Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

SV: [ANE-2] off to the domesticated camel races

Expand Messages
  • Niels Peter Lemche
    The funny thing is that the date of the domestication of the camel was not proposed by some radical biblical scholar but by the old rather conservative master,
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 4, 2007
      The funny thing is that the date of the domestication of the camel was not proposed by some radical biblical scholar but by the old rather conservative master, William Foxwell Albright. Kitchen will go for everything that has just the slightest opportunity to support historicity of whatever you find in the Bible.

      A single example does not make a difference. You need more than one.

      Niels Peter Lemche

      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af schmuel
      Sendt: 4. februar 2007 02:53
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: [ANE-2] off to the domesticated camel races

      Hi Folks,

      We know the issue of domesticated camels (or the supposed non-existence thereof)
      is used by Finkelstein and others (eg. skeptic Paul Tobin) to attempt to claim Bible
      anachronism. Kenneth Kitchen and others have given information that works against
      this claim.

      The following new article (courtesy of Jack M. Sasson of Agade) is interesting for
      that discussion. (I give a site that has a picture.)

      http://www.chnpress.com/news/?section=2&id=6907
      Remains of a 5000-y-old camel rider identified in Burnt City

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery
      Queens, NY

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic




      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Doug Weller
      Hi Niels, ... It s not exactly convincing. It says could have been a camel or buffalo. Or another reason entirely. I m still interested in the story of camel
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 4, 2007
        Hi Niels,

        Sunday, February 4, 2007, 8:00:56 AM, you wrote:

        > The funny thing is that the date of the domestication of the camel
        > was not proposed by some radical biblical scholar but by the old
        > rather conservative master, William Foxwell Albright. Kitchen will go
        > for everything that has just the slightest opportunity to support
        > historicity of whatever you find in the Bible.

        > A single example does not make a difference. You need more than one.

        It's not exactly convincing. It says 'could' have been a camel or buffalo. Or another reason entirely.

        I'm still interested in the story of camel bones apparently found in the Red Pyramid and the claim that other archaic camel bones were found in Ancient Egypt.

        Doug Weller


        > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
        > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af schmuel
        > Sendt: 4. februar 2007 02:53
        > Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        > Emne: [ANE-2] off to the domesticated camel races

        > Hi Folks,

        > We know the issue of domesticated camels (or the supposed non-existence thereof)
        > is used by Finkelstein and others (eg. skeptic Paul Tobin) to attempt to claim Bible
        > anachronism. Kenneth Kitchen and others have given information that works against
        > this claim.

        > The following new article (courtesy of Jack M. Sasson of Agade) is interesting for
        > that discussion. (I give a site that has a picture.)

        > http://www.chnpress.com/news/?section=2&id=6907
        > Remains of a 5000-y-old camel rider identified in Burnt City

        > Shalom,
        > Steven Avery
        > Queens, NY

        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links


        --
        Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
        Director and Moderator The Hall of Ma'at http://www.thehallofmaat.com
        Doug and Helen's Dogs: http://www.dougandhelen.com
        Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
      • Niels Peter Lemche
        Dear Doug, I do not know why this exactly was addressed to me, as I was already expressing doubt about this case. Shouldn t it have been addressed to Stephen
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 4, 2007
          Dear Doug,

          I do not know why this exactly was addressed to me, as I was already expressing doubt about this case. Shouldn't it have been addressed to Stephen Avery? But the link is fine. Is there really any evidence here of anything like a very early single example of the taming of the camel. It seems that somebody in the "good" case of proving the historicity of the patriarchs have been out very early with a rather farfetched argument.

          Niels Peter Lemche

          PS: It is simply stupid as in the mail from Avery often to see Finkelstein mentioned as the bad guy. He is a brilliant scholar, but is more and more becoming the target of attacks from the very conservative parts of the Jewish and Christian community: Go after the man, forget what he is doing. And -- and that was the point of my response -- Finkelstein has really nothing to do with the late dating of the domestication of the camel. It was Albright's proposal more than fifty years ago. Albright was a far too good scholar to oversee obvious facts in the ground.



          -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
          Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Doug Weller
          Sendt: 4. februar 2007 16:03
          Til: Niels Peter Lemche
          Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] off to the domesticated camel races

          Hi Niels,

          Sunday, February 4, 2007, 8:00:56 AM, you wrote:

          > The funny thing is that the date of the domestication of the camel
          > was not proposed by some radical biblical scholar but by the old
          > rather conservative master, William Foxwell Albright. Kitchen will go
          > for everything that has just the slightest opportunity to support
          > historicity of whatever you find in the Bible.

          > A single example does not make a difference. You need more than one.

          It's not exactly convincing. It says 'could' have been a camel or buffalo. Or another reason entirely.

          I'm still interested in the story of camel bones apparently found in the Red Pyramid and the claim that other archaic camel bones were found in Ancient Egypt.

          Doug Weller


          > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
          > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af schmuel
          > Sendt: 4. februar 2007 02:53
          > Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          > Emne: [ANE-2] off to the domesticated camel races

          > Hi Folks,

          > We know the issue of domesticated camels (or the supposed non-existence thereof)
          > is used by Finkelstein and others (eg. skeptic Paul Tobin) to attempt to claim Bible
          > anachronism. Kenneth Kitchen and others have given information that works against
          > this claim.

          > The following new article (courtesy of Jack M. Sasson of Agade) is interesting for
          > that discussion. (I give a site that has a picture.)

          > http://www.chnpress.com/news/?section=2&id=6907
          > Remains of a 5000-y-old camel rider identified in Burnt City

          > Shalom,
          > Steven Avery
          > Queens, NY

          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links


          --
          Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
          Director and Moderator The Hall of Ma'at http://www.thehallofmaat.com
          Doug and Helen's Dogs: http://www.dougandhelen.com
          Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk




          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Peter James
          There seem to be a number of other examples of early camel domestication in Egypt. See my note on the old ANE list archived at
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 4, 2007
            There seem to be a number of other examples of "early" camel domestication in Egypt. See my note on the old ANE list archived at
            https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2005-October/020211.html re an article by Ripinsky in JEA 71 (1985). Best, Peter James


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Niels Peter Lemche
            To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 8:00 AM
            Subject: SV: [ANE-2] off to the domesticated camel races


            The funny thing is that the date of the domestication of the camel was not proposed by some radical biblical scholar but by the old rather conservative master, William Foxwell Albright. Kitchen will go for everything that has just the slightest opportunity to support historicity of whatever you find in the Bible.

            A single example does not make a difference. You need more than one.

            Niels Peter Lemche

            -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
            Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] P� vegne af
            schmuel
            Sendt: 4. februar 2007 02:53
            Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            Emne: [ANE-2] off to the domesticated camel races

            Hi Folks,

            We know the issue of domesticated camels (or the supposed non-existence thereof) is used by Finkelstein and others (eg. skeptic Paul Tobin) to attempt to claim Bible anachronism. Kenneth Kitchen and others have given information that works against this claim.

            The following new article (courtesy of Jack M. Sasson of Agade) is
            interesting for that discussion. (I give a site that has a picture.)

            http://www.chnpress.com/news/?section=2&id=6907
            Remains of a 5000-y-old camel rider identified in Burnt City

            Shalom,
            Steven Avery
            Queens, NY

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            ... Steve, I am going to ask you as a moderator of ANE-2 to cease labeling with such dogmatic, patronizing, and question begging terms of opprobrium as you
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 4, 2007
              schmuel wrote:

              > Hi Folks,
              >
              > We know the issue of domesticated camels (or the supposed non-existence thereof)
              > is used by Finkelstein and others (eg. skeptic Paul Tobin) to attempt to claim Bible
              > anachronism.

              Steve,

              I am going to ask you as a moderator of ANE-2 to cease labeling with such dogmatic,
              patronizing, and question begging terms of opprobrium as you use above, especially when
              it is clear (a) that your sole reason for calling someone a "skeptic" is that that
              someone does not accept as "true" what you (idolatrously?) regard as "true" vis a vis the
              historicity of the Hebrew Scriptures, and (b) that your idea of what is "true" in this
              regard is grounded in and arises from dogmatic apriorii and fundamentalist
              presuppositions about biblical inerrancy.

              If you persist in this "poisoning of the well" tactic, the moderators will have no choice
              but to unsubscribe you.

              Jeffrey Gibson
              --
              Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
              1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
              Chicago, Illinois
              e-mail jgibson000@...
            • George F Somsel
              Jeffrey, The fact is that Paul Tobin even considers himself to be a sceptic (I had to look him up). See http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/ While I don t
              Message 6 of 8 , Feb 4, 2007
                Jeffrey,

                The fact is that Paul Tobin even considers himself to be a sceptic (I had to look him up). See

                http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/

                While I don't generally agree with Steven, he really wasn't out of line here since "sceptic" (or "skeptic" if you choose to use his spelling) is a self-description.


                george
                gfsomsel
                _________



                ----- Original Message ----
                From: Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibson000@...>
                To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2007 1:42:58 PM
                Subject: Re: [ANE-2] off to the domesticated camel races



                schmuel wrote:

                > Hi Folks,
                >
                > We know the issue of domesticated camels (or the supposed non-existence thereof)
                > is used by Finkelstein and others (eg. skeptic Paul Tobin) to attempt to claim Bible
                > anachronism.

                Steve,

                I am going to ask you as a moderator of ANE-2 to cease labeling with such dogmatic,
                patronizing, and question begging terms of opprobrium as you use above, especially when
                it is clear (a) that your sole reason for calling someone a "skeptic" is that that
                someone does not accept as "true" what you (idolatrously? ) regard as "true" vis a vis the
                historicity of the Hebrew Scriptures, and (b) that your idea of what is "true" in this
                regard is grounded in and arises from dogmatic apriorii and fundamentalist
                presuppositions about biblical inerrancy.

                If you persist in this "poisoning of the well" tactic, the moderators will have no choice
                but to unsubscribe you.

                Jeffrey Gibson
                --
                Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                Chicago, Illinois
                e-mail jgibson000@comcast. net






                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
                http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                ... George, Thanks for your message. However, whether or not Tobin considers himself a sceptic/skeptic is neither here nor there since Steven s use of the
                Message 7 of 8 , Feb 4, 2007
                  George F Somsel wrote:

                  > Jeffrey,
                  >
                  > The fact is that Paul Tobin even considers himself to be a sceptic (I had to look him up). See
                  >
                  > http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/
                  >
                  > While I don't generally agree with Steven, he really wasn't out of line here since "sceptic" (or "skeptic" if you choose to use his spelling) is a self-description.

                  George,

                  Thanks for your message.

                  However, whether or not Tobin considers himself a sceptic/skeptic is neither here nor there since Steven's use of the "title" of Tobin, even if derived from Tobin's web
                  site, was absolutely unnecessary, and it isn't the first time that Steven has attempted to poison the well, using a fundie criterion for what is "true" to determine
                  who deserves opprobrium.

                  So I think my warning to him is appropriate.

                  Yours,

                  Jeffrey
                  --
                  Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                  Chicago, Illinois
                  e-mail jgibson000@...
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.