Not two this time, but three: Gen. 12:10-20, 20:1-18, and 26:1-11. These narratives, each detailing a man protecting his wife by calling her his sister, are frequently cited by JEDP theorists. The assignment of Gen. 20 to E and the other two stories to J highlights an inconsistency among some critical approaches, as they admit a doublet within the same author or else posit a series of 'J' sources to retain the theory.

The similarity of these stories, far from being proof of someone weaving together different sources, actually proves no such thing in the context of ancient literature. The use of repetition was par for the course in these contexts, and there is no reason why a single author cannot have been responsible for all three stories. One may as well posit varying authorship for the three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts, yet Christianity broadly recognizes a single author for Acts without suggesting that Luke merely pieced together disparate historical-traditional sources.

Beyond that, there are certain discernible patterns explained far better by the premise of a single author than by a redactor(s) piecing together once-separate works. Garrett notes within the triad "a pattern in which a narrative element is consistently present in two out of the three accounts".

Many writers attempt to break up the stories in terms of motifs -- this we can certainly accept, especially under the reasonable assumption that being a wandering chieftain with a beautiful wife, and being forced by circumstances into more civilized areas, necessarily required some kind of 'she's-my-sister' deception in order to survive. Perhaps the reason the motifs evolved is because they reflected a hard reality.

Practically speaking, Hoffmeier argues convincingly that a sort of "diplomatic marriage" custom lies behind all three stories: In order to gain the protection of the king, along with water and grazing rights, the patriarchs, having no daughters to present for such an exchange, resorted to the ruse with their wives. The threat was not therefore originally from the kings themselves, but from outside forces that the patriarchs sought protection from. This historical context effectively addresses critical objections, as many arguments regarding these narratives assume that the ruler was the main source of threat.

Other than that, one author can be as easily responsible for a progression of messages (transmitted through subtle variations in the successive stories) as two or more. One might observe a similar dynamic in discussions of the Q/Markan priority hypothesis: a literary hypothesis can sometimes serve as a flexible framework used to support predetermined conclusions.

Some scholars have specific reasons for supposing multiple authors; for instance, Speiser suggested that Abraham would certainly have learned from his first mistake with Pharaoh and not repeated it with Abimelech. However, assuming that a person never makes the same mistake twice contradicts common human experience. Furthermore, under the "diplomatic marriage" paradigm, we aren't really dealing with a "mistake" in the first place but a stratagem.

There is also the question of the appearance of Abimelech in both Gen. 20 and 26, which is taken to prove two different authors; but the explanation that this either involves a dynastic name, or else that this is the same Abimelech much older (Is there a clue of progress in his title changes from "king of Gerar" to "king of the Philistines"? Is there some sign of Abimelech as an old man in Gen. 26 in his habit of being a peeping tom?), are more than sufficient.

A minor objection asks where Jacob and Esau were in Gen. 26, as they would be at least 16 at the time and a dead giveaway to Isaac's status as a married man; this is easily resolved, for in Isaac's large party of relatives and servants there would be more than enough options for passing the twins off as someone else's (or as from another marriage).

Another objection, usually unrelated to JEDP issues, asks how a woman of 90 could be so beautiful as to be desired by the kings. Jewish tradition responded, quite sensibly, that the promise to Abraham and Sarah was fulfilled in process by reversing the aging process and making them young again -- which is indicated in the writer's hints that Sarah was beautiful at age 90, a puzzle they expect us to figure out.

Furthermore, from a historical perspective: The Nuzi tablets, contemporary with Abraham, show that among the Hurrians marriage bonds were most solemn, and the wife had legally, although not necessarily through ties of blood, the simultaneous status of sister, so that the term "sister" and "wife" could be interchangeable in an official use under certain circumstances. Thus in resorting to the wife-sister relationship, both Abraham and Isaac were availing themselves of the strongest safeguards the law, as it existed then, could afford them.

Arguably, the most widely alleged anachronisms used in support of the idea that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible (a theory known as the Documentary Hypothesis) are the accounts of the early patriarchs possessing camels. The word “camel(s)” appears 23 times in 21 verses in the book of Genesis. The first book of the Bible declares that camels existed in Egypt during the time of Abraham (12:14-17), in Palestine in the days Isaac (24:63), in Padan Aram while Jacob was working for Laban (30:43), and were owned by the Midianites during the time Joseph was sold into Egyptian slavery (37:25,36). Make no mistake about it, the book of beginnings clearly teaches that camels were domesticated since at least the time of Abraham.

According to skeptics (and a growing number of liberal scholars), however, the idea that camels were domesticated in the time of Abraham directly contradicts archaeological evidence. Over one hundred years ago, T.K. Cheyne wrote: “The assertion that the ancient Egyptians knew of the camel is unfounded” (1899, 1:634). In his oft’-quoted book on the various animals of the Bible, George Cansdale stated:

> The Bible first mentions the camel in Gen. 12:16, where the presents are listed which the pharaoh gave to Abram. This is generally reckoned to be a later scribe’s addition, for it seems unlikely that there were any camels in Egypt then (1970, p. 66, emp. added).

More recently, Finkelstein and Silberman confidently asserted:

> We now know through archaeological research that camels were not domesticated as beasts of burden earlier than the late second millennium and were not widely used in that capacity in the ancient Near East until well after 1000 BCE (2001, p. 37, emp. added).

By way of summary, what the Bible believer has been told is: “[T]ame camels were simply unknown during Abraham’s time” (Tobin, 2000).

While these claims have been made repeatedly over the last century, the truth of the matter is that skeptics and liberal theologians are unable to cite a single piece of solid archaeological evidence in support of their claims. As Randall Younker of Andrews University stated in March 2000 while delivering a speech in the Dominican Republic: “Clearly, scholars who have denied the presence of domesticated camels in the 2nd millennium B.C. have been committing the fallacy of arguing from silence. This approach should not be allowed to cast doubt upon the veracity of any historical document, let alone Scripture” (2000). The burden of proof actually should be upon skeptics to show that camels were not domesticated until after the time of the patriarchs. Instead, they assure their listeners of the camel’s absence in Abraham’s day—without one shred of archaeological evidence. [Remember, for many years they also argued that writing was unknown during the time of Moses—a conclusion based entirely on “silence.” Now, however, they have recanted that idea, because evidence has been found to the contrary. One might think that such “scholars” would learn not to speak with such assurance when arguing from silence.]

What makes their claims even more disturbing is that several pieces of evidence do exist (and have existed for some time) that prove camels were domesticated during (and even before) the time of Abraham (roughly 2,000 B.C.). In an article that appeared in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies a half-century ago, professor Joseph Free listed several instances of Egyptian archaeological finds supporting the domestication of camels [NOTE: The dates given for the Egyptian dynasties are from Clayton, 2001, pp.14-68]. The earliest evidence comes from a pottery camel’s head and a terra cotta tablet with men riding on and leading camels. According to Free, these are both from predynastic Egypt (1944, pp. 189-190), which according to Clayton is roughly before 3150 B.C. Free also listed three clay camel heads and a limestone vessel in the form of camel lying down—all dated at the First Dynasty of Egypt (3050-2890 B.C.). He then mentioned several models of camels from the Fourth Dynasty (2613-2498 B.C.), and a petroglyph depicting a camel and a man dated at the Sixth Dynasty (2345-2184 B.C.). Such evidence has led one respected Egyptologist to conclude that “the extant evidence clearly indicates that the domestic camel was known [in Egypt—EL] by 3,000 B.C.”—long before Abraham’s time (Kitchen, 1980, 1:228).

Perhaps the most convincing find in support of the early domestication of camels in Egypt is a rope made of camel’s hair found in the Fayum (an oasis area southwest of modern-day Cairo). The two-strand twist of hair, measuring a little over three feet long, was found in the late 1920s, and was sent to the Natural History Museum where it was analyzed and compared to the hair of several different animals. After considerable testing, it was determined to be camel hair, dated (by analyzing the layer in which it was found) to the Third or Fourth Egyptian Dynasty (2686-2498 B.C.). In his article, Free also listed several other discoveries from around 2,000 B.C. and later, which showed camels as domestic animals (pp. 189-190).

While prolific in Egypt, finds relating to the domestication of camels are not isolated to the African continent. In his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, professor Kenneth Kitchen (retired) of the University of Liverpool reported several discoveries made outside of Egypt proving ancient camel domestication around 2,000 B.C. Lexical lists from Mesopotamia have been uncovered that show a knowledge of domesticated camels as far back as this time. Camel bones have been found in household ruins at Mari in present-day Syria that fossilologists believe are also at least 4,000 years old. Furthermore, a Sumerian text from the time of Abraham has been discovered in the ancient city of Nippur (located in what is now southeastern Iraq) that clearly implies the domestication of camels by its allusions to camels’ milk (Kitchen, 1966, p. 79).

All of these documented finds support the domestication of camels in Egypt many years before the time of Abraham. Yet, as Younker rightly observed, skeptics refuse to acknowledge any of this evidence.

> It is interesting to note how, once an idea gets into the literature, it can become entrenched in conventional scholarly thinking. I remember doing research on the ancient site of Hama in Syria. As I was reading through the excavation reports (published in French), I came across a reference to a figurine from the 2nd millennium which the excavator thought must be a horse, but the strange hump in the middle of its back made one think of a camel. I looked at the photograph and the figurine was obviously that of a camel! The scholar was so influenced by the idea that camels were not used until the 1st millennium, that when he found a figurine of one in the second millennium, he felt compelled to call it a horse! This is a classic example of circular reasoning (2000, parenthetical comment in orig.).

Finds relating to the domestication of camels are not as prevalent in the second millennium B.C. as they are in the first millennium. This does not make the skeptics’ case any stronger, however. Just because camels were not as widely used during Abraham’s time as they were later, does not mean that they were entirely undomesticated. As Free commented:

> Many who have rejected this reference to Abraham’s camels seem to have assumed something which the text does not state. It should be carefully noted that the biblical reference does not necessarily indicate that the camel was common in Egypt at that time, nor does it evidence that the Egyptians had made any great progress in the breeding and domestication of camels. It merely says that Abraham had camels (1944, p. 191, emp. added).

Similarly, Younker noted:

> This is not to say that domesticated camels were abundant and widely used everywhere in the ancient Near East in the early second millennium. However, the patriarchal narratives do not necessarily require large numbers of camels…. The smaller amount of evidence for domestic camels in the late third and early second millennium B.C., especially in Palestine, is in accordance with this more restricted use (1997, 42:52).

Even without the above-mentioned archaeological finds (which to the unbiased examiner prove that camels were domesticated in the time of Abraham), it only seems reasonable to conclude that since wild camels have been known since the Creation, “there is no credible reason why such an indispensable animal in desert and semi-arid lands should not have been sporadically domesticated in patriarchal times and even earlier” (“Animal Kingdom,” 1988). The truth is, all of the available evidence points to one conclusion—the limited use of domesticated camels during and before the time of Abraham did occur. The supposed “anachronism” of domesticated camels during the time of the patriarchs is, in fact, an actual historical reference to the use of these animals at that time. Those who reject this conclusion cannot give one piece of solid archaeological evidence on their behalf. They simply argue from the “silence” of archaeology…which is silent no more!