Was Abraham a myth or a real person?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Corruich
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Corruich

Guest
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
 
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...
Just to clarify, as your RCIA teacher should have, saying that something is a myth does not mean that it is untrue or not factual. A myth in terms of theological intellectual terminology is used in the sense of “A usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people, or explain a practice, belief or natural phenomenon” (thank’s Merriam-Webster Dictionary!)

You’ll note that NO WHERE in that definition of myth does the word false, fictional, or untrue occur.

So in a theology class, such as the one I took at my Catholic University, it is common to hear such terms as the Genesis Creation Myth, or the Genesis Myth in general.

All your RCIA director was trying to say (and this is my educated guess) is exactly what you said: that it’s not a point to point science and history text, that not ALL of it is literal, though some of it very well is.
 
Abraham was a real person. The gal who is leading RCIA needs to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church instead of listening to modernist biblical “scholars” who make it their special joy to deny every aspect of the faith that smacks of the miraculous.

Besides this, her definition of myth is wrong. Mythology is a form of historical writing that unlike modern history is more concerned with overall themes than for facts and figures. The first two chapters of Genesis are written in this form, which does not at all mean that Adam and Eve were not real persons. Abraham’s story is not as much mythological as it is a form of folk history, which again has nothing to do with the validity of the existence of the persons who are in it.

Honestly, why people who know nothing about literary forms see fit to teach others about them is beyond me. :rolleyes:

Anyway, here is a Google search of Abraham in the CCC: google.com/search?q=catechism+of+the+catholic+church+abraham&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a. See for youself that the Church believes Abraham to be a real person and a prophet of God.
 
As a teacher of RCIA, I’m a little embarrassed by that statement.
God forbid (and I mean that literally) I say something that is not in accordance with the magisterium. It’s something I pray about all the time, especially before we meet.

Three of the world’s major religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim) all agree on one point. That Abraham is the father of their faith, and that he was a man who heard and heeded God’s call.

Real. Here’s a good book to read:
*
Bruce Feiler: Abraham - A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths*. This is a wonderful book, I believe. I really enjoyed it, and as an RCIA facilitator, I think one of many things I must practice is patience and understanding with people of other faiths who come to inquire and sit at our table. Of course at some point, each person at that table makes a decision (or not) to become a Catholic, but in the inquiry stage, we must be charitable and open to hearing where they come from. This particular book illustrates that.

Blessings
 
Thank you all for your replies.
Just to clarify, as your RCIA teacher should have, saying that something is a myth does not mean that it is untrue or not factual. A myth in terms of theological intellectual terminology is used in the sense of “A usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people, or explain a practice, belief or natural phenomenon” (thank’s Merriam-Webster Dictionary!)
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I don’t believe that is what she meant. She was trying to explain that the story communicates the relationship between God and his people and uses invented characters to do so. She said that she still believes it is inspired, but is inspired to teach us general themes.

Oh well, not really sure how to handle this. Any suggestions on what to say next time this comes up in class? I don’t want to flip tables or anything, but I don’t want the other people in the class being scandalized either. It seems like it throws an unnecessary stumbling block in people’s way for no appreciable gain.

Thanks again,
-Corruich
 
The point is that, according to what I was informed some time ago, the Church, holds that scripture is historical from and including Abraham onwards - whether you choose to call it a myth or not.
 
In Genesis we see the connection of Abraham and Melkisedek. Melkisedek is also mentioned in Hebrews. This supports the teaching of the church on the Eucharist. As catholics,we should recognize the Eucharist as " the source and summit of the christian life".
 
A real person.

See John VIII, 58:

Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM.
 
Corruich said:
Thank you all for your replies.

Unfortunately I don’t believe that is what she meant. She was trying to explain that the story communicates the relationship between God and his people and uses invented characters to do so. She said that she still believes it is inspired, but is inspired to teach us general themes.

Oh well, not really sure how to handle this. Any suggestions on what to say next time this comes up in class? I don’t want to flip tables or anything, but I don’t want the other people in the class being scandalized either. It seems like it throws an unnecessary stumbling block in people’s way for no appreciable gain.

Thanks again,
-Corruich
Click to expand...
Talk to her privately showing her documentation that shows she is wrong. If she won’t listen talk to the priest about it. And if he won’t do anything about it, document what was said, the lack of action on the part of the priest, and send it to your diocese. People have the right to be taught what the Church actually teaches, and we have the right to demand it.
 
A real person.
Click to expand...
See John VIII, 58:
Click to expand...
Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about the same verse last night. My thought was that Jesus is using Abraham as a historical marker to communicate the nature of his existence and his divinity. However if we choose to understand Abraham as a myth or a metaphor for the Jewish people, then it renders this verse meaningless or, even worse, demonstrates ignorance or naivete in the person of Jesus.

So ultimately, if Jesus uses Abraham as a historical marker, then he must have believed in the real person of Abraham. And if Jesus believed in the real person of Abraham, then we should as well.

-Corruich
 
“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!”

What you’ve got here is a classic example of what us erudite folks refer to as ****, hereafter referred to as garbage. There are many reasons why this is garbage, however, here’s one thing to think about. Jesus Christ believed in Abraham, He intimated as much when He inferred that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Why flout being the ‘god’ of non-existent things? What kind of boast is that? It’s not a winner. Jesus referenced the Old Testament many times, and not as a “myth” as so many are fond of calling it these days. I think what these folks ought to think about the next time they submerge you in their scripturally ignorant rants is just what the mythologising of their Bible does to their Jesus. If Jesus believed a lie, or taught a lie, or if Jesus was capable of ignorance, than Catholicism is shattered and the modernist devils have won the war, at which point we can all be our own pastors like the unitarians, each with their own pantheon of nonexistent gods. Joy of unending joys.

I urge you to look up the Institute of Catholic Culture, someone here (God bless them) turned me on to Deacon Sabbatino’s battleship and it’s good to see the captain sink a few modernist yachts. I would also look up John Bergsma and that guy Steve Ray, they have some pretty good stuff defending the historicity of the Bible. And the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Anyway, I’m sorry you had to put up with that smarmy modernist and I’m glad you’re seeking clarification from their errors. I hope you find the right answers you’re looking for, and may God bless you!
 
Abraham most likely was a real person…just as Moses was a real person…however the stories attributred to having occured to them, maybe a “compilation” of stories of different men of faith that in the course of centuries and centuries of oral transmission before they were finally written down in the form they have come to us at a much later date than when the character…or compilation of influential men ammalgamated into a single biblical character named “Abraham”.

Scripture came to us in layers and layer of tradition…which may have blended various charaters into one.
 
Using “myth” in a technical sense in a class without explaining it is not a good teaching method. The teacher should have explained what exactly was intended.

If the teacher meant that Abraham did not actually exist, we have no evidence that he didn’t, and much that he did. More and more, oral tradition is proving surprisingly good at remembering the basic facts (existence of a person), if not the details of all the stories. Archeologists just a few years ago were fond of claiming that King David didn’t exist, since they had no evidence of him in their digs–until they found some.

Furthermore, our faith is that God preserved accurately the events and experiences of the Chosen People necessary for our faith–and Abraham, the Father of Faith, is certainly an important figure.
 
bmonk said:
Using “myth” in a technical sense in a class without explaining it is not a good teaching method. The teacher should have explained what exactly was intended.

If the teacher meant that Abraham did not actually exist, we have no evidence that he didn’t, and much that he did. More and more, oral tradition is proving surprisingly good at remembering the basic facts (existence of a person), if not the details of all the stories. Archeologists just a few years ago were fond of claiming that King David didn’t exist, since they had no evidence of him in their digs–until they found some.

Furthermore, our faith is that God preserved accurately the events and experiences of the Chosen People necessary for our faith–and Abraham, the Father of Faith, is certainly an important figure.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I’d like to answer this question with another question: if I say that Abraham is a ‘myth(olog)ical’ figure, does that automatically mean that he was not ‘real’? Why can’t I say that he could be both? I know a lot of people today use the word “myth” to mean ‘totally absurd fiction only infantile loons would actually take seriously’, but it is really IMHO a bastardization of its original meaning.

In its original sense, a myth (from Greek mythos ‘tale’, ‘story’) denotes a sacred narrative that tells how the world or mankind came to be in its present form, and which typically involves gods and heroes. They may rise as (usually overelaborated) accounts of historical events, as allegory for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual.Myths are transmitted to convey religious or idealized experience, to establish behavioral models, and to teach. Given these factors IMHO we can say that the Biblical stories is in many ways, ‘myths’ par excellence. Which is different from saying that it is a fabricated fiction totally conjured out of thin air (which is what some folks mean when they label it as such).
 
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...
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Abraham
 
Glad this got brought up; I remember running across some passage somewhere (it was awhile ago) in some book or magazine (not a Catholic one) that was saying there was “no evidence Abraham existed” or words to that effect. I’m like, Whaaa? :confused: Appreciate the links, references, and thoughtful replies to the question. 👍
 
3DOCTORS said:
Glad this got brought up; I remember running across some passage somewhere (it was awhile ago) in some book or magazine (not a Catholic one) that was saying there was “no evidence Abraham existed” or words to that effect. I’m like, Whaaa? :confused: Appreciate the links, references, and thoughtful replies to the question. 👍
Click to expand...
I have read things that say God doesn’t exist and that Jesus didn’t die on the Cross.

Don’t believe it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top