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.

[TRANSPONDER]

The veracity of the stories connected to the 12 tribes is a matter of much debate but to claim that the simple fact of 12 brothers each fathering a clan / tribe is farfetched amounts to a denial of the anthropological reality of how societies evolve.

What is this anthropological reality of how societies evolve? Do you have a source?

source : https://www.britannica.com/topic/tribe-anthropology

Yes, but as Difflugia pointed out that doesn't have to mean a descent from one Eponymous ancestor. tribes can coalesce out of a larger group with a particular identity just because they live at a different end of the tribal area. I read all that stuff about the Rival tribes to israel being descended from Lot's offspring named Moab or Edom. This doesn't look at all credible to me. It is merely Polemical myth.

The 12 tribes might indeed have a more historical basis but, apart from the archaeological hints of an origin in the mountains of the northeast rather than from Ur by way of Egypt, there is no reason to take the origin stories of Genesis seriously.

[JehovahsWitness]

What is this anthropological reality of how societies evolve? Do you have a source?

A dictionary? Color me shocked. Even so, it supports what I wrote...

No it does not support what you wrote!

You claimed that it was far fetched that tribes were founded by {quote}one of a dozen brothers of the same generation{end quote}.

.. [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.






JW

What is the difference between dictionaries and encyclopedias?

Encyclopedia and Dictionary are two words that are often confused when it comes to their usage and meanings. Encyclopedia is an information bank. On the other hand, a dictionary is a lexicon that contains meanings and possibly, usages of words.

[Difflugia]

You claimed that it was far fetched that tribes were founded by {quote}one of a dozen brothers of the same generation{end quote}.

.. [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!

What is the difference between dictionaries and encyclopedias?

The entertainment value of your pedantry-as-argument is the gift that keeps on giving.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

More evasion and goalpost shifting. Why are you speaking about the time of settlement when your (unsupported ) nonsensical point was about the alleged implausibility of 12 brothers becoming patricarchs?

.. [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

Unless you have an alternative meaning of the word "founded" you have unsuccessfully attempted to support your claim by attempting to shift the focus away from it. The fact of the matter is anthropologically, kinship is one of the primary forces of cohesion in any social organization, so the biblical picture of tribes founded (your word not mine) by 12 brothers does not require any degree of {to quote you} "wishful thinking"



JW

[Difflugia]

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.

More evasion and goalpost shifting. Why are you speakjng about the time of settlement when your (unsupported ) nonsensical point was about the alleged implausibility of 12 brothers becoming patricarchs?

That's exactly the goalpost I addressed.

I'll assume that your mistake is an honest one rather than an intentional straw man. Lest the overall argument evade you, I'll simplify it for you as much as I can:

• There are no ethnological boundaries between brothers, the absolutely closest of kin.
• Without at least one sociological boundary of conflict, there is no basis for a tribe.
• To posit that some set of unstated boundaries coincidentally correlated with patriarchal lines of descent from twelve brothers of a single generation is implausible.

[JehovahsWitness]

If the Abrahamic origin stories are true, then we would believe that though the tribes of Israel were spread across 10,000 square miles, they 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.

In case you were hoping we all forget your claim, I have posted it above. I can only assume your evasion is an honest misunderstanding of the words "twelve" and "founded" rather than to shift the focus to hide potential embarassment at such a flimsy criticism.

[Difflugia]

In case you were hoping we all forget your claim, I have posted it above

I wasn't. That's why I repeated it in my minimal summary.

Are you, perhaps, trying to pretend that it was something else?

[JehovahsWitness]

In case you were hoping we all forget your claim, I have posted it above

I wasn't. That's why I repeated it in my minimal summary.

Good well then maybe you would like to address the point.

If the Abrahamic origin stories are true, then we would believe that though the tribes of Israel were spread across 10,000 square miles, they 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.

In case you were hoping we all forget your claim, I have posted it above. I can only assume your evasion is an honest misunderstanding of the words "twelve" and "founded" rather than to shift the focus to hide potential embarassment at such a flimsy criticism.

Let me try and simplify it for you : what is implausible abput 12 brothers each founding a tribe?

If the Abrahamic origin stories are true, then we would believe that though the tribes of Israel were spread across 10,000 square miles, they 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.

JW

[Difflugia]

Let me try and simplify it for you : what is implausible abput 12 brothers each founding a tribe?

There's no sociological basis for the distinctions between the tribes.

[JehovahsWitness]

Let me try and simplify it for you : what is implausible about 12 brothers each founding a tribe?

There's no sociological basis for the distinctions between the tribes.

Irrelevant. The point is not how they may or may not have gone on to catagorize themselves (or whether future generations had a mechanism to remain a coherent and identifiable subgroup ) but the alleged (according to you) implausibility of their origins ie founding. Unless you are suggesting 12 brothers must have (by reason of being 12 ) bern sterile you strawman is amusingly silly.