1. Why do you assume that Abraham's story is true?John T wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:05 amOn that we can agree.rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:16 pm
I understand the impulse, and its a good one, but I've come to the conclusion that we are actually missing quite a bit. Also, look at how many works we've found in the DSS that were previously never alluded to. I also no longer think that we posses the earliest versions of the Gospels. I don't think that either Mark or Marcion were the first Gospel. There are actually quite a few documents we have that are never discussed in other known sources.
So, while I think that its good not to rely on concepts like Q, we also have to acknowledge that less has been preserved that we would like to imagine.
Perhaps, you can now entertain the sticky point that some here on this thread are deliberately trying to ignore. That is how literature migrated from Mesopotamia 2,500 BCE in the form of cuneiform. That proto-Sinatic script goes back to 1,700 BCE in the land of Cannan. That when Abram left Ur it is only logical that he took with him stories of the first humans and the great flood as told in Gilgamesh? That by the time the Greeks conquered Canaan/Egypt and translated the stories of Genesis into Greek, the Enoch stories were already written down over a thousand years before Plato was born? That it is logical to think that the story of Enoch is older than the story of the Exodus?
Even so, would it make a difference with the mythicists?
John T is done with this thread.
2. The relative antiquity of the story of Enoch and of the Exodus, although fascinating, has no real bearing upon mythcism as far as I am aware.