Staff if this is in the wrong place I apologize. Not sure where else to put this thread.
Recently I decided to begin reading the entire Bible again. I am now reading it as a non-Abrahamic, which is different.
I started with Genesis of course. I have just finished reading it today.
Doesn't Genesis seem to be a mish mash of differing traditions that don't really entirely tie together?
The pre-history prior to Abraham appears constructed trying to recast Sumerian myth as actual history. Am I wrong?
Then when we get to Abraham, going on the knowledge that Genesis is a post-Babylonian exile work, his history appears to be largely full of metaphors symbolizing the nation of Israel much later in history.
Again, am I wrong? Am I thinking too much here?
I agree that reading the Bible from an Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic view point can be very different. It seems like you also have some background knowledge of the subject, which also ends up making quite a difference.
I would say that the pre-historical or primeval portion of Genesis is not mean to be historical. I think, like many of the sources it borrowed from, it was meant to be myth and/or epic. We can just look at the various doublets that we find in Genesis, and see that the audience, and authors most likely didn't see this stuff to be factual. I think the best example is the creation stories. Right from the beginning, we get to clearly distinct creation stories, that disagree with each other on key elements, yet both were seen to be "true." To me, that signifies that they were in fact myths that meant to symbolize a deeper meaning.
Within these beginning mythological stories though, I do think we find some historic truth. As with many epics and myths, there are historical facts added to the story. Sometimes they are so deeply buried, that they mean nearly nothing anymore, while others can be pulled out to help gain a better understanding. I think the Table of nations can be one of these stories that help us realize a little more about who the Hebrews were (as they clearly linked themselves to the surrounding areas, which I believe was a way to symbolize that they were a random assortment of people who formed a new tribe).
Getting into the stories of Abraham, and later, the question of historical accuracy is much more difficult. There are different camps on this subject, or more like a spectrum, ranging from the minimalists, or the maximalists. Those who see nothing being true, to those who see it nearly all as being true. Personally, I fall more in the middle (maybe a little closer to the maximalist group, but still quite in the middle).
I do think that the ancestral stories (Abraham, Sarah, etc) are based on historical knowledge. Now, there are obviously some errors in the stories, but that will happen with an oral tradition. But much of what is described does fit an earlier period than the Monarchy, or later periods. Many of the names, customs, etc. fit better within an earlier timeframe, and really would not fit into the later time frames (as in, it is unlikely they would have made up such stories as some of the customs simply were so different. If they weren't actually remembered from an earlier time, it is hardly likely that they would have made up customs that were simply against what they stood for).
Now, pulling the historical framework out of the various other narrative is a very difficult task, but we can get some some certainty that we are probably talking about historical facts. It is just a hard process to distinguish between what is historical, and what isn't.
At the same time, we have to deal with what probably was a purposeful composition of a national epic, a story explaining their origins. That will also cause some problems.
An even bigger difficulty though is that much of modern scholarship is relying on the JEDP theory, which in its original form, is falling apart.
