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]

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 but the alleged(according to you) implausibility of their origins.

Heh. That's exactly the point and it's the point I made in the first place. Twelve brothers founding twelve different tribes at once rather than forming a single tribe together in the beginning is what's implausible. The initial tribe may (and probably will) diverge slowly later on according to emergent boundaries, but even if there are twelve of them, those boundaries will no longer match the patrilineal ones, if they're even remembered.

If you think my original point was even immaterially different than that, then you misunderstood it. Perhaps you did and if that's the case, I apologize for any lack of clarity. I'm not defending whatever point you've since invented for me, though.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

What do you mean "at once"? Obviously their children had the means to know which patriarch they belonged to and they initially simply formed bands (extended family units). Do you have a problem distinguishing between your brother and your cousin?

Your points are getting sillier and sillier.

[Difflugia]

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

What do you mean "at once"? Obviously their children had the means to know which patriarch they belonged to. Do you have a problem distinguishing between your brother and your cousin?

Your points are getting sillier and sillier.

The only silly point so far is your implication that an arbitrary generation of brothers is responsible for tribal boundaries. I've offered academic support for why that's silly. You've merely asserted that it's not.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

What do you mean "at once"? Obviously their children had the means to know which patriarch they belonged to. Do you have a problem distinguishing between your brother and your cousin?

Your points are getting sillier and sillier.

The only silly point so far is your implication that an arbitrary generation of brothers is responsible for tribal boundaries. I've offered academic support for why that's silly. You've merely asserted that it's not.

More evasion .... nobody is discussing tribal boundaries but how those tribes originated (to use your word were "founded"). It seems your criticism is that the bible narrative amounts to doubts that the brother's children became a tribe "at once" . Before we clear up that seeming misunderstanding, perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "at once" to avoid misunderstanding each other ....do you know what you mean by the expression "Twelve brothers founding twelve different tribes at once"?




JW

[Difflugia]

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

What do you mean "at once"? Obviously their children had the means to know which patriarch they belonged to. Do you have a problem distinguishing between your brother and your cousin?

Your points are getting sillier and sillier.

The only silly point so far is your implication that an arbitrary generation of brothers is responsible for tribal boundaries. I've offered academic support for why that's silly. You've merely asserted that it's not.

More evasion .... nobody is discussing tribal boundaries but how those tribes originated. It seems your criticism is that the bible declared the brothers children a tribe "at once" . Before we clear up that seeming misunderstandjng, perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "at once"....do you know ?

I'm not playing word games with you. I've made a detailed claim and supported it with an academic source, to which I've linked.

If you have a counterclaim, please make and support it.

[JehovahsWitness]

.... nobody is discussing tribal boundaries but how those tribes originated. It seems your criticism is that the bible declared the brothers children a tribe "at once" . Before we clear up that seeming misunderstandjng, perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "at once"....do you know ?

I'm not playing word games with you.

Nobody's asking you to, only to explain what you yourself write in your own posts.


It seems your criticism is that the bible narrative amounts to doubts that the brother's children became a tribe "at once" . This seems to be a strawman but I dont want to presume. I cannot counterclaim misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the text. Thus my request for clarification.



JW

[Difflugia]

I'm not playing word games with you.

Nobody's asking you to



"at once"

Do you have an argument of your own to make?

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm not playing word games with you.

Nobody's asking you to



"at once"

Do you have an argument of your own to make?

Do you object to your points being challenged? My argument is that your argument is illogical and possibly a strawman...

[Difflugia]

Do you object to your points being challenged?

Not at all. You can start by offering and supporting a mechanism by which patrilineal lines from the Joseph novella would have come to represent separate tribes at any time during Israel's history, whether "at once" or later in history.

For transparency and future reference (though we're stuck on your attempts at word games), my overall claim is that the eponymous brothers were invented to metaphorically represent existing tribal affiliations during the 8th-7th centuries B.C.E. when most of the Hexateuch (Genesis-Joshua) was likely composed.

[JehovahsWitness]

For transparency and future reference (though we're stuck on your attempts at word games), my overall claim is that the eponymous brothers were invented to metaphorically represent existing tribal affiliations during the 8th-7th centuries B.C.E. when most of the Hexateuch (Genesis-Joshua) was likely composed.

I dont care, that is irrelevant. I am not interested in shifted goalposts much less in an entirely different game. You clarified your point in post # 31 as best you could and I thank you for that. However you seem to be operating under 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 .