This isn't true. It was well known, or well established, that the Trojan war occurred, we didn't know where. We know where Egypt is.

You're wrong. It was thought to be a myth, just as you think the Revelation at Sinai was a myth.

I read your provided links and determined the same argument still applies. If you're not a Jew, a remarkably orthodox Jew, then the argument carries no weight.

I'm not a remarkably orthodox Jew and it's convincing to me. You could, you know, actually respond to the claims made in those articles. The latter is the better one, I admit, because of its clear formatting. Try that one.

There is no difference between these 'g-narratives' and the texts already in existence.

I want to call that kind of story a g-narrative. G-narratives are any story with the following two characteristics: (G1) The events of the story were, according to the story itself, witnessed by an entire generation of an already numerous tribe/nation. (G2) The story itself claims that the witnesses endeavoured to initiate a chain of transmission from generation to generation – �?And you shall tell your child’ – such that their progeny would never forget what they saw.

...

G-narratives, even when their storylines are set a long time ago, are not completely beyond the verificatory reach of their audience, because, at the very least, the audience will know whether the story was passed down to them by the entirety of the previous generation. G-narratives in the body of Jewish narratives are an exception, rather than the norm. But they are significant for the following reason: it’s difficult to believe that any g-narrative could have become widespread as a myth unless it had been passed down from generation to generation. The only generation that would have accepted a g-narrative, even as the basis of a myth, or so it seems to me, would be the generation that witnessed the key events of the story for themselves. Otherwise, they’d have said, �?I didn’t see this, and no one ever told me about it before now!’ If a g-narrative is widespread across a culture, however primitive, you’d have good reason to believe that its central story line, or something similar to it, actually occurred. To accept this thesis is not to revert to anything like an historiographical approach to Jewish narrative in general.

It’s also worth pointing out just how few of the central Jewish narratives are g-narratives. All of the stories that pertain to times before the emergence of the Jewish people fall short of being g-narratives. All of the narratives that weren’t supposed to have happened before the entire nation also fall short. There are even narratives that talk of miracles that were beheld by the entire nation, such as the sun standing still for Joshua, that fail to be g-narratives because the story doesn’t talk of an endeavour to pass the story on from generation to generation. The story of the exodus from Egypt and the mass revelation at Mount Sinai, which are both accompanied with commandments to keep the story alive, are some of the rare occasions in which a Jewish narrative can claim to be a g-narrative. In fact, very few religious or historical narratives outside of Judaism can claim to be g-narratives either.

I don't believe you actually read the link I posted. You are misunderstanding what a g-narrative is within the text - it is not something parallel to the text of the Torah. By refusing to do so, you do yourself a great disservice. By appearing to lie to me, you demonstrate that you likely are not debating in good faith.

It is an oral tradition, not an accurate keeping of records, and cannot be adequately seperated from the mythology.

Not only are you wrong - because we're talking about the Torah, which is a written record - but you are also dismissing the ways in which oral history are integral to the accurate keeping of records as separate from mythology. (See here, Structure and validity in oral evidence)

Of course, your position is that Jewish history consists of no mythology, which would make it unique -- in a completely unfounded way.

Entirely false. My position is that the core narrative of the Sinai Revelation - that the nation of Israel stood on the Mountain as Moses gave them the Law from God - is true. The Garden, the Flood, and many other stories are mythological; Exodus, the Revelation at Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan are all historically true but may have been embellished over time. The latter article, the one I've been trying to get you to read, addresses this point thoroughly.

In response to (P2), I have to make some concessions. It’s true. A narrative transmitted down the generations can be subject to all manner of subtle and gradual evolutions. Imagine a massive intergenerational game of Chinese Whispers. By the time that the message has reached the end of the line, its originator has died, and can’t tell you whether its integrity has been preserved. Nevertheless, one would imagine that the main headlines of the story, even if all of the details became perverted, would remain constant down the chain. Any major rupture or change to the general plot-line, and any diminution of its most striking claims, would surely be noted by a public in love with its legends and folklore. But, we can imagine a gradual process of exaggeration, and we can imagine a gradual corruption of mundane details. For that reason, a widespread g-narrative cannot be trusted as an accurate history. Its religious function, thankfully, isn’t to serve as an accurate history – because as I say, historical accuracy isn't the purpose of myth. But, one can trust, or so it seems, that its main claims must have had some basis in fact, however tenuous. An uninterrupted chain of testimony doesn’t have the truth-preserving qualities attributed to it by Saadya Gaon and R. Yehuda Halevi, but it does justify the less ambitious claim that the story must have had some sort of grounding in fact. The story of the exodus and the revelation at Sinai is now a widespread g-narrative. This seems to justify the claim that an entire nation or tribe had some remarkable religious experiences, once upon a time, even if the finer details of the story can’t be trusted as an accurate historical account.

Again, please actually read the argument I'm providing you before dismissing it out-of-hand. Move beyond your preconceived conclusions. Be skeptical, but be willing to investigate fairly.

The difference is we know Einstein existed. We only have vague stories of, say, Abraham or any of the ancient founders.

How does that have any bearing on the language of his last words, if he even had said anything to his non-German-speaking maid? We also know that the Israelite people suddenly appeared in the 12th century BCE and that they largely did not consume pork products, especially in Judea, unlike their Philistine neighbors. We can locate the beginnings of the entrenchment of Israelite taboos that match up quite well to Jewish religious taboos as described in the Torah. The Kuzari Argument implies that this taboo was Commanded by God at Sinai before the Israelites settled and/or conquered Judea. (This conquest began in the south and moved northwards, exactly paralleling the spread of the pork taboo in the Iron Age.)

I read it, and rejected it.

I have no reason to believe you, and many reasons to disbelieve you.