# Can someone explain what is being said here?



## gordon 2 (Oct 26, 2011)

I would like to know what is being said here. This is from Wiki and if you what to read it all the article just search Abraham. 


I am a bit confused as to what  ( except in the triad "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) means in the the context here.

If I undertand partly most of the Account of Abraham is accepted by most bible scolars to have come for the period when the Jews were captives in Babylon in 600BC or so.

But what does except in the triad" Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" mean here?

 Quote:
Historicity and origins

It is generally recognised by scholars that there is nothing in the Genesis stories that can be related to the history of Canaan of the early 2nd millennium: none of the kings mentioned is known, Abimelech could not be a Philistine (they did not arrive till centuries later), Ur could not become known as "Ur of the Chaldeans" until the early 1st millennium, and Laban could not have been an Aramean, as the Arameans did not become an identifiable political entity until the 12th century.[18] Joseph Blenkinsopp, Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Notre Dame, notes that the past four or five decades have seen a growing consensus that the Genesis narrative of Abraham originated from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE as a mirror of the situation facing the Jewish community under the Babylonian and early Persian empires.[10] Blenkinsopp describes two conclusions about Abraham that are widely held in biblical scholarship: the first is that, except in the triad "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," he is not clearly and unambiguously attested in the Bible earlier than the Babylonian exile ; the second is that he became, in the Persian period, a model for those who would return from Babylon to Judah.[19] Beyond this the Abraham story (and those of Isaac and Jacob/Israel) served a theological purpose following the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Davidic kingship: despite the loss of these things, Yahweh's dealings with the ancestors provided a historical foundation on which hope for the future could be built.[11] There is basic agreement that his connection with Haran, Shechem and Bethel is secondary and originated when he became identified as the father of Jacob and ancestor of the northern tribes; his association with Mamre and Hebron, on the other hand (in the south, in the territory of Jerusalem and Judah), suggest that this region was the original home of his cult.[12]

***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham#Abraham_and_Ishmael


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2011)

I can't, that's over my head and probably out of my realm of something I need to understand anyway....lol. God knows how simple my mind is.

But I'll be interested in some answers, too.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 27, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> I would like to know what is being said here. This is from Wiki and if you what to read it all the article just search Abraham.
> 
> 
> I am a bit confused as to what  ( except in the triad "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) means in the the context here.
> ...


I think they are trying to make a case for the assumption that the story of Abraham was actually "reverse engineered". I think they are trying to say that it was written much later than where its location in the bible implies. Apart from Genesis, which they are disputing, they claim that Abraham is not mentioned much except in the use of what they refer to as "triad", "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Issac and the God of Jacob." or "the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob". If you look at a concordance, you can quickly see the point they are trying to make. Abraham is all over Genesis. I'm guesing 150 times. But after Genesis, Abraham is hardly ever used in the OT without being followed by Issac and Jacob, [triad]. I think this is what they mean. I wonder if they also imply that it is not inspired by God. Our bible is built upon the inspiredness of Genesis


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I think they are trying to make a case for the assumption that the story of Abraham was actually "reverse engineered". I think they are trying to say that it was written much later than where its location in the bible implies. Apart from Genesis, which they are disputing, they claim that Abraham is not mentioned much except in the use of what they refer to as "triad", "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Issac and the God of Jacob." or "the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob". If you look at a concordance, you can quickly see the point they are trying to make. Abraham is all over Genesis. I'm guesing 150 times. But after Genesis, Abraham is hardly ever used in the OT without being followed by Issac and Jacob, [triad]. I think this is what they mean. I wonder if they also imply that it is not inspired by God. Our bible is built upon the inspiredness of Genesis



Thanks, much appreciated. I am indeed going to check a concordance to see where the triad is mentioned compared to Genesis.

As a note to myself only perhaps, it is not uncommon for distinct religious traditions to empasize and build apon different aspects of scripture or shared spiritual histories-- even within the same faith, as we all know.


----------



## The Foreigner (Oct 29, 2011)

Couple of things: liberal schaolarship denies practically everything about Scripture - this idea here, that patriarchal history was written sometime during the babylonian captivity dates back to Julius Welhausen and his liberal documentary hypothesis. Frankly it's not worth the paper it was printed on.

As for the "triad" of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, our Lord sites this as an evidence for the bodily resurrection - he at least thought that Abraham was a literal historical figure, hence he denotes God as the "God of the living (Abraham Isaac and Jacob) and not the God of the dead".

Peace.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 29, 2011)

Midrash:

Midrash is a form of rabbinic literature. There are two types of midrash: midrash aggada and midrash halakha.

Midrash aggada can best be described as a form of storytelling that explores ethics and values in biblical texts. ("Aggada" literally means "story" or "telling" in Hebrew.) It can take any biblical word or verse and interpret it to answer a question or explain something in the text. For instance, a midrash may attempt to explain why Adam didn’t stop Eve from eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. One of the best-known midrashim (plural of midrash) deals with Abraham’s childhood in early Mesopotamia, where he is said to have smashed the idols in his father’s shop because even at that age he knew there was only One God. Midrash aggadah can be found in both Talmuds, in midrashic collections and in Midrash Rabbah, which means "Great Midrash." 

Whereas midrash aggada focuses on biblical characters as they pertain to values and ideas, midrash halakha focuses on Jewish law and practice. Midrash halakha attempts to take biblical texts that are either general or unclear and to clarify what they mean. A midrash of this nature may explain why, for instance, tefillin are used during prayer and how they should be worn.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 29, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> Couple of things: liberal schaolarship denies practically everything about Scripture - this idea here, that patriarchal history was written sometime during the babylonian captivity dates back to Julius Welhausen and his liberal documentary hypothesis. Frankly it's not worth the paper it was printed on.
> 
> As for the "triad" of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, our Lord sites this as an evidence for the bodily resurrection - he at least thought that Abraham was a literal historical figure, hence he denotes God as the "God of the living (Abraham Isaac and Jacob) and not the God of the dead".
> 
> Peace.



I find that your use of the word "liberal" a bit suspicious. And for it I doubt the integrety in your reply. Academic disciple described as "liberal" or "fundamental" is a crock in my view. 

Your idea that Jesus thought that Abraham was a literal historical figure...is your own account, and in keeping with your christian tradition-- others in the christian tradition are out there.

 How about if Jesus knew that Abraham was from an ancient Midrash. The faith in the power of God garnered from the account of Abraham was no less real! 

Telescope; binoculars. To dismiss fifty plus yrs of academic bible study as  simply toilet tissue is unfair. Sorry mate.


----------



## apoint (Oct 30, 2011)

You can buy into what man has discovered or not discovered writings and what man thinks he knows. 
 Even the discovery of the dead sea scrolls are a very recent discovery. 
 Also ancient past discovery's are hardly ever up graded to what recent discovery's disclaim.
 I'm sure you can find writing's some where on disclaiming most of the Bible.
 I have no problem taking the Bible as it is written and let science and scholars play catch up as usual...
  Nothing new under the sun...


----------

