Abraham a myth?

[mommybug47]

Alright I am a bit confused and alot angry…At Mass tonight, my priest’s homily centered on the fact that The MYTH of Abraham almost sacrificing Issac was a way for the Jewish people to stop their followers from sacrificing their children to the gods who were only appesed by the blood of children. The best way to show devotion to the gods was to make a sacrifice…

Now I have been always taught and read it to reflect that Abraham deeply loved the LORD and God was testing Him to make sure he would do anything that God asked so that God could richly him. Of course God did not want the sacrifice of Issac…

Also what is church teaching on the truth of scripture? Again I was taught that scripture is truth in history and sacred lessons… not quite so much in science, as it is not intended to teach science. This is the second priest in this parish that has preached this way.

 

[Leopard]

Alright I am a bit confused and alot angry…At Mass tonight, my priest’s homily centered on the fact that The MYTH of Abraham almost sacrificing Issac was a way for the Jewish people to stop their followers from sacrificing their children to the gods who were only appesed by the blood of children. The best way to show devotion to the gods was to make a sacrifice…

Now I have been always taught and read it to reflect that Abraham deeply loved the LORD and God was testing Him to make sure he would do anything that God asked so that God could richly him. Of course God did not want the sacrifice of Issac…

Also what is church teaching on the truth of scripture? Again I was taught that scripture is truth in history and sacred lessons… not quite so much in science, as it is not intended to teach science. This is the second priest in this parish that has preached this way.

Technically, they’re correct. A myth is defined as a traditional story, often handed down orally, that is used to teach some religious truth. Pretty much all the Old Testament stories fit this definition. It may be confusing, though, because many people think that the word myth means an untrue story. It might have been clearer if the priests had not used the word myth, or at least explained what the word means.

 

[SMHW]

Alright I am a bit confused and alot angry…At Mass tonight, my priest’s homily centered on the fact that The MYTH of Abraham almost sacrificing Issac was a way for the Jewish people to stop their followers from sacrificing their children to the gods who were only appesed by the blood of children. The best way to show devotion to the gods was to make a sacrifice…

Mommybug47, I kind of understand why the priest said what he did. Seminaries have been teaching Genesis as “Myth” for many years now. What’s not always made clear is that this idea of myth implies that the story told teaches truth and contains elements of historical truth. I heard back in the 1970s from the Sisters of Notre Dame (then fairly conservative) that Abraham came from a people who practiced child sacrifice and that he probably assumed God expected him to sacrifice Issac.

Now I have been always taught and read it to reflect that Abraham deeply loved the LORD and God was testing Him to make sure he would do anything that God asked so that God could richly him. Of course God did not want the sacrifice of Issac…

And I would say that this is true.

Also what is church teaching on the truth of scripture? Again I was taught that scripture is truth in history and sacred lessons… not quite so much in science, as it is not intended to teach science. This is the second priest in this parish that has preached this way.

You were right about the truth of scripture. It does teach that scripture is truth in history. But it is not history. To modern minds, any thing other than accurate facts of history is false. But Truth transcends facts and words. I can’t remember if you were raised Catholic or not. But the Catholic Church does not insist that every single word of scripture be historically accurate. She just requires it to be TRUTH.

The story of Abraham teaches TRUTH. The Church is concerned about that TRUTH, and not really so much about the facts of an event passed down orally for many generations before it was written down.

All this said, I think your priest showed some poor judgment. The story of Abraham did, no doubt, tell the Israelites that they should not sacrifice their children. But I don’t think that’s the most important Truth it teaches. It is also the case that archeology is actually backing up many of these Old Testament stories. It’s one thing to say we can’t verify the historical accuracy of something. It’s another thing entirely to insist it can’t be as accurate as the bible teaches.

 

[Chancellor]

An excellent question and two equally excellent replies. We Catholics believe that the Bible teaches inerrant theological truth. Ultimately the exact historical details, though of great interest to scholars and historians, are not what we build our faith on. If some day it is definitely proven that Abraham was. or wasn’t, a historical figure our faith will remain the same. We don’t have to fear science or archeology or history. In fact, many Catholics have traditionally been in the forefront of academics.

Having said all of this, I do agree that your pastor could have said “The story of Abraham” and saved alot of unnecessary confusion. Because the “common” meaning of myth is “fake” or “fraudulent” your priest should maybe save the word for the college classroom.

 

[mommybug47]

Yes, raised by those SSND’s I got alot of scripture study, and the stories were faithfully true even if we did not know exact dates and such. Yes Abraham lived in a very pagan culture, but he was a part of the chosen people, set apart.

This priest has taught many things OT that he claims are “just a story”…When is it going to come from him that the miracles were just stories!? Jesus didn’t multiply the loaves for instance…Where is the line drawn? We have so much historical data to back up so much of the Bible, can’t we just leave it to faith!
Isn’t the homily the place to teach us how to live according to the scripture, not to teach us to question it?

 

[Todd_Easton]

When the incident is mentioned in Hebrews 11:17 and James 2:21 and in paragraphs 145 and 2572 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the authors certainly seem to speak of it as an event that actually happened.

 

[SMHW]

I’m not sure why some priests and other people feel the need to impress on others their belief that some bible stories are *not *historically accurate. I think that some people can believe in the Truth of a mythical Bible but they can’t believe at all when expected to believe in a historical Bible. These people view belief in a historical Bible to be a stumbling block to “Real Faith” and they want to save others from false faith. Some people probably feel superior to others, believing that they have a greater understanding of the Bible. They are eager to share their superiority.

In general I think such priests are well intentioned. But that doesn’t mean they are doing right by their congregations.

I’ve always understand the Church to believe that Biblical characters were real people but that the stories (and sometimes the names) were sometimes more legendary than historical. In the case of Abraham, it seems to me, the important “facts” were that he was willing to sacrifice his son, he came to realize that God did not want this kind of sacrifice, and that he offered a different sacrifice in place of Isaac.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Abraham isn’t a myth. The Bible isn’t made a bunch of myths.

 

[atheist1]

I’m encouraged by what I am reading. Catholics, fortunately, seem the most reasonable of the Christian denominations and seem to largely discount much of scripture as being true.

But, I have to wonder…if Abraham is mythical, what of the covenant promises made to him?

 

[Leopard]

Abraham isn’t a myth. The Bible isn’t made a bunch of myths.

Yes, it is

BUT

the word Myth must be understood by its proper, technical definition, being:

A traditional story, often handed down orally, used to teach a religious truth

NOT

by its more popular, non-technical definition, being:

An unproven or untrue story.

 

[Christy_Beth]

If Abraham was a myth, what does that tell us about Christ? It was several years after his death when the first gosple was written. Does that make Him “just a story”?

 

[tobinatorstark]

If Abraham was a myth, what does that tell us about Christ? It was several years after his death when the first gosple was written. Does that make Him “just a story”?

you make a good point. Honestly some just think they know everything. You’d be surprised the more you know about the faith, the less you actually know and the more you need to know.

 

[SMHW]

Abraham isn’t a myth. The Bible isn’t made a bunch of myths.

It’s not the same thing to say that Abraham is a myth as it is to say that the Bible contains stories that are myths. Just as the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were real people (but not necessarily with those names), I think she would insist that there was an actual Abraham.

Here’s an example for you Americans. The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is a myth. And other stories told about him are rather mythical. But George Washington was a real person.

 

[mommybug47]

Why could our priest not just focus on the typology? Genesis 22 points us to , prefigures the crucifixion of Our Lord, there is so much richness and glory in our scripture, why down play the “stories”? Why not lead us to a deeper understanding!
I just I am hungry for more than donuts on Sunday morning, I want steak and potatoes, with the sour cream and butter and a huge salad…I want a full meal, that I can share with my neighbors! Too many of us can not get EWTN or Relevant Radio or Ave Maria radio, we still want to be taught. I will stop ranting now.

 

[Leopard]

…Here’s an example for you Americans. The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is a myth…

Correct by both definitions of myth. It is a traditional story that teaches a philosophical (if not strictly religious) truth about the character of George Washington. It is also not historically proven that the cherry tree incident ever actually occurred.

…But George Washington was a real person.

This is actually not very relevant. Traditional Myths may be about real people and real events, or they may be about people who did not really exist and events that never really happened, like Jesus’ parables. What makes the story a myth is that the story is a traditional story handed down within a culture to teach some religious or otherwise culturally important truth.

 

[Nita]

I understand the use of myth in the sense that fictional actions/circumstances… are related to convey a truth. But, please correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t believe any narrative is considered a “myth” if it truly happened as described. In other words, if God really did ask Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abraham really did go to the mountain with Isaac, etc., etc., etc. - then that episode would not be considered a myth.

I do not think any of the events recorded in Scripture about Abraham are myths.
Since the original historian/s recorded the events as factual, it seems to me the burden of proof should lie on those who, thousands of years later, claim that they are myth and not historical facts. And I don’t see any means by which they can prove such an assertion.

 

[Mark77]

Yes, it is

BUT

the word Myth must be understood by its proper, technical definition, being:

A traditional story, often handed down orally, used to teach a religious truth

NOT

by its more popular, non-technical definition, being:

An unproven or untrue story.

The other thing to remember is that up until recently, most people were illiterate and history, as told through true stories, was handed down primarily through oral means.

Just because something is handed down verbally, doesn’t mean that it’s false or invalid. On the contrary, previous generations were extremely good at memorizing things. Oral records were precise and accurate exactly because they were the primary way that important historical Truths, that had to be given to each generation without error, were preserved and passed down.

I heard the actor John Lithgow talking about his grandmother on Bill Moyers’ PBS show just yesterday (hardly a fundamentalist or Catholic friendly bastion!). Lithgow explained how his grandmother could recite literary works, poems and stories, verbatim, exactly word for word every time, even into her 90’s, even though some were extremely long and complex.

The key, as stated earlier, is the focus on teaching the Truth.

Because slavery, Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War and many other historically correct things are mentioned in a fictional work, like “Gone with the Wind”, it doesn’t mean that the Civil War never happened or that Abraham Lincoln was a fictional or mythological character.

Holy Scripture is not a fictional work, it is the Word of God. Many try to cast doubt on the validity of the Truth by saying that it is fiction or even saying it is corrupted and false.

Yes, I can prove that Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler never lived, so as an intellectual or a “bright”, I would condemn you slow-minded, dim-witted and brainwashed Catholics for believing that there was a Civil War, that slavery ever existed and that Abraham Lincoln was ever really the President.

Today, we obviously have many other historical resources to validate our facts, but when the Sacred Scriptures talk about our father in faith, Abraham, we must believe the Truth they convey to us from God as confirmed by His Catholic Church.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[Leopard]

I understand the use of myth in the sense that fictional actions/circumstances… are related to convey a truth…

Not quite. In a traditional myth, the circumstances used to convey the truth may be either factual, fictional, or fictional but believed within that culture to be factual.

An example of the first kind of myth would be historical narratives from the Bible. These are events that we have no reason to doubt being true on a natural level to within the limits of observation of the eyewitnesses and the accuracy of transmission (as with any other historical record), and (in the case of the Scriptures) on a supernatural level by the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. These stories were and continue to be told to communicate religious truth.

An example of the second kind of myth would be the parables of Jesus. These are made-up stories that were understood by their first hearers to be made-up, which communicated religious truth when first told and continue to communicate the same truth today.

An example of the third kind of myth would be the stories of the Greek or Norse gods. We understand these stories to not be true, but they were believed to be true within the cultures in which those stories originated, and were used to communicate information that was believed to be religious truth within those cultures.

…But, please correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t believe any narrative is considered a “myth” if it truly happened as described. In other words, if God really did ask Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abraham really did go to the mountain with Isaac, etc., etc., etc. - then that episode would not be considered a myth…

No. The factuality of a story is not a factor in whether a story is a traditional myth.

…I do not think any of the events recorded in Scripture about Abraham are myths.
Since the original historian/s recorded the events as factual, it seems to me the burden of proof should lie on those who, thousands of years later, claim that they are myth and not historical facts. And I don’t see any means by which they can prove such an assertion.

Are the stories of Abraham traditional stories? (from the Latin traditio: to hand over, deliver, entrust)

Yes.

Do the stories of Abraham convey religious truth?

Yes.

Then the stories of Abraham in the Bible are myths.

To recognize this is not to claim or assert that they may not be factual. It is not necessary to impose the burden of proving that the story is false, since whether or not the story is true has no more to do with the story being a myth than it does with whether or not the story is prose.

 

[Leopard]

The other thing to remember is that up until recently, most people were illiterate and history, as told through true stories, was handed down primarily through oral means.

Just because something is handed down verbally, doesn’t mean that it’s false or invalid. On the contrary, previous generations were extremely good at memorizing things. Oral records were precise and accurate exactly because they were the primary way that important historical Truths, that had to be given to each generation without error, were preserved and passed down.

I heard the actor John Lithgow talking about his grandmother on Bill Moyers’ PBS show just yesterday (hardly a fundamentalist or Catholic friendly bastion!). Lithgow explained how his grandmother could recite literary works, poems and stories, verbatim, exactly word for word every time, even into her 90’s, even though some were extremely long and complex.

The key, as stated earlier, is the focus on teaching the Truth.

Because slavery, Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War and many other historically correct things are mentioned in a fictional work, like “Gone with the Wind”, it doesn’t mean that the Civil War never happened or that Abraham Lincoln was a fictional or mythological character.

Holy Scripture is not a fictional work, it is the Word of God. Many try to cast doubt on the validity of the Truth by saying that it is fiction or even saying it is corrupted and false.

Yes, I can prove that Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler never lived, so as an intellectual or a “bright”, I would condemn you slow-minded, dim-witted and brainwashed Catholics for believing that there was a Civil War, that slavery ever existed and that Abraham Lincoln was ever really the President.

Today, we obviously have many other historical resources to validate our facts, but when the Sacred Scriptures talk about our father in faith, Abraham, we must believe the Truth they convey to us from God as confirmed by His Catholic Church.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

I am in full agreement with all the above, except I think a good case could be made that Abraham Lincoln is also a mythological character, meaning that some stories about him would qualify as myths in a cultural (if not religious) sense. There are many traditional stories about Lincoln’s virtues (Honest Abe walking many miles to return a borrowed book, etc.) that continue to be told, especially to children with the purpose of encouraging them to imitate those virtues.

 

[Nita]

Not quite. In a traditional myth, the circumstances used to convey the truth may be either factual, fictional, or fictional but believed within that culture to be factual.

An example of the first kind of myth would be historical narratives from the Bible. These are events that we have no reason to doubt being true on a natural level to within the limits of observation of the eyewitnesses and the accuracy of transmission (as with any other historical record), and (in the case of the Scriptures) on a supernatural level by the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. These stories were and continue to be told to communicate religious truth.
…
No. The factuality of a story is not a factor in whether a story is a traditional myth.

So, if I’m understanding you correctly, all historical records of events, handed on to succeeding generations, can be called myth.
In other words, when history books record that Obama was elected in 2008 on a platform that promised liberalization of abortion restrictions, can those historical records be referred to as “myth”.
Or are they myth only when they are used at some later time in human history as a means to show the final stages of devaluation of human life in the womb by a majority of U.S. citizens (that is, to communicate a cultural truth of that historical period).

Honestly, I am not asking this to be argumentative - I really want to know. Are the words “myth” and “historical fact” to be taken as synonymous?
Assuming all the events recorded in Scripture involving Abraham literally happened as recorded, why would they be called “myth”? Are there any events in Scripture that would not be called “myth”? Why?

(How would you like to have me for a whole year in a classroom? )