Questions about figures like Medes and anachronisms in the Torah

Asks:
Do you mean that the story of Noah's descendants is some kind of myth that entered the book of Genesis by people?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Not necessarily by people, but maybe that's possible too.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
Regarding the character of Medes. From reading Wikipedia, I saw that the people of "Mede" emerged around 1000 BC and the Median Empire was first established in 678 BC. Regarding what you said about these figures being archetypes or myths, that fits with figures like Egypt and Canaan, but regarding the Median Empire, there are some problems with that, because how can you say that there was a myth or archetype of the "Mede" type even before the "Mede" people even existed?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
First, a thousand years BC is before the giving of the Torah. Second, these extensions are quite dubious (!), like the entire historical field, and so I'm usually not really bothered by the questions they raise. Third, it's clear that whoever put this into the Torah already knew about Medes, otherwise how did he come up with this exact name? At most, it happened retrospectively (as you described regarding Brazil). As I wrote at the beginning of my remarks, I don't think there's any need to assume an anachronism here. So I don't see what the problem with Medes is.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
When I wrote 1000 BCE, I meant the year minus 1000 (the giving of the Torah was around minus 1300, which is 300 years before the formation of the "Medi" people).
Even if we say that the dates are questionable, from the biblical story itself we see that the Egyptian and Canaanite people appear in it, while the "Medi" people do not appear in it.
Even if we say that the introduction of "Medi" into the Torah happened retrospectively, we still have to say that the introduction itself happened several hundred years after the Torah was given, right?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Indeed. And even if you rely on the dating, there are some verses that were probably inserted later (such as the kings who ruled in Edom "until this very day," etc.). And this has already been addressed in several recently published books.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
But if we accept the fact that changes were made to the body of the Torah itself, doesn't this undermine the binding validity of the halakha (since the Gemara requires the addition of verses of halakha from the end of the Yod in the Torah)?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Indeed. The assumption is that the entire text is accurate and even if there were additions it was by a prophet. But there may be errors as in everything. As long as we do not know that something is an error the assumption is that it is not.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
Following this question, I came across the Gemara's reference to problems of anachronism in the Torah:
Babylonian Talmud Tractate Ketubot Page 10 Page 2
What is a widow? Rav Hanna of Baghdad said: A widow – after the name of a manna. A widow from the engagement, from where is it called a mimar? I would call her a widow, would we call her a widow. A widow, as written in the Torah, from where is it called a mimar? The opinion of the rabbis who establish her a manna. And who wrote, called for the future? No, as it is written: And the name of the third river is the Hadkal, which flows in front of Ashur, and Rav Yosef said: Ashur – this is Salika, and who is it? But Datida, here is Datida.

Do you think this is a reasonable claim to make in the case of Medy (and in general?)
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Chazal do not see this as an anachronism because they assume that the Torah was written and given in its entirety by God at Sinai. Therefore, they attribute this to God's knowledge of the future. Anachronism is a different proposition: there are later additions, and when they describe earlier events, they do so in the terminology and language used at the time of their composition.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
Just to make sure I understood you correctly:
Earlier I asked: "But if we accept the fact that changes were made to the body of the Torah itself, doesn't this undermine the binding validity of the halakha (since the Gemara requires the addition of verses of halakha from the end of the Yod in the Torah)?"
You answered: "Indeed. The assumption is that the entire text is accurate and even if there were additions, it was by a prophet. But there may be errors, as with everything. As long as we don't know that something is an error, the assumption is that it is not."

Did you mean that there is indeed an appeal here of the binding validity of the halakha? Or did you mean that there is indeed no appeal here?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
There is an appeal here.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
Does this appeal have any practical value? Or does it simply fall under the category of doubts that we have to live with?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
I don't think so. These are doubts that must be lived with. But there is also something reassuring about them, since according to this there is no need to be frightened by difficulties (such as errors in the Bible or contradictions).

In my opinion, we don't need to go that far. Canaan could be the father of the Canaanite nation even without a direct biological connection to the nation's members (certainly not to all of them). It could be that these were successful leaders who founded states, and over the years their names became the name of the nation. There are many examples of this in the world, Simón Bolívar for example.