Was Abraham a myth or a real person?

[bmonk]

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? Appreciate the links, references, and thoughtful replies to the question.

Perhaps they meant no evidence outside the Bible? No archeological evidence? It doesn’t mean that none exists in the world–only that we haven’t found it yet.

As far as that goes, outside of the Church, there is little or no evidence that Jesus existed. However, the evidence within the Church, on many levels, is pretty convincing.

 

[patrick457]

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? Appreciate the links, references, and thoughtful replies to the question.

As bmonk said, I think it means that there’s no direct evidence (archaeological, etc.) proving the existence of Abraham outside of Genesis. But then again, we don’t have any direct evidence for Jesus either, outside of the gospels and some literary references: I doubt we’d actually find coins or inscriptions or any other artifact bearing the names of Jesus or Abraham or anything written by them in the near future.

 

[irishcolleen45]

How long ago did Abraham live? I was watching a program on the History channel about battles in the bible. The narrator stated Abraham lived in 1400 BC. I thought he lived about 12,000 BC.

 

[Publisher]

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

Since Genesis…well the Torah itself…did not take on it’s “finished” form until around 500-600 BCE Judah returned from Exile…the stories of Abraham were passed down orally for generations and generations. It is quite possible that, like Moses, Abraham is a compilation of characters that had a great impact on the emerging Hebrew people as a distinct group and the story of “Abraham” that took it’s final form after the Exile certainly had “mythic” elements to it…as did the story of Moses.

 

[Aloysium]

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?

 

[miguel]

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…

And yet a thesaurus will give fictitious story in its definition of the word myth and the list of synonyms includes delusion, fabrication, fiction, fanstasy…And the list of antonyms includes fact, truth. IMO, they know exactly why they throw around the word myth…to confuse. Us ordinary mortals know exactly what the word means. And they know that very well. Gnostic users of the word try to redefine it to mean the opposite if anyone questions them. We know these people don’t believe the truth of the Scriptures. They use the word myth because they want us ordinary mortals to believe what they believe.

 

[patrick457]

And yet a thesaurus will give fictitious story in its definition of the word myth and the list of synonyms includes delusion, fabrication, fiction, fanstasy…And the list of antonyms includes fact, truth. IMO, they know exactly why they throw around the word myth…to confuse. Us ordinary mortals know exactly what the word means. And they know that very well. Gnostic users of the word try to redefine it to mean the opposite if anyone questions them. We know these people don’t believe the truth of the Scriptures. They use the word myth because they want us ordinary mortals to believe what they believe.

The dictionary doesn’t tell you everything. Though yes, the word ‘myth’ has so acquired a negative connotation today that some authors feel the need to use mythos for the positive sense. Personally I don’t care if people today - especially those hostile to religion - equate ‘myth’ with ‘fiction’ (unfortunate though it may be): for me at least myth(os) will always mean ‘(sacred) narrative’. Nothin’ bad with being in the minority.

 

[miguel]

The dictionary doesn’t tell you everything. Though yes, the word ‘myth’ has so acquired a negative connotation today that some authors feel the need to use mythos for the positive sense. Personally I don’t care if people today - especially those hostile to religion - equate ‘myth’ with ‘fiction’ (unfortunate though it may be): for me at least myth(os) will always mean ‘(sacred) narrative’. Nothin’ bad with being in the minority.

“Has acquired?” The word means fiction to ordinary mortals. If the exalted minority wants to communicate with ordinary mortals and they know very well that ordinary mortals understand the word myth to mean fiction, it’s easy enough to pick a different word if that isn’t their intent. The insistence on the word myth tells me they intend fiction, despite all the reassurances to the contrary.

 

[davidn87]

See, the way I have understood things as a non-Catholic is that everything in the Bible happened, and if you take away any part of it the whole thing unravels.

 

[miguel]

The dictionary doesn’t tell you everything. Though yes, the word ‘myth’ has so acquired a negative connotation today that some authors feel the need to use mythos for the positive sense. Personally I don’t care if people today - especially those hostile to religion - equate ‘myth’ with ‘fiction’ (unfortunate though it may be): for me at least myth(os) will always mean ‘(sacred) narrative’. Nothin’ bad with being in the minority.

Next time you’re having a little hanky panky with the wife, tell her very warmly that your love for her has really been a myth. Later, when you’re pulling the curling iron out of your ear and all the bleeding has stopped, tell her “But sweet thing, by myth, I really meant sacred narrative.” That might also be a good time to ask her when she became hostile to religion.

 

[Corruich]

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?

Aloysium wins the thread.

-Corruich

 

[aidanbradypop]

As a Cultural Anthropologist, I can say that besides the Sacred Text in Christianity, Islam and Judaism, there is not much evidence historically that he ever lived. The Bible gives places, dates, kings, kingdoms etc…Some check out and so do not. If one went purely from an historical view, we tend to say no or I don’t know. One cannot say for certain, but if we go by faith, then one will say yes. You can kind of balance the two in a sense.

This is how I come at from as an Anthropologist…I have faith that he was a true man and a man of God. I believe some of the stories about him in religious text add a few things, but it still does not take away from the man Abraham. His battles or trips to here and there could be fact or somewhat fiction, but I believe the core of the Abrahamic Tradition is true. God called him out of all to proclaim the One True God.

 

[HelenRose]

See, the way I have understood things as a non-Catholic is that everything in the Bible happened, and if you take away any part of it the whole thing unravels.

Let us say that you and your country were exiled and you had the ability to take with you some of the most important documents of your country. What would you take? I would take the Consititution of the United States, the important speeches of the Presidents, especially the Gettysburg Address. I would take some of our greatest liturature and poetry. Some of the documents would be history, some would be philosophy, some would music and some would be stories.

I wasn’t there but I am positive that Abraham was a real person. He is so very human. The fact that the people described in the Bible are so human - with all the warts and sins that we all carry with us - indicate to me that they were real people who walked on Earth.

Are some of the stories parables like the parables that Jesus used to illustrate a point? Maybe. The parable of the Prodigal Son is a story. Yet this story story tells the real truth about people and their families.

We need to realize as well that the ancient people took seriously oral tradition. Everyone knew the stories and if a “teller of stories” got it wrong they would be called out and corrected.

 

[davidn87]

But if one part of the Bible isn’t strictly 100% true, then how can we trust any of it?

 

[Della]

But if one part of the Bible isn’t strictly 100% true, then how can we trust any of it?

There is more than one way to interpret Scripture. The literalistic (note: not literal) method you believe in is not always appropriate. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

Also, the Bible contains several forms of writing from poetry to history. Abraham is part of the historical record in the Bible, but he is also referred to in the Psalms and the NT. The senses of scriptural interpretation do not mean that what is written in the Bible is not true–the Church teaches that the Bible is errant. Rather it means it can have more than one meaning.

 

[HelenRose]

But if one part of the Bible isn’t strictly 100% true, then how can we trust any of it?

That is an interesting question and one that is asked a lot. For me, and I speak only for myself. I love the Bible. I love the stories. I love the history. I love the lessons taught. I love everything about the Bible.

I ask myself the same question of people I meet. Can I trust you? Are you trustworthy? The answer I find is often one that I take by faith and experience with these people.

How can I trust that the stories about Julius Ceasar are true. The same people who preserved that ancient texts of the New Testament are the same people who rescued and saved the writings of the Roman leaders.

What about the ancient history of China. Do we trust those writings or do we just dismiss then as lies.

How can I trust the teaching that the Earth is round? I personally can’t prove that to myself? Yet I believe that it is.

I think trust comes with learning and understanding. There are many scholars who are not Christians or Jews yet use the rich historical writings found in the Old Testament. Jewish scholars who do not accept Christ as the Savior are grateful for the New Testament because much of what they know about that period of their history is found in the New Testament. So much of that history was lost when Rome destroyed Jerusalem.

I think my advice to you may simply be: Be a person that others can trust. Be a person of truth and be not afraid. Truth will find you.

P.S. Read carefully Della’s post which precedes this one. She is right.

 

[HelenRose]

There is more than one way to interpret Scripture. The literalistic (note: not literal) method you believe in is not always appropriate. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

Also, the Bible contains several forms of writing from poetry to history. Abraham is part of the historical record in the Bible, but he is also referred to in the Psalms and the NT. The senses of scriptural interpretation do not mean that what is written in the Bible is not true–the Church teaches that the Bible is errant. Rather it means it can have more than one meaning.

 

[may_they_be_one]

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.

AMEN and AMEN!!! There are far too many DRE/RCIA heretics (or whatever they should be called) doing our parish “teaching” today… the Bishops need to do their duty and CLEAN HOUSE ASAP (so to speak, and in a spirit of love of course)!

 

[may_they_be_one]

John Carlton;9543748:

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.

previous post didn’t separate the quote… my response here:

AMEN and AMEN!!! There are far too many DRE/RCIA heretics (or whatever they should be called) doing our parish “teaching” today… the Bishops need to do their duty and CLEAN HOUSE ASAP (so to speak, and in a spirit of love of course)!

If we don’t believe in Abraham and his ACTUAL relationship with God, then why should we believe Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses… and of course the Kings and Prophets’ miracles and REAL relationships with God are also invalid. And of course it makes the entire idea of Jesus’ actual teachings, miracles, and resurrection invalid as well…

It makes total sense why the writer of Hebrews would squeeze in the statement (11:6), “Without faith it is impossible to please God,” right between his recollection of Enoch and Noah.

Lord, please help our Bishops rediscover the need to defend the fullness of truth expressed in the Scriptures!

 

[Lion777]

I would ask someone who says that Abraham or any other historical personage from the Bible did not exist, what do they base that claim on? Is there something in the text of accounts of Abraham and his family that do not jibe with known archaelogical, geographical, historical, linguistic facts for that time period? For instance, is there city or civilization mentioned that did not exist until much later? Does it mention a food item that did not exist it that part of the world. As an example if there was an acount of Julius Caesar eating spaghetti and meatballs I would doubt the antiquity and accuracy of the account since Marco Polo brought pasta from China over a thousand years later. If they claim Abraham is an ammagulation of several real people what do they base that claim on? Is there a known series of writings and legends of people from that time period that have individual aspects of Abrahamic story? Ask the skeptic to provide some proof of their skepticism.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android