Screams "Copycat" and Leaves

In all of this Greenberg confidently asserts than an OT story is a copy of some story from Egypt or elsewhere, but never proves (probably because he never can) that there is a genetic link. Nor are other answers given the time of day. Similarities in the creation stories of Egypt and the OT are just as easy to attribute to a common source (and Greenberg never offers linguistic or other data to make his case, as Heidel did regarding the Babylonian creation story). Claims that certain family names of Abraham couldn't be real because they are the names of territories that existed much later ignore the obvious answer that the territories are named after those persons (i.e., fiction is assumed from the get-go, not proven). There are the usual bits about 2 creation and 2 flood stories; see refutations here, and the usual bits about the Conquest being fictitious; what about Rohl's revised chronology that matches the data precisely? And history is created as needed: Joshua was not named after Yahweh ("jeho-shua", God saves) because Exodus 6:3 says the name "Yahweh" was not known (see here for rebuttal) so Joshua was named after an Egyptian god named Shu.

Greenberg's work is satisfactory to skeptics who have already decided what they want to hear, but for those who demand harder proof in their pudding, it is nothing but a noisy pep rally. See some more analysis here.