John Gee said
If the records of the covenants given to Abraham are not historically authentic, or the records of the keeping of covenants, or God's fulfillment of the covenants, what basis do we have for assuming that God will fulfill his promises to us? If those who deny the historical authenticity of the scriptures really believe that, why on earth would they expect God to keep his promises to them?
He doesn't go back far enough. It isn't a question of whether covenants and Abraham are historically authentic, I am wondering where the hands on physical evidence is for a historically authentic God in Abraham's day... if archaeology has shown anything, anything and everything at all it is that the Jews simply fobbed off of their cultural neighbors for not on their covenant idea, but their God idea. Mark S. Smith's several books analysis of this was one of the items that broke my shelf. Jehovah isn't original in any manner, he is simply a regurgitated mythological God taken from earlier peoples. The issue isn't is Abraham real, the issue is is that God real. No one touches that one. I can entirely understand why.
Not only is the historical Abraham invented, as per John Van Seters, John Thompson, but the historical God Abraham supposedly worshipped is also invented, as per Mark S. Smith and many others who have traced Jehovah back to earlier mythological deities, none of which have a smidgin of reality to them in our universe.
To paraphrase Gee, if those who deny historical developments and mythological development of the scriptures, really believe that, why on earth would they expect anyone to accept their own spin on a false interpretation simply because they refuse to follow the evidence against their historical guesswork?