Look in Sumer and Akkad for the origins of the Hebrew language and people, not in Egypt.
I have studied this and agree somewhat. wiki semetic for a clear basic understanding of the history.
That there was no Hebrew alephbet until after they became a settled people is not proof that they did not write using Sumerian or Egyptian characters.
You are supposing that the language followed the development of the writing when it is clear that the development of the writing followed the language.
they were not really hebrews at the time of the previous cultures writing, if you study this you will see hebrews dont go back much past what 1250BC ISH then 250 years later we start finding the earliest writings. Semetic language does not indicate a hebrew.
SO the storys we have in genesis are not really hebrew storys at all but really earlier fables told to semetic speaking people who evolved into the hebrews. Some storys may have been from semetic origins, many were not.
The OT, in its various parts, was written to reflect and preserve that solid, and well known, oral core but also with an eye to current reigning political realities.
wrong there are many mistakes in the bible due to bad oral tradition. this is common knowledge.
does the bible not list a few different genealogies?
No offence, but I think you could do a little work on upgrading your respect for Oral Tradition and Oral History.
Im sorry I have studied it, and dont agree. You cant base any accuracy with genesis because its such a patchwork compiled together. Much of it is myth and we know the origins of some of the myths come from sumerian and egyptian cultures. Much of the writing is nothing but fiction based on previous storys with a hebrew twist.
if the oral tradition stayed in one culture then I would agree, but we have a few different cultures involved here and the normal rules for oral tradition do not apply in any sense.
I wont ask you to learn history before you make comments you may not fully understand.
But that there was a man named Moses who was a primary Israelite priestly figure associated with the (or an) Exodus and whose authority, in national tradition, was great enough that the Israelites as a whole could accept him in the position that J, E and P independently ascribe to him seems much the mostly likely case
your confusing the man moses with the story of moses. There is no way with any certainty we can make a man out of the story with what we have.
I do love talking about this with you because of your knowledge on the subject.