JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:51 amYou claimed that it was far fetched that tribes were founded by
{quote}one of a dozen brothers of the same generation{end quote}.
Difflugia wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:35 am.. [the tribes of Israel] were each founded by one of a dozen brothers of the same generation.
That is the sort of "wishful thinking" that would require, in the language of Occam's razor, the "multiplication of entities" in order to maintain the origin stories as true
Will you continue to evade this challenge or will you present soms evidence or rationale to support this rather bizzare conclusion.
Evade your "challenge?" I explained why it's implausible and considering that you've offered nothing more than your usual incredulity in response, I certainly don't owe your "challenge" anything more. I find the subject entertaining, though, so I will.
Tribal affiliations are about cultural identity and boundaries. Anthropologically, kinship is one of the primary forces of cohesion in any social organization. The only non-incestuous kinship bond that is closer than a sibling of the same parents is an
identical twin sibling. A kin group displaced from Canaan to Egypt is a plausible origin for a
single cultural group. The group has kinship to support cohesion and geographic distance to form a boundary with other closely related groups, including literal kin. According to the Bible stories, the most closely related kin to the children of Jacob/Israel would be the first generation of those to be the Ishmaelites (first cousins once removed, grandchildren of their great uncle) and Lot's grandchildren (first cousins twice removed, great-grandchildren of their great-great uncle), the second generation of Ammonites and Moabites.
To plausibly posit a further division at that generation, one would also posit some boundary, either geographical or sociological, that existed at the time of settlement. Remember that in the story, Joseph is the second-highest member of the Egyptian government. In terms of conflict with outsiders by any definition, affiliation and unity with Joseph would provide the greatest practical benefit in Egypt, potentially topped only by affilliation with Pharaoh himself against Joseph. According to the text, this situation lasted for three additional generations (Genesis 50:23). In light of modern data, we would expect that the Israelites might maintain an
ethnic identity as Israelites, but would adopt a national identity as Egyptian. We've nothing to account for another set of borders separating the "Twelve Tribes." In light of this, your burden here would be to identify some sociological conflict that would account for the Israelites to futher divide along patriarchal lines corresponding to the first generation of Jacob's children.
One of the seminal and still most important works of modern anthropology is
Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, published in 1969 and edited by Frederik Barth. Jan Petter-Blom's chapter entitled
"Ethnic and Cultural Differentiation" is presented as an annotated case study of the evolution of separate ethnic identities out of an original, homogeneous identity within a larger nation. "The purpose of this paper is to discuss the cultural and organizational requirements for the establishment of ethnic boundaries." Sound familiar? Petter-Blom argues that these boundaries reflect areas of competition between identifiable groups for relative ranking within the larger society; mere differences aren't enough. Since no such boundaries within the story are apparent, one must posit that there are not only twelve such competitive, yet unstated boundaries, but that those boundaries must have remained static in such a way that they still aligned with a particular founding patriarch after more than four-hundred years. Furthermore, such boundaries would have to persist through the social upheavals effected by the Exodus, a subsequent war of conquest, and resettlement in an alien land, each representing a completely new set of economic and social relationships.
Suggesting such a series of unlikely coincidences would be (to borrow your word) nothing short of
bizarre.
I can see why you requested that the goalposts be placed at the purely abstract position of twelve
hypothetical brothers founding twelve
hypothetical tribes. Your position is difficult enough with that merely speculative exercise without even considering the overwhelming textual and archaeological evidence that the events themselves didn't actually happen!
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:51 amWhat is the difference between dictionaries and encyclopedias?
The entertainment value of your pedantry-as-argument is the gift that keeps on giving.