Was Abraham a myth or a real person?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Corruich
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lesliej64 said:
Even critical Biblical scholars and theologians believe that Abraham is real historical person. They clearly trace his land of origin (Ur), land of his brief stay (Haran), and his eventual settlement in Israel. They understand and verify the customs, the culture, language, etc. If Abraham did not exist, then there would have been no Judaism or Israel in this world. He was their origin or father, from whom came Isaac and Jacob, and from whom originated the famous 12 tribes, from whom descended also Christ.

The target of Satan is blot out Christ from your hearts in a subtle indirect way. Unsuspectingly, he will start from Abraham. If he can plant even a small seed of disbelief on this, that could be slowly translated into not believing in the existence Christ himself. A little poison here and a little poison there, one by one can be enough to kill your faith fully. Hold fast to the orthodox faith of the Church. Always pray, meditate prayerfully the scriptures, frequent sacraments, intercession of saints and angels (St. Joseph), etc. Speak with other mature believers or frequent such websites.

At the present time, it would not be out of place to suspect every talk or every teaching you hear. Always try to verify and challenge what you hear. Satanic agents are sometimes sent out as extremely well-behaving highly educated gentlemen and ladies, but under conscious or unconscious control of demonic spirits to mislead the simple. They can be irresistible, charismatic, commanding and powerful than ordinary people in the way they speak or act, so beware!
Click to expand...
Great post. The devil wants to confuse and take away our confidence in the Word of God.

The OP asked for an authoritative statement from the magesterium of the Church. The following are excerpts from The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum 18 November 1965. Ordinary mortals need to read this. It might take a half hour to read…a bit longer to study. I have a copy of it in my own Bible.

First the Outline
Prologue
Chapter I Divine Revelation Itself
Chapter II The Transmission of Divine Revelation
Chapter III Sacred Scripture: Its Divine Inspiration and its Interpretation
Chapter IV The Old Testament
Chapter V The New Testament
Chapter VI Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church

From the Prologue
“…Following in the steps of the councils of Trent and Vatican I, this synod (i.e., Vatican II) wishes to set forth the authentic teaching on divine revelation and its transmission…”

From Chapter I
“…God who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides constant evidence of himself in created realities…In his own time, God called Abraham and made him into a great nation. After the era of the patriarchs, he taught this nation through Moses and the prophets, to recognize him as the only living and true God, as a provident Father and just judge…”

I think the Catholic Church is clearly saying here that Abraham was a real person. More later. I have to get to work. Please google this and read it. The whole thing is a gem.
 
patrick457 said:
One problem: the Indo-Aryans in the Rigvedic period did not yet know of a deity named as such. The Hindu Brahma is a later amalgam of Rigvedic figures like Prajapati, Vastospati, Vishvakarman and Hiranyagarbha. Sarasvati was the personification of the river of the same name. And I think you’ll find that Hindu thought is not consistent about Brahma’s origin.
Click to expand...
Vedic religion is consistent throughout the history. It seems to change because it follows the principle of revealing what the society needs at the particular time, place and circumstances. And it addresses all the different modes of consciousness, or rather, characters. For example, there are 18 major Puranas, 6 for each mode: rajas, tamas and sattva. So, not everyone gets the same, since our capacity is personal and culture determined. Not only the cosmology that explains the position of Brahma, but you could also question the concept of reincarnation, since it also does not appear in Vedas. Again, it is because it was not meant to be at that time, there was no need to explain the common knowledge. Later scriptures like Upanishads and Puranas do not contradict Vedas, they only update it, again according to the time, place and circumstances, which is necessary if we are talking about living religion. Catholic religion means universal, works at all times and places and is for everyone, and Vedic religion is such.

Not all Hindus understand this, what to say about the outsiders. Hinduism today is leaning towards polytheism and paganism, that is a social phenomena also mentioned in Vedas. But the genuine tradition is still preserved, though it may not be popular today. So, if you do not want to be confused by Hindus not being consistent, you should seek the authority, the genuine Vedic scholar.

All this has little to do with the topic. No matter when the concept of Brahma was introduced to Hinduism, it was still borrowed by Jews.

Sarasvati can mean any river, not only the particular one, which was named after the deity, not the other way around.

Jews also borrowed the concept of the Flood from Gilgamesh, Ten Commandments from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, etc… One small nation borrowed all the great stories it could find, to help itself survive among the great neighboring nations. The great compilation also claimed they were the chosen people, and that myth indeed proved crucial for preserving Jews. Today that small nation is rocking the world, and that is much due to the myth they embraced. But if we want to be critical, we should do better than just taking the myth literally, without investigating how did it really came about. Understanding that will help us understand ourselves better.
 
Aloysium said:
Matt 8:11 And I tell you that many will come from east and west and sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob at the feast in the kingdom of Heaven;

do myths go to heaven?
Click to expand...
Clearly myths don’t go to heaven. But the folks who deny the existence of Abraham among other people and biblical assertions, may also tend to see heaven and hell as belonging to the mythical realm.
These “higher critical” practitioners are by no means unanimous re almost any biblical question of fact.
It would seem for many that their basic assumption is that the scriptures are subject to error and conditioned by culture and other human limitations as much as anything else written or proclaimed by human beings.
Presumably they don’t necessarily include their own opinions or conclusions in that hypothesis.

Those who deny the historicity of the scriptures do so with a very broad and often uncritical brush.

Pope Benedict xvi has written extensively re the authority of scriptures, their reliability,the different genres and the other factors which must be taken into account by those who se task it is to determine the meaning as well as the authenticity and intention of the inspired writers as they “were moved to write.”

I would refer those who are interested in the pope’s insights to read the introductory section Of his first book on Jesus of Nazareth.
 
Corruich said:
In a bible study yesterday our RCIA director told us that Abraham, and the rest of the book of Genesis, is a myth. She said that it was written as a myth and was never intended to be a history book. I can understand that it is not a point for point history. However, that seems to me to be something different altogether than saying Abraham didn’t even exist at all!

Is the position of the Church and the Magisterium that Abraham was an actual, real individual? Is this one of those “free to disagree” points? I’ve heard this kind of thing about Adam, Job and Noah, but this is the first time I’ve heard this about Abraham.

What I would really like is a Catholic document (encyclical, council document, anything) that specifically spells out that we believe these were real people, but that may be hoping for too much.

Thanks,
-Corruich
Click to expand...
He is real. According to Genesis 25:8-9 Abraham was buried in the cave of Machpelah where he continues to remain – check out the website below:

biblediscovered.com/biblical-tombs-of-israelites/maarat-hamachpela-cave-of-machpela-tomb-of-the-patriarchs/

Furthermore, it would seem quite extreme for the Israelites to conquer the land of the Canaanites by the sword all based on a covenantal myth. Unless people want to believe the wars were myths, then where does it end? Is Jesus a myth too?
 
Many ancient peoples including the Hebrews placed a huge importance on transmitting and maintaining accurate geneologies of there ancestors either by oral or written tradition. This was used to justify such things as inheritence of land and property, monarchal and priestly lines as well as other things. To say David did not exist, then Jesus’ s right to kingship is not true. To say Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not exist is to deny the existence of the race of Israel and claims to the holy land. To deny that either Levi or Aaron existed is to undermine the Aaronic priesthood. To deny Melchezidek existed is to deny the priesthood of Jesus and all Catholic priests for that matter. To deny Adam and Eve existed is to deny the fall and thus the need for a savior.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
miguel said:
First the Outline
Prologue
Chapter I Divine Revelation Itself
Chapter II The Transmission of Divine Revelation
Chapter III Sacred Scripture: Its Divine Inspiration and its Interpretation
Chapter IV The Old Testament
Chapter V The New Testament
Chapter VI Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church

From the Prologue
“…Following in the steps of the councils of Trent and Vatican I, this synod (i.e., Vatican II) wishes to set forth the authentic teaching on divine revelation and its transmission…”

From Chapter I
“…God who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides constant evidence of himself in created realities…In his own time, God called Abraham and made him into a great nation. After the era of the patriarchs, he taught this nation through Moses and the prophets, to recognize him as the only living and true God, as a provident Father and just judge…”
Click to expand...
More from Chapter I
"…After God had spoken many times and in various ways through the prophets, “in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son”. For he sent his Son, the eternal Word who enlightens all humankind, to live among them and to tell them about the inner life of God…As a result, he himself-to see whom is to see the Father-completed and perfected revelation and confirmed it with divine guarantees. Everything to do with his presence and his manifestation of himself was involved in achieving this: his words and works, signs and miracles, but above all his death and glorious resurrection from the dead, and finally his sending of the Spirit of Truth…The obedience of faith must be our response to God who reveals. By faith one freely commits oneself entirely to God, making the "full submission of the intellect and will to God who reveals…The holy synod professes that “God…can be known with certainty from the created world, by the natural light of human reason.” It is to his revelation that we must attribute the fact “that those things, which in themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, can, in the present conditon of the human race, be known by all with ease, with firm certainty, and without the contamination of error.”

From Chapter II The Transmission of Divine Revelation
“…God graciously arranged that what he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should last forever in its entirety and be transmitted to all generations. Therefore, Christ the Lord…commanded the apostles to preach it to everyone as the source of all saving truth and moral law…This was faithfully done: it was done by the apostles who handed on, by oral preaching…what they themselves received…it was done by those apostles and others associated with them, who under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing…In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them “their own position of teaching authority” This sacred tradition…Thus, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time. Hence the apostles, in handing on what they themselves received, warn the faithful to maintain the traditions which they had learned either by word of mouth or by letter…The sayings of the church Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the believeing and praying Church. By means of the same tradition, the full canon of the sacred books is known to the church…Sacred tradition and sacred scripture…are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. Flowing from that same divine well-spring, both of them merge, in a sense, and move toward that same goal. Sacred scripture is the utterance of God put down in writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And tradition transmits in its entirety the word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit, it transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and disseminate it by their preaching. Thus it is that the church does not draw its certainty about all revealed truth from the Holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal devotion and reverence…the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ…It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and the magesterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others…they all contribute to the salvation of souls”
 
These replies where people say “you are free to interpret…” and then in the same sentence say “it is a myth”… Fist off, they contradict themselves. And don’t answer my question : If one part of scripture can’t be trusted, how can any of t?
 
From Chapter III Sacred Scripture: It’s Divine Inspiration and Interpretation
"…Those things revealed by God which are contained and presented in the text of sacred scripture have been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the church itself…all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the holy Spirit…

From Chapter IV The Old Testament
“…In his great love God intended the salvation of the entire human race. In preparation for this, in a special undertaking, he cholse for himslef a people to whom he would entrust his promises. By his covenant with** ABRAHAM**, and through Moses, with the race of Israel, he acquired a people for himself, and to them he revealed himself in words and deed as the one, true, living God. It was his strategy that Israel might learn by experience God’s ways with humanity and by listening to the voice of God speaking to them through the prophets might gradually understand his ways more fully and more clearly, and make them more widely known among the nations. The plan of salvation, foretold, recounted and explained by the sacred authors, appears as the true word of God in the books of the Old Testament, which is why these books, divinely inspired, retain a lasting value…The primary objective of the plan and lay-out of the Old Testament was that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, universal redeemer, and of the messianic kingdom, and should indicate it by means of various foreshadowing signs and symbols…”
From Chapter V The New Testament
“…For when time had fully come, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. Christ established on earth the kingdom of God, revealed his Father and himself by deeds and words and by his death, resurrection, and glorious ascension, as well as by sending the holy Spirit, completed his work. Lifted up from the earth he draws all people to himself for he alone has the words of eternal life…The church has always and everywhere maintained, and continues to maintain, the apostolic origin of the four Gospels. The apostles preached, as Christ had charged them to do, and then, under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they and others of the apostolic age handed on to us in writing the same message they had preached, the foundation of our faith: the fourfold Gospel according to Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John…Holy mother church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that these four Gospels, whose historicity it unhestatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men and women, REALLY DID AND TAUGHT for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up. For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done…”

From Chapter VI Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church
"…In the sacred books the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them. And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it is the church’s support an strength, imparting robustness to the faith of its daughters and sons and providing food for their souls…It is the duty of bishops, “with whom the apostolic doctrine resides, suitably to instruct the faithful entrusted to them in the correct use of the divine books, especially the New Testament, and in particular the Gospels…”
davidn87 said:
These replies where people say “you are free to interpret…” and then in the same sentence say “it is a myth”… Fist off, they contradict themselves. And don’t answer my question : If one part of scripture can’t be trusted, how can any of t?
Click to expand...
I have a similar question. Either a person believes it or not. If it isn’t true, why waste any time with it?
 
bmonk "Because we know that the Bible contains the essential truth God wanted to tell us

bmonk “not that the Bible is inerrant and literally true in every regard,”
davidn87 said:
See, these two statements seem contradictory to me.

So we can’t trust the Bible ‘as is’, but we can trust the Pope (as infallible)?
Click to expand...
The statements seem contradictory because you are reading only literal truth. There are many truths that can be expressed in a text. The Bible is not a theological treatise or a scientific-philosophical explanation. The essential truth is how God relates to us, not whether the birds were created after or before the crawling animals. The literal truth is sometimes too limited, especially when describing a spiritual encounter. Symbolic truth also matters–especially when using poetic language. “My love is a red, red rose.” Does that mean that it is fragile, lasts only a few days, and is full of thorns? No–it has the fragrance of a rose, and the passion and vividness that a rose has.

We do trust the Bible–but we need an interpreter with authority to guide us. The alternative is chaos, or going astray like the Pharisees did. Jesus had that authority–and he gave some of it to the Apostles and their successors to keep guiding them.
 
davidn87 said:
These replies where people say “you are free to interpret…” and then in the same sentence say “it is a myth”… Fist off, they contradict themselves. And don’t answer my question : If one part of scripture can’t be trusted, how can any of t?
Click to expand...
We can trust the whole, because we have teachers we can trust who remind us of what the whole describes: God’s love song to humankind, each and every one of us. We trust it because it is our book of memories and stories that lead us to encounter that God for ourselves, and in that encounter we can verify what matters in the stories. We trust it because it is part of the Church’s treasury, and not vice versa–the Church, the living Body of Christ, safeguards and reads the Bible; the Bible exists for the Church, not the Church to preserve the Bible.

This is one reason we don’t have quite the same problem with the early descriptions of a blood-thirsty and harsh God–we recognize that it took time for Israel to come to know God’s love and compassion, and that often the early expressions could be violent, because they were by often violent people. But we see how those developed over time into the God we recognize as Jesus’ Father.
 
If this is what the Catholic church teaches, then it’s thrown up a massive barrier to me considering joining it.
 
davidn87 said:
If this is what the Catholic church teaches, then it’s thrown up a massive barrier to me considering joining it.
Click to expand...
Hi David,

I feel there are many voices trying to explain, but the way some of us put things and the way you translate could be wrong . Also, past background knowledge and preconceived notions or fears can play on the mind. Pray and wait for some time. Try also to do your own research. I am positive you will happy after understanding things over some time. Don’t give up so fast.

I am saying this because I was like you, grappled about things for a long while and now I am happy with positive Church’s understanding and wise guidelines. I will try to put some sentences as I remember faintly from my Word Ministry classes 25 years ago.

Try to understand to the divine aspects and human aspects of the Bible.
Bible divinely is a single book, but humanly speaking a collection of books.

Divinely, a single author (Holy Spirit), but humanly speaking many human authors.

Bible is timeless and universal. Humanly speaking, Bible is written over centuries, various locations, colored by various cultures, various political and time situations.

Bible has no error on divine matters, but errors due to limited human authors (things that God did not intend to be too important, e.g. correct list of ruminant animals in Leviticus).

Divinely Bible is unchanging, but humanly there is a gradual progression of the God’s revelation.

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature." Heb.1:1-2ff (New American Standard)

The above scripture tells how human authors were partial and imperfect in their authorship until the perfection of revelation had to be fully realized in the Perfect Man, Jesus Christ. All scriptures (especially the OT) are fully illumined and are meaningful only after the coming of the Christ.

As put by some author, "The aim of the Bible is not tell us how the heavens go around, but how to go to heaven (God’s intention).
 
davidn87 said:
If this is what the Catholic church teaches, then it’s thrown up a massive barrier to me considering joining it.
Click to expand...
David, if you want to know what the Catholic Church actually teaches about divine revelation, including sacred scripture, please read the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum (one of the documents promulgated at the 2nd Vatican Council. It’s a half hour of your time well invested. As you read it, notice that it refers to sacred scripture frequently (and actually takes seriously what it says). The link is below.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
 
davidn87 said:
:confused:
Click to expand...
David,

When I said “limited” I meant humans are creatures, potentially limited like you and me. God’s is the Creator, unlimited, his glory, wisdom and power is beyond understanding. If God’s revelation is like the Pacific Ocean, the human receiver is like a small cup. God with great patience and endurance was slowly giving to us little by little (via prophets) for centuries until we were ready (at the fullness of time) to receive the complete revelation through Christ. It is like a progressive movement from pitch darkness to a little light, a little more light and a little more light and until the full Light in Christ. Now we (i.e., the Church, not individuals) can see and understand almost everything in Christ, even the obscure revelations of the Old Testament that were not fully clear or misunderstood before the Advent of Christ.

Don’t be confused. I think you should read that beautiful link that Miguel has given, which is Church’s understanding of the Bible, which more is clear, more authoritative and less confusing than what I gave from my personal limited understanding and poor expression.
 
I’m a Hebrew Catholic, a son of Abraham. So of course I believe that Abraham was a real person. If he wasn’t, then I am not.

What I am confused about and very discouraged with here is that people are misunderstanding the word “myth.”

The word “myth” has various meanings, but people are arguing here and debating as if there is only one meaning, and as if no one has the power or desire to crack open a dictionary to check this out (it would end all this immediately). A few people have mentioned it at the beginning of the thread, but as I’ve read on it seems as if less and less people have actually read anything, showing that they themselves who are carrying on have not read that an authoritative and very Catholic answer was already given very early on.

The book of Genesis, when telling the stories of Abraham, uses a literary style, a form of narrative, when it talks about the father of our faith. It is NOT told in the genre of a news report nor is it a dry historical documentary. It just so happens that this form of writing is called “myth”–

…but this doesn’t mean nor does it imply there is anything false or non-historical in the writing labeled as being of that genre.

The “genre” of “myth” is a completely different use of the word than what many here are arguing over. I mentioned this in another thread (shows how little people read other threads on here and repeat the same debates needlessly), giving the example of the Legend of Paul Revere. That “legend” is a poem, the details are not historically accurate, and it is written in the same style of “myth” being spoken of at the beginning of this thread. And yet this doesn’t make Paul Revere or his ride less real. The story is a legend because that is the format it was written in, as a song, but it nonetheless happened. Paul Revere was real.

Same with Abraham and the stories about him in Genesis. The format, the genre, the type of narrative is called “mythos,” to be more accurate. It is a way of dramatizing fact, sort of how the modern-opera “Evita” is true, but presented as a musical. “Evita” is a musical, but just because song is the medium the true story of Eva Durate de Peron is re-told in doesn’t make it false. To call it a “musical” doesn’t make it less true.

The same with Abraham and Genesis. It’s not written in the format of non-fiction. The format for the type of writing used is called “mythos” or “myth,” meaning a dramatized origins story. The word does not imply that anything is less historical or false.

What I am shocked is that so many here are ignorant of this use of the term. It sure brings reproach on Christianity when members of her flock don’t care enough to know the basic various forms of narrative used in the Book most import to their faith. I for one am embarrassed!

Tell you what, let’s change the name of this genre to “Shirley.” Does it end all this silly and needless bickering when we say that the stories of Abraham were written in the style of “Shirley”? Does saying it was written in “Shirley” mean it is false? No, “Shirley” is just a style of narrative.

Same here. “Myth” is a genre of narrative, a way of dramatizing history, not a way of making up falsehoods. The word “myth” as used here does not mean “false story.” Those who believe it does need to go back to school.
 
davidn87 said:
Got to the point where there’s what I hope is a typo, because it refers to Romans chapter 13 verse 26.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. Now the conspiracy theorists will say that only The Holy See has an unabridged version :sad_bye:
 
Corruich said:
In a bible study yesterday our RCIA director told us that Abraham, and the rest of the book of Genesis, is a myth. She said that it was written as a myth and was never intended to be a history book. I can understand that it is not a point for point history. However, that seems to me to be something different altogether than saying Abraham didn’t even exist at all!

Is the position of the Church and the Magisterium that Abraham was an actual, real individual? Is this one of those “free to disagree” points? I’ve heard this kind of thing about Adam, Job and Noah, but this is the first time I’ve heard this about Abraham.

What I would really like is a Catholic document (encyclical, council document, anything) that specifically spells out that we believe these were real people, but that may be hoping for too much.

Thanks,
-Corruich
Click to expand...
I remember taking some adult religion class, and there was this one time I sorta of a run in with the Catholic nun who was running it. I mentioned St. Christopher for some reason and Catholic nun told me he didn’t exist. I told her I was pretty sure he was a saint, She told me no he isn’t and said “where have you been?” I said ‘I was reading about him just a few days ago’ (then). And she retorted “What books are you reading?” I became reticent then, it was pretty old book on saints. I thought it was a lovely story, and it evoke an admiration for St. Christopher and I was positively sure he was real and the story about him was true. I was taken aback how she handle telling me, I thought she was a bit tearse, but thinking about it maybe she was tire of telling people St Christopher wasn’t real and people believing that he did got on her nerves. I didn’t know what to think after that. Sometime I wish I was never told. I mean who could not love a saint who meet spoke with the child Jesus?

I’m only tell that story to let you know it can be tough when you believe in something and someone comes along and tells you you are wrong.

It is very possible that Abraham isn’t a real person, or maybe a conflation of historical people that survived as a single story (some might call it myth). Abraham is two millenium before Christ, and it is almost impossible to prove either way if he lived or didn’t. What is most import in the Abraham cycle isn’t wether he is real or not. It is what is taking place in the story. There is a lot happening and a lot to consider. The Holy Spirit guided those who wrote sacred scripture choose that story to speak to people not only then but throughout time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top