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.
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
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.
I love that. You make the argument. When you get called on it you don't want to discuss it.
Look, the point is that, dubious as the 12 tribes being down to 12 original persons may be, it is not disprovable. That isn't the point. The point is that it is also possible that tribes split out of a larger populace without any single progenitor being involved. I forget what the point was supposed to prove, but it doesn't prove anything.
The Book of Numbers is about how God moved about 3 million Israelites harmoniously through the Sinai desert for some 40 years. It also forms the basis of how they settled in the Promised Land along their 12 tribal lines and remained virtually a coherent yet hardly mixed unit for about 800 to 1,000 years before the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles.
The estimated number of 3 million is based on the two censuses taken soon after exiting Egypt and the other shortly before entering the Promised Land. In the first census, there were 602,550 men aged 20 years and above, and in the second there were 601,730. Levites, women and children were not included here. My estimate of 3 million grants each man a wife, and 3 children. (See 1:1-54)
1. The Camping and Movement Arrangements
And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: “Everyone of the children of Israel shall camp by his own standard, beside the emblems of his father’s house; they shall camp some distance from the tabernacle of meeting." (Numbers 2:1-2)
On the east of the Tabernacle camped the tribes of Judah, Issachar and Zebulun, next to each other. When moving, "Judah ... set out first". On the south camped Reuben, Simeon and Gad, and Reuben set out first. On the west was Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, and Ephraim set out first. On the north, Dan brought up the rear with Asher and Naphtali.
The Levites camped in similar formation in the inner perimeter of the camp, around the tabernacle: Moses, Aaron and his sons were to the east at the entrance of the tabernacle. The Gershonites were to the west, the Kohathites to the south and the Merarites to the north. (See 2 & 3)
2. The Boundaries of and Within the Promised Land
Numbers 34:2
“Command the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When you come into the land of Canaan, this is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance—the land of Canaan to its boundaries.
Numbers 34:3
[3] Your southern border shall be from the Wilderness of Zin along the border of Edom; then your southern border shall extend eastward to the end of the Salt Sea;
[6] ‘As for the western border, you shall have the Great Sea for a border; this shall be your western border. [7] ‘And this shall be your northern border: From the Great Sea you shall mark out your border line to Mount Hor;
[10] ‘You shall mark out your eastern border from Hazar Enan to Shepham;
3. The Internal Inheritance Law
Numbers 36:7-8 NKJV
So the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not change hands from tribe to tribe, for every one of the children of Israel shall keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be the wife of one of the family of her father’s tribe, so that the children of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers.
Very good, but the only discussion - point seems to be countering the claim that there were simply too many Israelites (is that spelt wrong?) to make the Exodus practical.
I'll leave others to argue whether your working out of the figures is valid or not, but the real point is whether the Exodus makes sense. The idea of a captive tribe of Immigrants (they were not captured but followed Joseph to Egypt - supposedly) who had been living as a distinct community distinct from the Egyptians, though apparently they didn't know about the Hebrew religion or had forgotten a lot, and suddenly God decides to get the people out of Egypt and mind - controls Pharaoh (who was minded to let them go, anyway) so as to do a string of miracles, which doesn't stop the Israelites turning to Baal -worship (the writers in Exilic Babylon knew nothing of Egyptian religion) as soon as Moses' back was turned.
Miracles aside, as well as Sinai being under Egyptian control in the New Kingdom, and never mind their avoiding the land of the Philistines, which didn't exist, yet, the figures can be wangled so as to make the Exodus practical,avoid Egyptian patrols and have the conquest start from the east, just like they had come down from the Amorite hills rather than from the S east through Gaza as you'd expect, but the improbability of the whole enslaved Israel scenario and the chronological problems, is what makes the Exodus doubtful, not figures that can be adjusted by knocking off an inconvenient Nought or two.
You make the argument. When you get called on it you don't want to discuss it.
