This is fascinating. It raises the question of Ur/modern day Iraq, from which Abraham and Sarah are said to have come. Of course he could have come to the land and if his offspring married with those Canaanite or Arabian tribes you mentioned, then it all follows.
Very important clarification of the God of Israel's connection to the southeastern regions of Seir/Edom, Paran, Midyan, Horeb, Sinai, etc. I would only add that the need to distribute the various facets of this process to a hypothetical multitude of "waves" may be a function of our limited understanding of each individual proposed "wave." We may eventually realize that only one "wave" was primarily responsible and that we were unable to come to this conclusion earlier due to the limited nature of our evidence. For me personally, occam's razor points in that direction. If this process is in fact the result of multiple ways it would be an interesting and for me a new way to conceptualize historical events.
Using probabalistic terminology for a second. It seems like most of these conclusions may be at the mode of the distribution, in other words they are the most likely explanation among many explanations. But the distribution is very wide - in other words it is more likely than not that this narrative is false and some other narrative is true. It just seems like a lot of this type of conjecture rests on very weak evidence, and a single new piece of evidence could easily upend the whole thing. Do you agree or disagree?
Totally agree, while the Midianite-Kenite hypothesis seems very convincing (I mean, it's still around for a reason), it is still no more than a hypothesis and a lot of it rests on mere conjecture.
This is fascinating. It raises the question of Ur/modern day Iraq, from which Abraham and Sarah are said to have come. Of course he could have come to the land and if his offspring married with those Canaanite or Arabian tribes you mentioned, then it all follows.
Very important clarification of the God of Israel's connection to the southeastern regions of Seir/Edom, Paran, Midyan, Horeb, Sinai, etc. I would only add that the need to distribute the various facets of this process to a hypothetical multitude of "waves" may be a function of our limited understanding of each individual proposed "wave." We may eventually realize that only one "wave" was primarily responsible and that we were unable to come to this conclusion earlier due to the limited nature of our evidence. For me personally, occam's razor points in that direction. If this process is in fact the result of multiple ways it would be an interesting and for me a new way to conceptualize historical events.
Good stuff. Thank you.
Using probabalistic terminology for a second. It seems like most of these conclusions may be at the mode of the distribution, in other words they are the most likely explanation among many explanations. But the distribution is very wide - in other words it is more likely than not that this narrative is false and some other narrative is true. It just seems like a lot of this type of conjecture rests on very weak evidence, and a single new piece of evidence could easily upend the whole thing. Do you agree or disagree?
Totally agree, while the Midianite-Kenite hypothesis seems very convincing (I mean, it's still around for a reason), it is still no more than a hypothesis and a lot of it rests on mere conjecture.