Osarseph and Exodus
An Egyptian source (namely, Chaeremon) remembers the Exodus group to have had two leaders, corroborating the Biblical tradition
Well, Chaeremon is not an Egyptian source. He was a Greek and in fact quite dismissive of Egyptians, although he lived in Alexandria.
The Egyptian source is Manetho. However, both of these are only known in fragmentary form, mostly from Josephus.
As such, we have one source here referencing others.
This is part of the argument why Moses and Aaron fall in the Arthurian group. Much historical narrative from Archaeology disputes it, but literary tradition and facts such as the Shasu of YHW in Midian gives some support. It is thus doubtful narrative that one can argue over, that has serious enough problems that it cannot be securely affirmed, but enough evidence that it cannot be fully dismissed either. It depends what evidence you give more weight to.
Why would you doubt the existence of Elijah ? What is so remarkable about yet another Israelite preaching Prophet ? There was one every generation... excising Elijah from Israelite history leaves a generational gap with other (qualitatively) similar figures on either "side", both before & after...
There aren't similar figures to Elijah. Being taken into heaven by a fiery chariot, single handedly standing up to the monarch, etc. Elijah is a major prophet, hence present at the transfiguration.
The more fantastic a narrative with more extreme claims, the higher the bar of credibility. If I claim a warlord united a small tribe in the steppe in 300s AD vs claiming a warlord united all the steppe tribes, the latter requires far more proof to be believable than the much more restrained claim. One vague reference somewhere would be more than sufficient for the former, but not for the latter.
That there were prophets is certainly believable. That one was named Elijah as well. To claim he stood up to a dynasty at the height of its powers, overthrew Baal prophets and so forth, with no corroborating narrative from the period of someone who clearly had to have made an impact, should give one pause. Again, an Arthurian figure, as not impossible, but the sheer claims made around him makes it more difficult to fully assume his historicity. Elijah is more to the reasonable side of the spectrum though, I agree. It was just an example though, and there will inevitably be disagreement on borderline cases between Arthurians and Ambrosiuses.
raising the "bar" to finding 3000 year old decaying "needles" in the "haystack" of the Near Eastern
archeological record... in order to accept someone's existence... as if Scripture was to be doubted unless authenticated elsewhere... is a very tall order and high burden of evidence to apply
I agree. Often we have very few sources, so one source is the only show in town. Good examples are the Biblical narrative in much of Kings, or Herodotus, Tacitus, Theucydides, etc. Sometimes one source is sufficient, if it fits the general milieu. It is unreasonable to expect corroboration for every little thing and that would make history in general untenable.
I mean, what actually hinges on the names of the Patriarchs ? If "Abraham" was actually confirmed by archeology to have really been named "B-raham" or "Z-braham" or something, what Theological doctrine really changes?
The name "Abraham" is attested from Ebla in about the right time period, along with itinerant preaching Prophets:
Is There Evidence of Abraham's Revolution?
Well, that is another thing in entirety. I am unaware of an Eblaite reference to Abraham directly, nor found it in your reference. Could you supply it?
I actually do not believe Ebla to be closely related to Judaism, in spite of a lot of speculation in this regard. They are both Semitic, but there is no evidence of any direct connection. Association may just be familial, like Leviathan and Tiamat style, or Noah and Utnapishtim, so things more than this are speculative and does require quite a lot of corroboration in my opinion. It would be the equivalent of trying to affirm English history in the 7th century by what was happening in Scandinavia - it may give you some useful information, but should be taken with a little pinch of salt.
I feel that an overly high burden of evidence is just an excuse to dis-believe whilst still appearing to have an open mind. I myself would be more inclined to dis-believe the alleged miracles associated with the various Biblical figures, before I would bother dis-believing in the existence of the figures themselves.
Agreed. There is a necessity to critically appraise historical figures, but when it comes to the Bible there is a knee-jerk tendency to expect too high amount of corroboration. This would never be expected of Egyptian or Greco-Roman historical sources, which often has similar levels of fantastical events. As I said, it is a spectrum from fully proven Historical figures, down through figures of decreasing plausibility, to ones that are highly doubtful. I would extend some form of historical acceptance provisionally to all of my Arthur-types, but with significant caveats and on a case by case basis.
History is a series of lies agreed upon though, as Napoleon was said to have said.
