A reader writes:
I’m trying to find out about Abraham—did he really exist? Was he a monotheist (maybe in a practical as opposed to strict sense)? Does it matter? What weight does the OT carry for Catholics as a historical document?
I’ve read a bit over the last few days about this stuff— some Church documents—Humani Generis, Dei Verbum. Also, the ancient Christian commentary on Genesis.
My read is that Abraham matters and is real, especially to Salvation history. But I can’t find it anywhere that it is a tenet of faith or anything like you can with Adam.
What would it mean for the messianic prophesies if he wasn’t real? Wouldn’t that be undermining our belief that Christ descended from Abraham and was fulfilling the covenant?
There is, it is true, no dogma about Abraham, but then we do not function as Catholics according to the dictum “That which is not forbidden is compulsory.” Rather, the Church’s teaching is a complex connection of idea with idea so that one thing logically leads to another. For instance, while the creed says nothing about Abraham, it does say that Christ rose “in accordance with the Scriptures.” Among these Scriptures are the promises to Abraham that through his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen 12:1-3)—a promise fulfilled in Christ (Galatians 3:8-18). The Church’s teaching on Scripture is pretty clear, as is Dei Verbum, which teaches that “since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” The authors of Scripture—and unbroken Catholic tradition—speak of Abraham as a real historical figure, so I think it pretty obvious that he was.
This matters because the whole of the New Covenant is rooted in the promises made to Abraham, so the New Testament would be incoherent without him. As Mary says, “He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever” (Luke 1:54-55). Likewise, Zechariah says that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of “the oath which he swore to our father Abraham.” And Paul calls Abraham our father in faith and clearly sees Jesus as the fulfillment of the promises made to him. So too, does the author of Hebrews, who roots Jesus’ entire priesthood in the priesthood of Melchizedek and recognizes it as superior to the priesthood of Levi precisely because Abraham (who is the ancestor of Levi and therefore greater than he) bows to Melchizedek and therefore acknowledges him as greater than himself. Get rid of Abe, therefore, and you do immense damage to our understanding of who Christ is.
Nor need we do so. There is no particular reason to believe that Abraham never existed and plenty of evidence that he did. The details given about Abraham in Scripture contain some anachronisms, due to the fact that the story is being written down long after Abraham. (Sort of like if a modern author, writing a tale about Plains Indians set in the 1500s, might say that his hero hunted buffalo near what is now St. Louis. In the same way, Abraham is sometimes located in places that do not seem to have existed in Abe’s day.) But these narratives also contain enough details to make clear that what we are looking at is rooted in the real historical memories of a people, albeit sifted in such a way as to preserve the theological meaning of those stories and not intended as a modern history. As to Abraham’s monotheism, it’s difficult to say. A lot of Old Testament literature suggests that Hebrews were originally henotheists—that is, that they *worshipped* only one God but took for granted that there were other gods, worshipped by other nations, that Israel did not worship. So, for instance, the book of Exodus seems pretty clearly predicated on the idea, not that there is only one God and no other gods exist, but that the one God of Israel was more powerful than all the gods of Egypt. Likewise, the psalmist calls God “the great king over all other gods” which again sees God, not as the only God, but as greater than the pantheon of the Gentiles. It is only in late Old Testament Judaism that things come into sharper focus and the prophets say things like “I am the Lord. Beside me there is no other” and Israel becomes fully monotheistic in the sense of believing that no other gods exist. At this point, there is a shift in the supernatural beliefs of Israel and the understanding that other supernatural powers at odds with God must therefore be, not gods, but devils—that is, fallen supernatural beings called angels who exist not as self-existent ‘gods’ but as rebellious creatures of the one and only God there is.
Comments
Post a Comment
I remember one book on Norse history where the author rather snarkily claimed that Christianity is false because all ancient religions probably originated from some kind of sky god—- Tyr, he said—- before a kind of Mesopotamian diaspora, after which it grew and split into several pantheons. (I don’t think he realized his story was basically the Tower of Babel.)
this is a great article and it gets totally lost in that fleshuginer changing sidebar, where you need to actually stare at it for several hours scrolling up and down to make sure you’ve seen all the articles it holds. this is not the way the creator planned home pages to be set up.
(there is really no reasoon to puboish this talkback - merely pass it on for further thought
Thankyou Mr. Shea for confirming the validity of Sacred Scripture. As a new convert to the Catholic Church I have been puzzled by teachings that there are mistakes in the Scripture and there is no evidence that anyone in the Bible before Abraham was an historical person.
Well said. Never heard Abraham called Abe before, seems to bring him closer.
Great job, Mr. Shea, and thank you. Not only for defending the Old Testement, but also for really helping to make salvation history a little easier to understand.
Abraham is also considered to be the ancestor of the Arabs, which squares with the linguistic relation of Arabic and Hebrew as west Semitic languages. “Abe” is also associated with Ur of the Chaldees which is in some sense like Mr. Shea’s St. Louis of the Osage. Ur in the time frame usually associated with this particular patriarch was Sumerian and the ancestors of the “Chaldees,” another West Semitic group,were wandering in the north Arabian deserts, likely with the ancestors of the Hebrews.
you should read scott hahn - no offense, mark -
...
The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth
Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism
A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God’s Covenant Love in Scripture
Signs of Life: 40 Catholic Customs and Their Biblical Roots
Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God
Lord, Have Mercy: The Healing Power of Confession
Reasons to Believe: How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith
...
theres others…
...
plus Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant James Pitre with a foreward by Scott Hahn
...
it ties genesis to revelation and between…and it proves most of what he says comes from apostles/their learners…
Everything in the Bible must be the TRUTH! Otherwise I have wasted my life in this convent.
As Catholics we take the first 11 chapters of Genesis as allegorical; but starting with Chapter 12 we start to see the historical beginnings of the chosen people of God starting with the call of Abraham.
PS That’s why Catholics don’t look for the Garden of Eden or Noah’s Ark
Osvaldo: For your edification, We know Noah’s Ark rests on Mt. Ararat. It was spotted by Air Force reconnaissance flights over the area in World War II.
No, Bob. We don’t know that. You are entitled to your opinion, but there is no proof at all that Noah’s Ark rests on Mt. Ararat.
In Luke 16, 19 to 31 Jesus tells the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. There, the rich man calls out to “Father Abraham” to send Lazarrus to him. Abraham replies. It appears from this parable that Jesus believed in Abraham and that is good enough for me.
Mark: “There is…plenty of evidence that he did (exist).”
Plenty? From my initial reading in this area, I get the impression that far from “plenty” of evidence for the historicity of Abraham, in actual fact the existence of corroborating evidence is zero, zilch…nada.
From Eric Cline’s *Biblical Archeology; A Very short Introduction*:
“The simple fact of the matter is that although numerous excavations have recovered tremendous quantities of archeological remains from the early second through the early first millennia BCE…there has not yet been any direct archaeological or extrabiblical textual evidence to confirm or deny the existence of Abraham and his fellow Patriarchs.” (p.75)
Again Mark:
“...these narratives also contain enough details to make clear that what we are looking at is rooted in the real historical memories of a people, albeit sifted in such a way as to preserve the theological meaning of those stories and not intended as a modern history.”
Again Cline:
“While some archaeologists argue that the details contained in the stories of the Patriarchs and their wanderings fit well within the conditions and practices of the early second millennium BCE, others argue that the stories and the characters could just as easily have been made up centuries later…”
William Dever:
“After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible “historical figures.” (from his book, *What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It*)
Ronald Hendel (quoted in Amy Docker Marcus’s *The View From Nebo;How Archaeology is Rewriting the Bible and Reshaping the Middle East*):
“Most biblical scholars and archaeologists have abandoned the question of the patriarchs altogether…They don’t regard Abraham as having anything historical to say.”
Might this not be a case where we would be wise to remember Augustine’s warning that when our interpretation of Scripture conflicts with the empirical evidence, that we should perhaps reconsider our interpretation?
Mark: Yes we do. I have seen the reconnaissance photos that clearly show it. Ask National Geographic what they think about it.
Hey Mark, I have to side with Bob Rowland on this one. I have seen the pictures and while there is no concrete evidence that it is the ark, there is definately the remains of a massive boat resting on the top of the Ararat mountians. And Bob Peck I gree with you, if Jesus believed in Abraham’s existance that’s good enough for me too.
Bob & Mary,
Given the apparently complete lack of corroborating non-biblical evidence for the historicity of Abraham, which I referenced in my post above, perhaps we should not so quickly rule out the possibility that Jesus’s references to Abraham in Luke16 were meant in a symbolic or mythical sense, rather than in a strictly literal historic sense.
After all, it is accepted Catholic thinking that God has always communicated to Man at the level of Man’s current ability to understand. Jesus ministry was not concerned with revealing all the fully complete and accurate details of every chapter of past human history (even of Salvation History), but with laying out the most basic and fundamental elements we need to know moving forward. Certainly, there must have been many erroneous ideas that 1st century Jews had about previous history , which Jesus,had he choose to, could have corrected their understanding of, but choose not to. The actual reality and meaning of what the name “Abraham” represented could have possibly been one of those things.
Certainly, we could at least perhaps agree that the “lesson” of the parable of the Rich Man in Luke 16, is not fundamentally dependent on whether “Abraham” refers to an actual historical individual, or whether the character of Abraham is a symbolic representation for a whole group of people in the then distant past.
Couldn’t we?
One thing that sticks with me is this. If Jesus is “God in the flesh,” and He is, everything He tells us is truth. He confirmed Abraham, mentioning him many times, including these two definitive responses: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” (John 8:56) and “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58) If Jesus says Abraham rejoiced to see His day, He did. If He says Abraham was, He was. I see no reason to look further. Now we can settle into the real issue. Either Jesus is who He says He is, or He was a deceiver and a fraud, or He was a lunatic. Let’s review the evidence on that issue, and everything else is determined. God does not require “blind faith,” and the problem really is no more complicated than that. God bless every one of you, and may satan go into the pit alone, without a single victory! Grace and peace…
Michael: “...everything He (Jesus) tells us is truth….I see no reason to look further.”
Carefull,Michael. Such a rigidly literalisitic interpretation of Jesus word’s (or rather, the paraphrased memory of Jesus’s words, written down decades after they had been spoken) might bring you places you wouldn’t want to go:
Matthew 16:22-23: “Peter started to remonstrate with him. “......this must not happen to you.” But he (Jesus) turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”
Michael: “If He says Abraham was, He was.”
By that same logic, then Peter MUST be Satan and Pope Benedict MUST be the successor of Satan. Yikes!
Or, maybe, in Matthew 16:22-23 Jesus did not mean for his words to be taken literally. Maybe there is something else going on there on a more figurative level?
Also, notice that in the two examples you cited (John 8:56 & John 8:58), the statements are no less true if the name “Abraham” symbolized not an individual but a collective group of ancient unnamed patriachs:
“Your forefathers rejoiced to see my day: and they saw it, and were glad.”
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before the oldest patriachs were, I am.”
I,like you,also believe and profess that Jesus is “God in the flesh,” and everything He tells us is truth. However, that does not mean that we are incapable of error in our understanding and interpretation of the words he used to express that Truth.
Thank you for your post, Andre.
I have been in the Lord long enough to realize what you point out, symbolize scripture and you can make it say anything. A spirit-filled Christian is certainly able to discern that Jesus was not saying Peter was “Lucifer.” Indeed, when He spoke of the twelve He said “...ONE of you is a devil.” (John 6:70, my emphasis added)
If, in this case, you read the verse inbetween the two I gave, you will find what you need to answer your hypothesis. Those with Him, from the same culture speaking the same language, understood Him perfectly.
Then said the Jews unto him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?” (John 8:57)
Jesus didn’t respond, “You misunderstand me,” or, “You miss my real point.” No, He spoke as I posted, explaining exactly what the author John tells us from verse 1. Jesus is God, He was already, even “in the beginning.” Back up to John 8:24 and you see Jesus’ stern warning to the same Jews. “If you do not believe I AM, you will die in your sins.” Of course, one can symbolize all of this and make it say something other than what it does, also. You make that point well. This is certainly why Paul exhorts us, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15)
Was Jesus stating the fact that He is God, that He was there even before Abraham was, that He was perhaps even the one who met Abraham on more than one occasion? (Gen. 17, 18) Once more we can leave it not up to the wistful imaginations of those coming two thousand years later.
Jesus answered them, “Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?” The Jews answered him, saying, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” (John 10:32-33)
One more thing I am reminded of as I reread your post, something else you may want to consider as you study.
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26)
Decades later? Paraphrased? Where is the evidence of that? Why would God go to the trouble to do what He states here, if but a few decades later no one would remember, anyway? Are we really to argue tha God called these men to write down everything they had been teaching, but did not give them the Spirit to cause their work to be accurate? If the Bible does not say what it means, it doesn’t say anything. I trust that it says everything.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Pet. 1:20)
Grace and peace…
Thank you for your post, Andre.
I have been in the Lord long enough to realize what you point out, symbolize scripture and you can make it say anything. A spirit-filled Christian is certainly able to discern that Jesus was not saying Peter was “Lucifer.” Indeed, when He spoke of the twelve He said “...ONE of you is a devil.” (John 6:70, my emphasis added) If, in this case, you read the verse inbetween the two I gave, you will find what you need to answer your hypothesis. Those with Him, from the same culture speaking the same language, understood Him perfectly. Then said the Jews unto him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?” (John 8:57) Jesus didn’t respond, “You misunderstand me,” or, “You miss my real point.” No, He spoke as I posted, explaining exactly what the author John tells us from verse 1. Jesus is God, He was already, even “in the beginning.” Back up to John 8:24 and you see Jesus’ stern warning to the same Jews. “If you do not believe I AM, you will die in your sins.” Of course, one can symbolize all of this and make it say something other than what it does, also. You make that point well. This is certainly why Paul exhorts us, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15) Was Jesus stating the fact that He is God, that He was there even before Abraham was, that He was perhaps even the one who met Abraham on more than one occasion? (Gen. 17, 18) Once more we can leave it not up to the wistful imaginations of those coming two thousand years later. Jesus answered them, “Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?” The Jews answered him, saying, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” (John 10:32-33) One more thing I am reminded of as I reread your post, something else you may want to consider as you study. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26) Decades later? Paraphrased? Where is the evidence of that? Why would God go to the trouble to do what He states here, if but a few decades later no one would remember, anyway? Are we really to argue tha God called these men to write down everything they had been teaching, but did not give them the Spirit to cause their work to be accurate? If the Bible does not say what it means, it doesn’t say anything. I trust that it says everything. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Pet. 1:20) Grace and peace…
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.