Was Abraham a Historical Person?

[Diogenes]

I always assumed Abraham was a real person, a person from history. I assumed the Biblical account was biased or flawed, but had some truth to it, but...

Most historians view the patriarchal age, along with the Exodus and the period of the biblical judges, as a late literary construct that does not relate to any particular historical era; and after a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham
... citing McNutt, Paula M. (1999). Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. , and
Dever, William G. (2001). What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and when Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

One of the reasons this argument makes sense is the Torah was composed in the 6th century BCE while there were tensions between Jewish landowners who had remained during the Babylonian captivity and the returning exiles. The ones who stayed behind used 'father Abraham' to bolster their claims; the others appealed to the tradition of Moses and the Exodus. This rings true, that justifying land rights would inspire literature.

[Difflugia]

However you seem to be operating jnder an assumption that the biblical narrative fails to initially ("at once") present the sons of Israel as one extended family group, albeit comprising of 12 different partiarchal branches.

Nothing about my argument assumes that.

[Difflugia]

For anyone else browsing or following along, while reading for this thread I ran across a new and potentially interesting book: The Myth of the Twelve Tribes of Israel by Andrew Tobolowsky. I'm not shelling out $72 for the ebook, but I'm hopeful that it will become available soon in one of the libraries I can access.

[JehovahsWitness]

However you seem to be operating jnder an assumption that the biblical narrative fails to initially ("at once") present the sons of Israel as one extended family group, albeit comprising of 12 different partiarchal branches.

Nothing about my argument assumes that.

Well, then you have ill chosen your words ....

[Difflugia]

Nothing about my argument assumes that.

Wel, then you have ill chosen your words ....

Perhaps. Do you have a counterclaim or anything else of substance to offer the debate?

[JehovahsWitness]

Nothing about my argument assumes that.

Wel, then you have ill chosen your words ....

Perhaps. ....

Not perhaps, most probably ...

Twelve brothers founding twelve different tribes at once rather than forming a single tribe together in the beginning is what's implausible.

• You say that the bible presents 12 {to quote you} "Twelve brothers founding twelve different tribes at once " this reads as if you conclude that the family at its second generation considered each patriarchal "band" a different "tribe"

... and contrast the above with what would logically be the case, namely {to quote you }

• forming a single tribe together in the beginning which obviously implies that is NOT what is presented in scripture

[Difflugia]

• You say that the bible presents 12 {to quote you} "Twelve brothers founding twelve different tribes at once " this reads as if you conclude that the family at its second generation considered each patriarchal "band" a different "tribe"

... and contrast the above with what would logically be the case, namely {quote}

• forming a single tribe together in the beginning which obviously implies that is NOT what is presented in scripture

That's fine. What's the competitive boundary that led to a presumably later division, coincidentally along patriarchal lines?

[JehovahsWitness]

• You say that the bible presents 12 {to quote you} "Twelve brothers founding twelve different tribes at once " this reads as if you conclude that the family at its second generation considered each patriarchal "band" a different "tribe"

... and contrast the above with what would logically be the case, namely {quote}

• forming a single tribe together in the beginning which obviously implies that is NOT what is presented in scripture

That's fine. What's the competitive boundary that led to a presumably later division, coincidentally along patriarchal lines?

If you wish to discuss that topic, may I suggest you find someine interested in doing so.

[Difflugia]

That's fine. What's the competitive boundary that led to a presumably later division, coincidentally along patriarchal lines?

If you wish to discuss that topic, may I suggest you find someine interested in doing so.

Since you were trying very hard to find a way to disagree with me (albeit without the tedium of actually presenting evidence), I'd hoped I had. Apparently in vain, though.

[JehovahsWitness]

That's fine. What's the competitive boundary that led to a presumably later division, coincidentally along patriarchal lines?

If you wish to discuss that topic, may I suggest you find someine interested in doing so.

Since you were trying very hard to find a way to disagree with me (albeit without the tedium of actually presenting evidence), I'd hoped I had. Apparently in vain, though.

My point is ...

Scripture introduces the Israelites as one unit associated with the family patriarch Jacob (Israel) albeit subdivisable into "households" (See Exodus 1 vs 1-7). The biblical narrative consistently references the "the sons of Israel" , "the Israelites" (Lit. The sons of Israel) , "The people of Israel" ... so intially (as in,quoting you "in the beginning") they were indeed presented as one culturally, linguistically distinct unit.

Outside of Jacobs prophetic utterences at his death, the word tribe(s) of Israel isnt even mentioned until chronologically well over a century after the death of the last of the partiarchal brothers in question.

The above addresses the following objection from post#31 ....

Twelve brothers founding twelve different tribes at once rather than forming a single tribe together in the beginning is what's implausible.

[Difflugia]

Scripture introduces the Israelites as one unit associated with the family patriarch Jacob (Israel) albeit subdivisable into "households" (See Exodus 1 vs 1-7). The biblical narrative consistently references the "the sons of Israel" , "the Israelites" (Lit. The sons of Israel) , "The people of Israel" ... so intially (as in,quoting you "in the beginning") they were indeed presented as one culturally, linguistically distinct unit.

Outside of Jacobs prophetic utterences at his death, the word tribe(s) of Israel isnt even mentioned until chronologically well over a century after the death of the last of the partiarchal brothers in question.

The above addresses the following objection from post#31 ....

Twelve brothers founding twelve different tribes at once rather than forming a single tribe together in the beginning is what's implausible.

It doesn't. The source I referred to and linked doesn't rely on the sociological groups being "tribes," much less on any particular definition of "tribe." At some point the sociological groups created along patrilineal divisions became referred to as "tribes," being composed of many "bands" and "households" and whatever. If those tribes actually corresponded to the patrilineal divisions, then there must have been some other competitive boundaries that arose later that were coincident with the patriarchal lines. What were those boundaries? If the coincidence wasn't random chance, what were those boundaries and what did each specific "son of Israel" have to do with it?