the reader pause. If these early
findings are conclusive that camel domestication stretches to the third
millennium BCE. Why do most archaeologists today still deny this? The reason
is simple, the time of the supposed findings (the early years of the
twentieth century) is marred by poor stratigraphy, inaccurate pottery
chronology and, in the words of the rather conservative archaeologist
William Dever in his book What did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did
they Know it? (Eerdmans, 2001; p56), "[Showed] An almost exclusively .
biblical biases in their work."! Indeed almost all "biblical archaeology"
until around 1970 was dominated by a desire to show that the Bible is true
after all. Most of the archaeological works there were funded by American
Protestant seminaries. (Devers, p57) Any conclusions on dates from findings
that are dated to this time (early years of the twentieth century) has to be
treated as suspect.


References
1. Anderson, A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament: p34
Fox, The Unauthorized Version: p58
Livingstone: Dictionary of the Chrsitian Church: p143
2. Barthel, What the Bible Really Says: p78-79
Stiebing, Out of the Desert: p33
3. Fox, The Unauthorized Version: p176
4. Barthel, What the Bible Really Says: p79
Keller, The Bible As History: p168
5. Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p37
6. Asimov, Asimov's Guide to the Bible: p80
Barthel, What the Bible Really Says: p77-78
Riedel et.al., The Book of the Bible: p205-206

7. Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p37-38
8. Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p38
9. Coogan (ed), Oxford History of the Biblical World : p109
10. Coogan (ed), Oxford History of the Biblical World : p28

Back to the top

Mythological Elements in the Story of Abraham and the Patriarchal Narratives
From obviously mythical characters such as Adam and Eve and Noah we come now
to characters that even the more "liberal" Christians accept as historical.
We will look at the patriarchal narratives, the stories in Genesis about
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.
These characters are accepted as historical primarily because they refer to
elements in their story which seemed historical. Thus we find in the
patriarchal narratives stories relating to domesticated camels, caravan
trade routes, neighboring peoples (Philistines, Ishmaelites etc) and actual
cities (such as Gerar). Certainly some of these, domesticated camels and
camels used as beasts of burdens, can still be seen in the Middle East
today. The neighboring peoples were real and the cities have been found.

It is "historical" elements such as these that separate the stories in the
patriarchal narratives from the myths of many other religions in the region.
Let us see how strong this position is today.


a.. First we note that there is a large gap between the time in which
Abraham supposedly lived and the earliest written accounts about him.
b.. In the patriarchal narratives, we find that there are anachronistic
references to:
a.. domesticated camels
b.. the Arabic camel caravan trade
c.. circumcision
d.. the Philistine city of Gerar
c.. Conclusions

The Large Gap Between Abraham's Life and the Written Account
First we will need to get a firmer date on the earliest possible sources on
the character mentioned in the Pentateuch. We show elsewhere that Moses
could not have written the first five books of the bible; and that, in fact
they were written at a much later date. There is a verse that reveals to us,
the earliest possible date for its composition:
Genesis 36:31
These are the kings who reigned in the land of Eden, before any king
reigned over the Israelites.


It is obvious from the verse above, the author was writing at a time when
the Israelites already had, at least, a king. The first king of the
Israelites was Saul who became king around 1025 BC. [a] Thus the earliest
possible date for the composition of the Pentateuch, or parts of it, would
be the tenth century B.C. Scholars vary in their estimate on exactly when
the oldest portion (called the "J" document) of the source document for
these books was written. Some estimate the document to be written as early
as the tenth century BC (during the reign of Solomon, David's son), while
others estimate it to have been written as late as the sixth century (during
the time of the Babylonian exile). These estimates are not relevant to our
current analysis. The only point worth noting is that the verse above, have
set an upper limit on the date of composition of the Pentateuch. [1]

Now calculating from our table of biblical chronology, Abraham lived around
the twentieth second century BC. (As a mark of the historical uncertainty
surrounding this date, there exist many different estimates for these dates.
Abraham has been estimated to live in the 25th, 21st, and the 16th century
BC; i.e. the estimates fall within a span of 1,000 years! [2]) Taking the
latest estimated dates for these patriarchs and the earliest estimated date
for the composition of the "J" document -in other words the "best case"
scenario for believers- we still have a gap of 600 years between the
"historical" Abraham and his story in Genesis! The historian Robin Lane Fox
(b.1946) has this to say about the effect of this time gap on the
historicity of the Pentateuch:

Its chances of being historically true are minimal because none of
these sources [the source documents for the Pentateuch] was written from
primary evidence or within centuries, perhaps a millennium, of what they
tried to describe. How could an oral tradition have preserved true details
across such a gap? At most, it might remember a great event or new
departure: like... the Israelites Exodus from Egypt...As for...the exploits
of Jacob or Abraham, there is no good reason to believe any of them. [3]


Thus save for very rough social memories of major events or turning points
in the history of these people, we should dismiss all the rest as myths
accreted through the centuries of oral transmission. Note that we are not
simply dismissing the rest as myths without any evidence. In fact in many
cases where references were made to events or things that could be verified
historically, we find the stories in the Bible to be false or anachronistic.
Such is the case with the following examples taken from the patriarchal
narratives.

Back to the top


Anachronism #1: Domesticated Camels
In our first example. note that there are two references to domesticated
camels in the story of Abraham:
Genesis 12:14-16
[W]hen Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that
she was very fair. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her
before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. And he
entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses,
and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.


Genesis 24:10-11
And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and
departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose,
and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor. And he made his camels to
kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening,
even the time that women go out to draw water.


As noted earlier, Abraham's lifetime has been estimated anywhere between the
25th century BC and the 16th century BC. The above passage implies that
camels were already domesticated and in use during that time.

However, based on every other available evidence we have, tame camels were
simply unknown during Abraham's time. Egyptian texts of that era mentioned
nothing of them. Even in Mari; the kingdom that is situated next to the
Arabian deserts; which would have had the greatest use for camels; and of
which archaeologists have a large collection of documents; not a single
mention is made of camels in contemporaneous text.

In fact, it was only in the 11th century BC that references to camels
started to appear in cuneiform texts and reliefs. After the 11th century,
references to camels become more and more frequent. [4] This suggests that
camels were domesticated around the 12th or 11th century BC. [b]

Thus there could have been no domesticated camel during Abraham's lifetime.
It must be, then, that the above stories are later additions to the legend
of Abraham.

Back to the top


Anachronism #2: The Arabic Camel Caravan Trade
The next anachronism concerns the story of how Joseph's brothers planned to
sell him off to slavery. The brothers initially threw Joseph into a pit
(Genesis 37:22-23). They then left the pit for a while and this is how the
next phase is narrated
Genesis 37:25-28
And they [Joseph's brothers] sat down to eat bread: and they lifted up
their eyes and looked, and, behold, a company of Ishmaelites came from
Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry
it down to Egypt. And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we
slay our brother, and conceal his blood? Come, and let us sell him to the
Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our
flesh. And his brethren were content. Then there passed by Midianites
merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold
Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought
Joseph into Egypt.


Before analyzing further we need to make known some archaeological facts.

In the first place, as we have shown in anachronism #1, camels were not yet
domesticated during that time. Furthermore excavations in the southern
coastal plain of Israel found that camel bones increased dramatically only
in the seventh century BCE. More importantly these bones were of adult
camels, as one would expect of beast of burden used in traveling to
different places. For if they were bred there one would expect to find a
scattering of young camel bones as well. This means that camels were
commonly used in the caravan trades during that time.

This is further supported by Assyrian sources that mentioned camels being
used as beast of burdens in caravans during that time. The items being
traded, gum, balm and resin, [written as "spicery, balm and myrrh" in the
KJV above] were Arabian exports that were traded commonly only from the
eight and seventh century BCE under the control of the Assyrian empire.

Now on to a bit of chronology. Even if we accept the rather unusually long
ages of the patriarchs, we will see that the incident referred to must have
happened only around 260 after Abraham was born (refer to the biblical
chronology). Thus during the time of Joseph, camels were still not
domesticated, there were still about (at the very best case) another five
hundred years before Arabic (Ishmaelites was the Bible name for Arabs) camel
caravan trade in gum, balm and resin, could be referred to in an "incidental
manner" as above. [5]

Thus the story of Joseph's abduction, specifically the mention of the Arab
camel caravan trade and the Arab traders buying Joseph, is also littered
with anachronisms.

Back to the top


Anachronism #3: Circumcision
The second story from Abraham we will look at is the one regarding the
institution of circumcision.
Genesis 17: 9-11
And God said to Abraham, "...This is my covenant, which you shall
keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among
you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your
foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you."


This is definitely another late accretion to the Abraham legend. We know
that circumcision was widely practiced in ancient times in the fertile
crescent; in particular, the Egyptians and the Canaanites, the people
Abraham would have had most contact with, practiced the rite.

Thus the question arises, how could the act of circumcision be "a sign of
the covenant" between God and Abraham when everyone else is doing it? It was
only during the time of the Babylonian captivity, during the sixth century,
that this custom could have set the Jews apart. For the Babylonians of that
time did not practice circumcision. [6]

Thus, the story of circumcision being a sign of covenant between God and
Abraham is also mythical.


Anachronism #4: The Philistine City of Gerar
Next we discuss an incident from the story of Isaac, son of Abraham:
Genesis 26:1
And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was
in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the
Philistines unto Gerar.


Now Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis 21:5). Thus the
events narrated above happened (if it did happen) somewhere between 24th and
15th century BCE, depending on where Abraham is located in time. (The
Biblical chronology points to 24th century BCE.)

Archaeological evidence shows that the Philistines did not have any
settlements in the coastal plain of Canaan until after 13th century BCE.
Archeological excavation at Gerar (now identified as Tel Haror northwest of
Beersheba) shows that it was no more than a "small, quite insignificant"
village during the initial settlement of the Philistines during the Iron Age
I (1150-900 BCE). Gerar only became a significant city only in the seventh
century BCE.[7]

Thus there would have been no city of Gerar and no king of the Philistines
to meet with Isaac during the historical period in which he would have
lived.

Back to the top


Conclusions on the Patriarchal Narratives
What can we conclude from the above?
Firstly, at the very least, we can conclude that many elements in the
patriarchal narratives are unhistorical. The story of Isaac meeting the
Philistine king in Gerar for instance could not have happened because there
was simply no Philistine settlement in Canaan during that time and Gerar has
not yet existed. The story of how Joseph got shipped to Egypt is in the same
boat (pardon the pun). For there were simply no Arabic camel caravan trade
groups during the time of Joseph.

Secondly, there is a more disturbing (for believers) conclusion. Thomas
Thompson, Professor of Old Testament at the University of Copenhagen, noted
that if the specific references in the patriarchal narratives have been
shown to be anachronistic, then they add nothing to the story; but these
very references were the historical anchors that supposedly rooted the
narratives into history in the first place. Without them how are we to
distinguish the narratives from other completely mythical folk tales?[8]

Back to the top


Notes
a. This verse is taken from the portion of Genesis believed to have
formed part of the original "J" document. The "J' document is generally
believed the be the oldest source documents for the Pentateuch.
b. The general consensus among archaeologist about camels and their
domestication can be summed up by the two quotes: The first quote about the
domestication of camels is from, Lawrence Stager, Dorot Professor of the
Archaeology of Israel and Director of the Semitic Museum at Harvard
University, who had excavated in Israel, Tunisia and Cyprus, in his article
in the recent book Oxford History of the Biblical World (1998):
W.F. Albright's Assessment, based on contemporary texts and
limited faunal remains, that dromedary camels became important to the
caravan trade only towards the final centuries of the second millennium BCE
is still valid.[9]


The second, is from another archaeologist, Wayne T. Pitard of the
University of Illinois, has this to say about camels and their uses :

Scholars have also observed a number of anachronisms in the
stories, another characteristic of oral literature.Camel caravans are
mentioned in Genesis 26 and 37, but camels were probably not used before the
beginning of the iron age (1200 BCE) when Israel was already emerging as a
nation.[10]


Fundamentalist apologists have tried to present this by providing what
they claimed are examples of camel domestication. One such example is this
website. However a close examination of their "evidence" reveals a few fatal
flaws:


a.. Camel bones and artifacts made from camels found in ancient
settlements. These by themselves only show that camel parts were used by the
community. For instance in the website sited, much is made of camel bones
found at Umm an-Nar (Oman) excavation. Yet the fact that dugong (a sea cow)
bones were found at the same location is ignored. Nobody would suggests that
finding the sea cow bones in the settlements indicate that they were
domesticated! (A good write up on the Umm an-Nar finds can be found here.
This website correctly summarized the archaeological evidence favors a late
second millennium date for the domestication of dromedary (i.e. one hump)
camels.) Obviously the bones signify the animals were hunted and were eaten
and leftovers used to make rope, tents etc. Thus such evidence does not show
domestication.

b.. Carvings and potteries. Most of the evidence for camel
domestication prior to the end of the second century BCE depends more on the
interpretation of ambiguous carvings and potteries. As the reader can see
from the Christian apologist website referenced above, even drawings that
merely show the camel lying down is taken as "evidence" of domestication!
Animals represented in pottery, carvings of drawings were not exclusively
domesticates. In the Umm an-Nar site, relief drawings include camels, oxen,
oryx and serpents!

c.. The "conclusive evidence" referred to in the website involved
"finds" in the early twentieth century. The two archaeologists referred to,
G. Möller and G. Schweinfurth , were active during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth century! This should give the reader pause. If these early
findings are conclusive that camel domestication stretches to the third
millennium BCE. Why do most archaeologists today still deny this? The reason
is simple, the time of the supposed findings (the early years of the
twentieth century) is marred by poor stratigraphy, inaccurate pottery
chronology and, in the words of the rather conservative archaeologist
William Dever in his book What did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did
they Know it? (Eerdmans, 2001; p56), "[Showed] An almost exclusively .
biblical biases in their work."! Indeed almost all "biblical archaeology"
until around 1970 was dominated by a desire to show that the Bible is true
after all. Most of the archaeological works there were funded by American
Protestant seminaries. (Devers, p57) Any conclusions on dates from findings
that are dated to this time (early years of the twentieth century) has to be
treated as suspect.


References
1. Anderson, A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament: p34
Fox, The Unauthorized Version: p58
Livingstone: Dictionary of the Chrsitian Church: p143
2. Barthel, What the Bible Really Says: p78-79
Stiebing, Out of the Desert: p33
3. Fox, The Unauthorized Version: p176
4. Barthel, What the Bible Really Says: p79
Keller, The Bible As History: p168
5. Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p37
6. Asimov, Asimov's Guide to the Bible: p80
Barthel, What the Bible Really Says: p77-78
Riedel et.al., The Book of the Bible: p205-206

7. Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p37-38
8. Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p38
9. Coogan (ed), Oxford History of the Biblical World : p109
10. Coogan (ed), Oxford History of the Biblical World : p28

Back to the top

Mythological Elements in the Story of Abraham and the Patriarchal Narrati=

From obviously mythical characters such as Adam and Eve and Noah we come =

to characters that even the more "liberal" Christians accept as historica=

We will look at the patriarchal narratives, the stories in Genesis about
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.
These characters are accepted as historical primarily because they refer =

elements in their story which seemed historical. Thus we find in the
patriarchal narratives stories relating to domesticated camels, caravan
trade routes, neighboring peoples (Philistines, Ishmaelites etc) and actu=

cities (such as Gerar). Certainly some of these, domesticated camels and
camels used as beasts of burdens, can still be seen in the Middle East
today. The neighboring peoples were real and the cities have been found.
=20
It is "historical" elements such as these that separate the stories in th=

patriarchal narratives from the myths of many other religions in the regi=

Let us see how strong this position is today.
=20
=20
a.. First we note that there is a large gap between the time in which
Abraham supposedly lived and the earliest written accounts about him.
b.. In the patriarchal narratives, we find that there are anachronistic
references to:
a.. domesticated camels
b.. the Arabic camel caravan trade
c.. circumcision
d.. the Philistine city of Gerar
c.. Conclusions
=20
The Large Gap Between Abraham's Life and the Written Account
First we will need to get a firmer date on the earliest possible sources =

the character mentioned in the Pentateuch. We show elsewhere that Moses
could not have written the first five books of the bible; and that, in fa=

they were written at a much later date. There is a verse that reveals to =

the earliest possible date for its composition:
Genesis 36:31
These are the kings who reigned in the land of Eden, before any kin=

reigned over the Israelites.
=20
=20
It is obvious from the verse above, the author was writing at a time when
the Israelites already had, at least, a king. The first king of the
Israelites was Saul who became king around 1025 BC. [a] Thus the earliest
possible date for the composition of the Pentateuch, or parts of it, woul=

be the tenth century B.C. Scholars vary in their estimate on exactly when
the oldest portion (called the "J" document) of the source document for
these books was written. Some estimate the document to be written as earl=

as the tenth century BC (during the reign of Solomon, David's son), while
others estimate it to have been written as late as the sixth century (dur=

the time of the Babylonian exile). These estimates are not relevant to ou=

current analysis. The only point worth noting is that the verse above, ha=

set an upper limit on the date of composition of the Pentateuch. [1]
=20
Now calculating from our table of biblical chronology, Abraham lived arou=

the twentieth second century BC. (As a mark of the historical uncertainty
surrounding this date, there exist many different estimates for these dat=

Abraham has been estimated to live in the 25th, 21st, and the 16th centur=

BC; i.e. the estimates fall within a span of 1,000 years! [2]) Taking the
latest estimated dates for these patriarchs and the earliest estimated da=

for the composition of the "J" document -in other words the "best case"
scenario for believers- we still have a gap of 600 years between the
"historical" Abraham and his story in Genesis! The historian Robin Lane F=

(b.1946) has this to say about the effect of this time gap on the
historicity of the Pentateuch:
=20
Its chances of being historically true are minimal because none of
these sources [the source documents for the Pentateuch] was written from
primary evidence or within centuries, perhaps a millennium, of what they
tried to describe. How could an oral tradition have preserved true detail=

across such a gap? At most, it might remember a great event or new
departure: like... the Israelites Exodus from Egypt...As for...the exploi=

of Jacob or Abraham, there is no good reason to believe any of them. [3]
=20
=20
Thus save for very rough social memories of major events or turning point=

in the history of these people, we should dismiss all the rest as myths
accreted through the centuries of oral transmission. Note that we are not
simply dismissing the rest as myths without any evidence. In fact in many
cases where references were made to events or things that could be verifi=

historically, we find the stories in the Bible to be false or anachronist=

Such is the case with the following examples taken from the patriarchal
narratives.
=20
Back to the top
=20
=20
Anachronism #1: Domesticated Camels
In our first example. note that there are two references to domesticated
camels in the story of Abraham:
Genesis 12:14-16
[W]hen Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman th=

she was very fair. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her
before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. And he
entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he *****=

and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
=20
=20
Genesis 24:10-11
And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and
departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose,
and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor. And he made his camels t=

kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening=

even the time that women go out to draw water.
=20
=20
As noted earlier, Abraham's lifetime has been estimated anywhere between =

25th century BC and the 16th century BC. The above passage implies that
camels were already domesticated and in use during that time.
=20
However, based on every other available evidence we have, tame camels wer=

simply unknown during Abraham's time. Egyptian texts of that era mentione=

nothing of them. Even in Mari; the kingdom that is situated next to the
Arabian deserts; which would have had the greatest use for camels; and of
which archaeologists have a large collection of documents; not a single
mention is made of camels in contemporaneous text.
=20
In fact, it was only in the 11th century BC that references to camels
started to appear in cuneiform texts and reliefs. After the 11th century,
references to camels become more and more frequent. [4] This suggests tha=

camels were domesticated around the 12th or 11th century BC. [b]
=20
Thus there could have been no domesticated camel during Abraham's lifetim=

It must be, then, that the above stories are later additions to the legen=

of Abraham.
=20
Back to the top
=20
=20
Anachronism #2: The Arabic Camel Caravan Trade
The next anachronism concerns the story of how Joseph's brothers planned =

sell him off to slavery. The brothers initially threw Joseph into a pit
(Genesis 37:22-23). They then left the pit for a while and this is how th=

next phase is narrated
Genesis 37:25-28
And they [Joseph's brothers] sat down to eat bread: and they lifted=

their eyes and looked, and, behold, a company of Ishmaelites came from
Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to car=

it down to Egypt. And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if =

slay our brother, and conceal his blood? Come, and let us sell him to the
Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and =

flesh. And his brethren were content. Then there passed by Midianites
merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold
Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought
Joseph into Egypt.
=20
=20
Before analyzing further we need to make known some archaeological facts.
=20
In the first place, as we have shown in anachronism #1, camels were not y=

domesticated during that time. Furthermore excavations in the southern
coastal plain of Israel found that camel bones increased dramatically onl=

in the seventh century BCE. More importantly these bones were of adult
camels, as one would expect of beast of burden used in traveling to
different places. For if they were bred there one would expect to find a
scattering of young camel bones as well. This means that camels were
commonly used in the caravan trades during that time.
=20
This is further supported by Assyrian sources that mentioned camels being
used as beast of burdens in caravans during that time. The items being
traded, gum, balm and resin, [written as "spicery, balm and myrrh" in the
KJV above] were Arabian exports that were traded commonly only from the
eight and seventh century BCE under the control of the Assyrian empire.
=20
Now on to a bit of chronology. Even if we accept the rather unusually lon=

ages of the patriarchs, we will see that the incident referred to must ha=

happened only around 260 after Abraham was born (refer to the biblical
chronology). Thus during the time of Joseph, camels were still not
domesticated, there were still about (at the very best case) another five
hundred years before Arabic (Ishmaelites was the Bible name for Arabs) ca=

caravan trade in gum, balm and resin, could be referred to in an "inciden=

manner" as above. [5]
=20
Thus the story of Joseph's abduction, specifically the mention of the Ara=

camel caravan trade and the Arab traders buying Joseph, is also littered
with anachronisms.
=20
Back to the top
=20
=20
Anachronism #3: Circumcision
The second story from Abraham we will look at is the one regarding the
institution of circumcision.
Genesis 17: 9-11
And God said to Abraham, "...This is my covenant, which you shall
keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among
you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your
foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you."
=20
=20
This is definitely another late accretion to the Abraham legend. We know
that circumcision was widely practiced in ancient times in the fertile
crescent; in particular, the Egyptians and the Canaanites, the people
Abraham would have had most contact with, practiced the rite.
=20
Thus the question arises, how could the act of circumcision be "a sign of
the covenant" between God and Abraham when everyone else is doing it? It =

only during the time of the Babylonian captivity, during the sixth centur=

that this custom could have set the Jews apart. For the Babylonians of th=

time did not practice circumcision. [6]
=20
Thus, the story of circumcision being a sign of covenant between God and
Abraham is also mythical.
=20
=20
Anachronism #4: The Philistine City of Gerar
Next we discuss an incident from the story of Isaac, son of Abraham:
Genesis 26:1
And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that wa=

in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the
Philistines unto Gerar.
=20
=20
Now Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis 21:5). Thus th=

events narrated above happened (if it did happen) somewhere between 24th =

15th century BCE, depending on where Abraham is located in time. (The
Biblical chronology points to 24th century BCE.)
=20
Archaeological evidence shows that the Philistines did not have any
settlements in the coastal plain of Canaan until after 13th century BCE.
Archeological excavation at Gerar (now identified as Tel Haror northwest =

Beersheba) shows that it was no more than a "small, quite insignificant"
village during the initial settlement of the Philistines during the Iron =

I (1150-900 BCE). Gerar only became a significant city only in the sevent=

century BCE.[7]
=20
Thus there would have been no city of Gerar and no king of the Philistine=

to meet with Isaac during the historical period in which he would have
lived.
=20
Back to the top
=20
=20
Conclusions on the Patriarchal Narratives
What can we conclude from the above?
Firstly, at the very least, we can conclude that many elements in the
patriarchal narratives are unhistorical. The story of Isaac meeting the
Philistine king in Gerar for instance could not have happened because the=

was simply no Philistine settlement in Canaan during that time and Gerar =

not yet existed. The story of how Joseph got shipped to Egypt is in the s=

boat (pardon the pun). For there were simply no Arabic camel caravan trad=

groups during the time of Joseph.
=20
Secondly, there is a more disturbing (for believers) conclusion. Thomas
Thompson, Professor of Old Testament at the University of Copenhagen, not=

that if the specific references in the patriarchal narratives have been
shown to be anachronistic, then they add nothing to the story; but these
very references were the historical anchors that supposedly rooted the
narratives into history in the first place. Without them how are we to
distinguish the narratives from other completely mythical folk tales?[8]
=20
Back to the top
=20
=20
Notes
a. This verse is taken from the portion of Genesis believed to have
formed part of the original "J" document. The "J' document is generally
believed the be the oldest source documents for the Pentateuch.
b. The general consensus among archaeologist about camels and their
domestication can be summed up by the two quotes: The first quote about t=

domestication of camels is from, Lawrence Stager, Dorot Professor of the
Archaeology of Israel and Director of the Semitic Museum at Harvard
University, who had excavated in Israel, Tunisia and Cyprus, in his artic=

in the recent book Oxford History of the Biblical World (1998):
W.F. Albright's Assessment, based on contemporary texts and
limited faunal remains, that dromedary camels became important to the
caravan trade only towards the final centuries of the second millennium B=

is still valid.[9]
=20
=20
The second, is from another archaeologist, Wayne T. Pitard of the
University of Illinois, has this to say about camels and their uses :
=20
Scholars have also observed a number of anachronisms in the
stories, another characteristic of oral literature.Camel caravans are
mentioned in Genesis 26 and 37, but camels were probably not used before =

beginning of the iron age (1200 BCE) when Israel was already emerging as =

nation.[10]
=20
=20
Fundamentalist apologists have tried to present this by providing w=

they claimed are examples of camel domestication. One such example is thi=

website. However a close examination of their "evidence" reveals a few fa=

flaws:
=20
=20
a.. Camel bones and artifacts made from camels found in ancient
settlements. These by themselves only show that camel parts were used by =

community. For instance in the website sited, much is made of camel bones
found at Umm an-Nar (Oman) excavation. Yet the fact that dugong (a sea co=

bones were found at the same location is ignored. Nobody would suggests t=

finding the sea cow bones in the settlements indicate that they were
domesticated! (A good write up on the Umm an-Nar finds can be found here.
This website correctly summarized the archaeological evidence favors a la=

second millennium date for the domestication of dromedary (i.e. one hump)
camels.) Obviously the bones signify the animals were hunted and were eat=

and leftovers used to make rope, tents etc. Thus such evidence does not s=

domestication.
=20
b.. Carvings and potteries. Most of the evidence for camel
domestication prior to the end of the second century BCE depends more on =

interpretation of ambiguous carvings and potteries. As the reader can see
from the Christian apologist website referenced above, even drawings that
merely show the camel lying down is taken as "evidence" of domestication!
Animals represented in pottery, carvings of drawings were not exclusively
domesticates. In the Umm an-Nar site, relief drawings include camels, oxe=

oryx and serpents!
=20
c.. The "conclusive evidence" referred to in the website involved
"finds" in the early twentieth century. The two archaeologists referred t=

G. M=F6ller and G. Schweinfurth , were active during the late nineteenth =

early twentieth century! This should give the reader pause. If these earl=

findings are conclusive that camel domestication stretches to the third
millennium BCE. Why do most archaeologists today still deny this? The rea=

is simple, the time of the supposed findings (the early years of the
twentieth century) is marred by poor stratigraphy, inaccurate pottery
chronology and, in the words of the rather conservative archaeologist
William Dever in his book What did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did
they Know it? (Eerdmans, 2001; p56), "[Showed] An almost exclusively .
biblical biases in their work."! Indeed almost all "biblical archaeology"
until around 1970 was dominated by a desire to show that the Bible is tru=

after all. Most of the archaeological works there were funded by American
Protestant seminaries. (Devers, p57) Any conclusions on dates from findin=

that are dated to this time (early years of the twentieth century) has to=

treated as suspect.
=20
=20
References
1. Anderson, A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament: p34
Fox, The Unauthorized Version: p58
Livingstone: Dictionary of the Chrsitian Church: p143
2. Barthel, What the Bible Really Says: p78-79
Stiebing, Out of the Desert: p33
3. Fox, The Unauthorized Version: p176
4. Barthel, What the Bible Really Says: p79
Keller, The Bible As History: p168
5. Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p37
6. Asimov, Asimov's Guide to the Bible: p80
Barthel, What the Bible Really Says: p77-78
Riedel et.al., The Book of the Bible: p205-206
=20
7. Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p37-38
8. Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p38
9. Coogan (ed), Oxford History of the Biblical World : p109
10. Coogan (ed), Oxford History of the Biblical World : p28
=20
Back to the top
=20
=20
=20

Mythological Elements in the Story of Abraham and the Patriarchal Narratives
From obviously mythical characters such as Adam and Eve and Noah we come now
to characters that even the more "liberal" Christians accept as historical.
We will look at the patriarchal narratives, the stories in Genesis about
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.
These characters are accepted as historical primarily because they refer to
elements in their story which seemed historical. Thus we find in the
patriarchal narratives stories relating to domesticated camels, caravan
trade routes, neighboring peoples (Philistines, Ishmaelites etc) and actual
cities (such as Gerar). Certainly some of these, domesticated camels and
camels used as beasts of burdens, can still be seen in the Middle East
today. The neighboring peoples were real and the cities have been found.

It is "historical" elements such as these that separate the stories in the
patriarchal narratives from the myths of many other religions in the region.
Let us see how strong this position is today.


a.. First we note that there is a large gap between the time in which
Abraham supposedly lived and the earliest written accounts about him.
b.. In the patriarchal narratives, we find that there are anachronistic
references to:
a.. domesticated camels
b.. the Arabic camel caravan trade
c.. circumcision
d.. the Philistine city of Gerar
c.. Conclusions

The Large Gap Between Abraham's Life and the Written Account
First we will need to get a firmer date on the earliest possible sources on
the character mentioned in the Pentateuch. We show elsewhere that Moses
could not have written the first five books of the bible; and that, in fact
they were written at a much later date. There is a verse that reveals to us,
the earliest possible date for its composition:
Genesis 36:31
These are the kings who reigned in the land of Eden, before any king
reigned over the Israelites.

It is obvious from the verse above, the author was writing at a time when
the Israelites already had, at least, a king. The first king of the
Israelites was Saul who became king around 1025 BC. [a] Thus the earliest
possible date for the composition of the Pentateuch, or parts of it, would
be the tenth century B.C. Scholars vary in their estimate on exactly when
the oldest portion (called the "J" document) of the source document for
these books was written. Some estimate the document to be written as early
as the tenth century BC (during the reign of Solomon, David's son), while
others estimate it to have been written as late as the sixth century (during
the time of the Babylonian exile). These estimates are not relevant to our
current analysis. The only point worth noting is that the verse above, have
set an upper limit on the date of composition of the Pentateuch. [1]

Now calculating from our table of biblical chronology, Abraham lived around
the twentieth second century BC. (As a mark of the historical uncertainty
surrounding this date, there exist many different estimates for these dates.

Abraham has been estimated to live in the 25th, 21st, and the 16th century
BC; i.e. the estimates fall within a span of 1,000 years! [2]) Taking the
latest estimated dates for these patriarchs and the earliest estimated date
for the composition of the "J" document -in other words the "best case"
scenario for believers- we still have a gap of 600 years between the
"historical" Abraham and his story in Genesis! The historian Robin Lane Fox
(b.1946) has this to say about the effect of this time gap on the
historicity of the Pentateuch:

Its chances of being historically true are minimal because none of
these sources [the source documents for the Pentateuch] was written from
primary evidence or within centuries, perhaps a millennium, of what they
tried to describe. How could an oral tradition have preserved true details
across such a gap? At most, it might remember a great event or new
departure: like... the Israelites Exodus from Egypt...As for...the exploits
of Jacob or Abraham, there is no good reason to believe any of them. [3]


Thus save for very rough social memories of major events or turning points
in the history of these people, we should dismiss all the rest as myths
accreted through the centuries of oral transmission. Note that we are not
simply dismissing the rest as myths without any evidence. In fact in many
cases where references were made to events or things that could be verified
historically, we find the stories in the Bible to be false or anachronistic.
Such is the case with the following examples taken from the patriarchal
narratives.

Back to the top


Anachronism #1: Domesticated Camels
In our first example. note that there are two references to domesticated
camels in the story of Abraham:
Genesis 12:14-16
[W]hen Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that
she was very fair. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her
before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. And he
entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses,
and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.


Genesis 24:10-11
And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and
departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose,
and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor. And he made his camels to
kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening,
even the time that women go out to draw water.


As noted earlier, Abraham's lifetime has been estimated anywhere between the
25th century BC and the 16th century BC. The above passage implies that
camels were already domesticated and in use during that time.

However, based on every other available evidence we have, tame camels were
simply unknown during Abraham's time. Egyptian texts of that era mentioned
nothing of them. Even in Mari; the kingdom that is situated next to the
Arabian deserts; which would have had the greatest use for camels; and of
which archaeologists have a large collection of documents; not a single
mention is made of camels in contemporaneous text.

In fact, it was only in the 11th century BC that references to camels
started to appear in cuneiform texts and reliefs. After the 11th century,
references to camels become more and more frequent. [4] This suggests that
camels were domesticated around the 12th or 11th century BC. [b]

Thus there could have been no domesticated camel during Abraham's lifetime.
It must be, then, that the above stories are later additions to the legend
of Abraham.

Back to the top


Anachronism #2: The Arabic Camel Caravan Trade
The next anachronism concerns the story of how Joseph's brothers planned to
sell him off to slavery. The brothers initially threw Joseph into a pit
(Genesis 37:22-23). They then left the pit for a while and this is how the
next phase is narrated
Genesis 37:25-28
And they [Joseph's brothers] sat down to eat bread: and they lifted up
their eyes and looked, and, behold, a company of Ishmaelites came from
Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry
it down to Egypt. And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we
slay our brother, and conceal his blood? Come, and let us sell him to the
Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our
flesh. And his brethren were content. Then there passed by Midianites
merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold
Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought
Joseph into Egypt.


Before analyzing further we need to make known some archaeological facts.

In the first place, as we have shown in anachronism #1, camels were not yet
domesticated during that time. Furthermore excavations in the southern
coastal plain of Israel found that camel bones increased dramatically only
in the seventh century BCE. More importantly these bones were of adult
camels, as one would expect of beast of burden used in traveling to
different places. For if they were bred there one would expect to find a
scattering of young camel bones as well. This means that camels were
commonly used in the caravan trades during that time.

This is further supported by Assyrian sources that mentioned camels being
used as beast of burdens in caravans during that time. The items being
traded, gum, balm and resin, [written as "spicery, balm and myrrh" in the
KJV above] were Arabian exports that were traded commonly only from the
eight and seventh century BCE under the control of the Assyrian empire.

Now on to a bit of chronology. Even if we accept the rather unusually long
ages of the patriarchs, we will see that the incident referred to must have
happened only around 260 after Abraham was born (refer to the biblical
chronology). Thus during the time of Joseph, camels were still not
domesticated, there were still about (at the very best case) another five
hundred years before Arabic (Ishmaelites was the Bible name for Arabs) camel
caravan trade in gum, balm and resin, could be referred to in an "incidental
manner" as above. [5]

Thus the story of Joseph's abduction, specifically the mention of the Arab
camel caravan trade and the Arab traders buying Joseph, is also littered
with anachronisms.

Back to the top


Anachronism #3: Circumcision
The second story from Abraham we will look at is the one regarding the
institution of circumcision.
Genesis 17: 9-11
And God said to Abraham, "...This is my covenant, which you shall
keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among
you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your
foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you."


This is definitely another late accretion to the Abraham legend. We know
that circumcision was widely practiced in ancient times in the fertile
crescent; in particular, the Egyptians and the Canaanites, the people
Abraham would have had most contact with, practiced the rite.

Thus the question arises, how could the act of circumcision be "a sign of
the covenant" between God and Abraham when everyone else is doing it? It was
only during the time of the Babylonian captivity, during the sixth century,
that this custom could have set the Jews apart. For the Babylonians of that
time did not practice circumcision. [6]

Thus, the story of circumcision being a sign of covenant between God and
Abraham is also mythical.


Anachronism #4: The Philistine City of Gerar
Next we discuss an incident from the story of Isaac, son of Abraham:
Genesis 26:1
And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was
in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the
Philistines unto Gerar.


Now Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis 21:5). Thus the
events narrated above happened (if it did happen) somewhere between 24th and
15th century BCE, depending on where Abraham is located in time. (The
Biblical chronology points to 24th century BCE.)

Archaeological evidence shows that the Philistines did not have any
settlements in the coastal plain of Canaan until after 13th century BCE.
Archeological excavation at Gerar (now identified as Tel Haror northwest of
Beersheba) shows that it was no more than a "small, quite insignificant"
village during the initial settlement of the Philistines during the Iron Age
I (1150-900 BCE). Gerar only became a significant city only in the seventh
century BCE.[7]

Thus there would have been no city of Gerar and no king of the Philistines
to meet with Isaac during the historical period in which he would have
lived.

Back to the top


Conclusions on the Patriarchal Narratives
What can we conclude from the above?
Firstly, at the very least, we can conclude that many elements in the
patriarchal narratives are unhistorical. The story of Isaac meeting the
Philistine king in Gerar for instance could not have happened because there
was simply no Philistine settlement in Canaan during that time and Gerar has
not yet existed. The story of how Joseph got shipped to Egypt is in the same
boat (pardon the pun). For there were simply no Arabic camel caravan trade
groups during the time of Joseph.

Secondly, there is a more disturbing (for believers) conclusion. Thomas
Thompson, Professor of Old Testament at the University of Copenhagen, noted
that if the specific references in the patriarchal narratives have been
shown to be anachronistic, then they add nothing to the story; but these
very references were the historical anchors that supposedly rooted the
narratives into history in the first place. Without them how are we to
distinguish the narratives from other completely mythical folk tales?[8]

Back to the top


Notes
a. This verse is taken from the portion of Genesis believed to have
formed part of the original "J" document. The "J' document is generally
believed the be the oldest source documents for the Pentateuch.
b. The general consensus among archaeologist about camels and their
domestication can be summed up by the two quotes: The first quote about the
domestication of camels is from, Lawrence Stager, Dorot Professor of the
Archaeology of Israel and Director of the Semitic Museum at Harvard
University, who had excavated in Israel, Tunisia and Cyprus, in his article
in the recent book Oxford History of the Biblical World (1998):
W.F. Albright's Assessment, based on contemporary texts and
limited faunal remains, that dromedary camels became important to the
caravan trade only towards the final centuries of the second millennium BCE
is still valid.[9]


The second, is from another archaeologist, Wayne T. Pitard of the
University of Illinois, has this to say about camels and their uses :

Scholars have also observed a number of anachronisms in the
stories, another characteristic of oral literature.Camel caravans are
mentioned in Genesis 26 and 37, but camels were probably not used before the
beginning of the iron age (1200 BCE) when Israel was already emerging as a
nation.[10]


Fundamentalist apologists have tried to present this by providing what
they claimed are examples of camel domestication. One such example is this
website. However a close examination of their "evidence" reveals a few fatal
flaws:


a.. Camel bones and artifacts made from camels found in ancient
settlements. These by themselves only show that camel parts were used by the
community. For instance in the website sited, much is made of camel bones
found at Umm an-Nar (Oman) excavation. Yet the fact that dugong (a sea cow)
bones were found at the same location is ignored. Nobody would suggests that
finding the sea cow bones in the settlements indicate that they were
domesticated! (A good write up on the Umm an-Nar finds can be found here.
This website correctly summarized the archaeological evidence favors a late
second millennium date for the domestication of dromedary (i.e. one hump)
camels.) Obviously the bones signify the animals were hunted and were eaten
and leftovers used to make rope, tents etc. Thus such evidence does not show
domestication.

b.. Carvings and potteries. Most of the evidence for camel
domestication prior to the end of the second century BCE depends more on the
interpretation of ambiguous carvings and potteries. As the reader can see
from the Christian apologist website referenced above, even drawings that
merely show the camel lying down is taken as "evidence" of domestication!
Animals represented in pottery, carvings of drawings were not exclusively
domesticates. In the Umm an-Nar site, relief drawings include camels, oxen,
oryx and serpents!

c.. The "conclusive evidence" referred to in the website involved
"finds" in the early twentieth century. The two archaeologists referred to,
G. Möller and G. Schweinfurth , were active during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth century! This should give the reader pause. If these early
findings are conclusive that camel domestication stretches to the third
millennium BCE. Why do most archaeologists today still deny this? The reason
is simple, the time of the supposed findings (the early years of the
twentieth century) is marred by poor stratigraphy, inaccurate pottery
chronology and, in the words of the rather conservative archaeologist
William Dever in his book What did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did
they Know it? (Eerdmans, 2001; p56), "[Showed] An almost exclusively .
biblical biases in their work."! Indeed almost all "biblical archaeology"
until around 1970 was dominated by a desire to show that the Bible is true
after all. Most of the archaeological works there were funded by American
Protestant seminaries. (Devers, p57) Any conclusions on dates from findings
that are dated to this time (early years of the twentieth century) has to be
treated as suspect.


References
1. Anderson, A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament: p34
Fox, The Unauthorized Version: p58
Livingstone: Dictionary of the Chrsitian Church: p143
2. Barthel, What the Bible Really Says: p78-79
Stiebing, Out of the Desert: p33
3. Fox, The Unauthorized Version: p176
4. Barthel, What the Bible Really Says: p79
Keller, The Bible As History: p168
5. Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p37
6. Asimov, Asimov's Guide to the Bible: p80
Barthel, What the Bible Really Says: p77-78
Riedel et.al., The Book of the Bible: p205-206

7. Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p37-38
8. Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p38
9. Coogan (ed), Oxford History of the Biblical World : p109
10. Coogan (ed), Oxford History of the Biblical World : p28

Back to the top