Abraham

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The original form of the name,Abram, is apparently the AssyrianAbu-ramu. It isdoubtful if the usual meaning attached to that word "lofty father", is correct. The meaning given to Abraham inGenesis 17:5 is popular word play, and the real meaning is unknown. The Assyriologist, Hommel suggests that in the Minnean dialect, the Hebrew letterHê ("h") is written for long a. Perhaps here we may have the real derivation of the word, andAbraham may be only adialectical form ofAbram.

The story of Abraham is contained in the Book of Genesis,11:26 to25:18. We shall first give a brief outline of the Patriarch's life, as told in that portion of Genesis, then we shall in succession discuss the subject of Abraham from the viewpoints of theOld Testament,New Testament, profane history, and legend.

A brief outline of Abraham's life

Thare had three sons, Abram, Nachor, and Aran. Abram married Sarai. Thare took Abram and his wife, Sarai, andLot, the son of Aran, who was dead, and leaving Ur of the Chaldees, came to Haran and dwelt there till he died. Then, at the call ofGod, Abram, with his wife, Sarai, andLot, and the rest of his belongings, went into theLand of Chanaan, amongst other places to Sichem and Bethel, where he built altars to the Lord.

A famine breaking out inChanaan, Abram journeyed southward toEgypt, and when he had entered the land, fearing that he would be killed on account of his wife, Sarai, he bade her say she was his sister. The report of Sarai's beauty was brought to thePharao, and he took her into his harem, andhonoured Abram on account of her. Later, however finding out that she was Abram's wife, he sent her away unharmed, and, upbraiding Abram for what he had done, he dismissed him fromEgypt.

FromEgypt Abram came withLot towards Bethel, and there, finding that their herds and flocks had grown to be very large, he proposed that they should separate and go their own ways. SoLot chose the country about theJordan, whilst Abram dwelt inChanaan, and came and dwelt in the vale of Mambre inHebron.

Now, on account of a revolt of the Kings of Sodom and Gomorrha and other kings from Chodorlahomor King of Elam, after they had served him twelve years, he in the fourteenth year madewar upon them with his allies, Thadal king of nations,Amraphel King of Senaar, and Arioch King ofPontus. The King of Elam was victorious, and had already reachedDan withLot aprisoner and laden with spoil, when he was overtaken by Abram. With 318 men thepatriarch surprises, attacks, and defeats him, he retakesLot and the spoil, and returns in triumph.

On his way home, he is met byMelchisedech, king of Salem who brings forthbread andwine, andblesses him And Abram gives himtithes of all he has; but for himself he reserves nothing.God promises Abram that his seed shall be as the stars ofheaven, and he shall possess the land ofChanaan. But Abram does not see how this is to be, for he has already grown old. Then the promise is guaranteed by a sacrifice betweenGod and Abram, and by a vision and asupernatural intervention in the night.

Sarai, who was far advanced in years and had given up theidea of bearing children, persuaded Abram to take to himself her hand-maid, Agar. He does so, and Agar being with child despises the barren Sarai. For this Sarai afflicts her so that she flies into thedesert, but is persuaded to return by anangel who comforts her with promises of the greatness of the son she is about to bear. She returns and brings forthIsmael.

Thirteen years laterGod appears to Abram and promises him a son by Sarai, and that his posterity will be a great nation. As a sign, he changes Abram's name to Abraham, Sarai's to Sara, and ordains the rite ofcircumcision. One day later, as Abraham is sitting by his tent, in the vale of Mambre,Jehovah with twoangels appears to him in human form. He shows them hospitality. Then again the promise of a son namedIsaac is renewed to Abraham. The aged Sarah hears incredulously and laughs. Abraham is then told of the impending destruction ofSodom and Gomorrha for theirsins but obtains fromJehovah the promise that he will not destroy them if he finds ten just men therein. Then follows a description of the destruction of the two cities and the escape ofLot. Next morning Abraham, looking from his tent towards Sodom, sees the smoke of destruction ascending toheaven.

After this, Abraham moves south to Gerara, and again fearing for his life says of his wife, "she is my sister". The king of Gerara, Abimelech, sends and takes her, but learning in a dream that she is Abraham's wife he restores her to him untouched, and rebukes him and gives him gifts.

In her old age Sarah bears a son, Isaac, to Abraham, and he iscircumcised on the eighth day. Whilst he is still young, Sarah is jealous, seeingIsmael playing with the childIsaac, so she procures that Agar and her son shall be cast out. Then Agar would have allowedIsmael to perish in the wilderness, had not anangel encouraged her by telling her of the boy's future.

Abraham is next related to have had a dispute with Abimelech over a well at Bersabee, which ends in a covenant being made between them. It was after this that the great trial of thefaith of Abraham takes place.God commands him to sacrifice his only sonIsaac. When Abraham has his arm raised and is in the very act of striking, anangel fromheaven stays his hand and makes the most wonderful promises to him of the greatness of his posterity because of his complete trust inGod.

Sarah dies at the age of 127, and Abraham, having purchased from Ephron the Hethite the cave in Machpelah near Mambre, buries her there.

His own career is not yet quite ended for first of all he takes a wife for his sonIsaac, Rebecca from the city of Nachor in Mesopotamia. Then he marries Cetura, old though he is, and has by her six children. Finally, leaving all his possessions toIsaac, he dies at age 170, and is buried byIsaac andIsmael in the cave of Machpelah.

Viewpoint of Old Testament

Abraham may be looked upon as the starting-point or source ofOld Testament religion. So that from the days of Abraham men were wont to speak ofGod as theGod of Abraham, whilst we do not find Abraham referring in the same way to anyone before him. So we have Abraham's servant speaking of "theGod of my father Abraham" (Genesis 24:12).Jehovah, in an apparition toIsaac, speaks of himself as theGod of Abraham (Genesis 26:24), and toJacob he is "theGod of my father Abraham" (Genesis 31:42). So, too, showing that the religion ofIsrael does not begin withMoses,God says toMoses: "I am theGod of thy fathers, theGod of Abraham" etc. (Ex. iii, 6). The same expression is used in the Psalms (xlvi, 10) and is common in theOld Testament. Abraham is thus selected as the first beginning or source of the religion of thechildren of Israel and the origin of its close connection withJehovah, because of hisfaith, trust, and obedience to and inJehovah and because ofJehovah's promises to him and to his seed. So, in Genesis, xv, 6, it is said: "Abram believedGod, and it was reputed to him untojustice." This trust inGod was shown by him when he left Haran and journeyed with hisfamily into the unknown country ofChanaan. It was shown principally when he was willing to sacrifice his only sonIsaac, in obedience to a command fromGod. It was on that occasion thatGod said: "Because thou hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake I willbless thee" etc. (Genesis 22:16, 17). It is to this and other promises made so often byGod toIsrael that the writers of theOld Testament refer over and over again in confirmation of their privileges as the chosen people. These promises, which are recorded to have been made no less than eight times, are thatGod will give the land ofChanaan to Abraham and his seed (Genesis 12:7) that his seed shall increase and multiply as the stars ofheaven; that he himself shall beblessed and that in him "all the kindred of the earth shall beblessed" (xii, 3). Accordingly the traditional view of the life of Abraham, as recorded in Genesis, is that it is history in the strict sense of the word. Thus Father von Hummelauer, S.J., in his commentary on Genesis in the "Cursus Scripturae Sacrae" (30), in answer to the question from what author the section on Abraham first proceeded, replies, from Abraham as the first source. Indeed he even says that it is all in one style, as aproof of its origin, and that the Passage, xxv, 5-11, concerning the goods, death, and burial of Abraham comes fromIsaac. It must, however, be added that it isdoubtful if Father von Hummelauer still adheres to these views, written before 1895, since he has much modified his position in the volume on Deuteronomy.

Quite a different view on the section of Genesis treating of Abraham, and indeed of the whole of Genesis, is taken by modern critical scholars. They almost unanimously hold that the narrative of the patriarch's life is composed practically in its entirety of three writings or writers called respectively the Jahvist, the Elohist, and thepriestly writer, and denoted by the letters J, E, and P. J and E consisted of collections of stories relating to the patriarch, some of older, some of later, origin. Perhaps the stories of J show a greater antiquity than those of E. Still the two authors are very much alike, and it is not always easy to distinguish one from the other in the combined narrative of J and E. From what we can observe, neither the Jahvist nor the Elohist was a personal author. Both are ratherschools, and represent the collections of many years. Both collections were closed before the time of theprophets; J some time in the ninth century B.C., and E early in the eighth century, the former probably in the South Kingdom, the latter in the North. Then towards the end of the kingdom, perhaps owing to the inconvenience of having two rival accounts of the stories of thepatriarchs etc. going about, a redactor R.JE (?) combined the two collections in one, keeping as much as possible to the words of his sources, making as few changes as possible so as to fit them into one another, and perhaps mostly following J in the account of Abraham. Then in the fifth century a writer who evidently belonged to thesacerdotal caste wrote down again an account of primitive and patriarchal history from thepriestly point of view. He attached great importance to clearness and exactness; his accounts of things are often cast into the shape of formulas (cf.Genesis 1); he is very particular about genealogies, also as to chronological notes. The vividness and colour of the older patriarchal narratives, J and E, are wanting in the later one, which in the main is as formal as a legal document, though at times it is not wanting in dignity and even grandeur, as is the case in the first chapter of Genesis. Finally, the moral to be drawn from the various events narrated is more clearly set forth in this third writing and, according to the critics the moral standpoint is that of the fifth century B.C. Lastly, after the time of Ezra, this last history, P was worked up into one with the already combined narrative J.E. by a second redactor R. JEP, the result being the present history of Abraham, and indeed the present book of Genesis; though in all probability insertions were made at even a later date.

Viewpoint of New Testament

The generation ofJesus Christ is traced back to Abraham bySt. Matthew, and though inOur Lord's genealogy, according toSt. Luke, he is shown to be descended according to the flesh not only from Abraham but also fromAdam, still St. Luke shows his appreciation of the fruits of descent from Abraham by attributing all theblessings ofGod onIsrael to the promises made to Abraham. This he does in the Magnificat, iii, 55, and in the Benedictus, iii, 73. Moreover, as theNew Testament traces the descent ofJesus Christ from Abraham, so it does of all theJews; though as a rule, when this is done, it is accompanied with a note of warning, lest theJews should imagine that they are entitled to place confidence in the fact of their carnal descent from Abraham, without anything further. Thus (Luke 3:8)John the Baptist says: "Do not begin to say: We have Abraham for our father, for I say to youGod is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." InLuke 19:9 our Saviour calls the sinner Zacheus a son of Abraham, as he likewise calls awoman whom he had healed a daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:16); but in these and many similar cases, is it not merely another way of calling themJews orIsraelites, just as at times he refers to the Psalms under the general name ofDavid, without implying thatDavid wrote all the Psalms, and as he calls thePentateuch the Books ofMoses, without pretending to settle the question of the authorship of that work? It is not carnal descent from Abraham to which importance is attached; rather, it is to practising the virtues attributed to Abraham in Genesis. Thus inJohn 8, theJews, to whomOur Lord was speaking, boast (33): "We are the seed of Abraham", andJesus replies (39): "If ye be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham".St. Paul, too, shows that he is a son of Abraham and glories in that fact as in2 Corinthians 11:22, when he exclaims: "They are the seed of Abraham, so am I". And again (Romans 11:50): "I also am anIsraelite, of the seed of Abraham", and he addresses theJews ofAntioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:26) as "sons of the race of Abraham". But, following the teaching ofJesus ChristSt. Paul does not attach too much importance to carnal descent from Abraham; for he says (Galatians 3:29): "If you beChrist's, then you are the seed of Abraham", and again (Romans 9:6): "All are notIsraelites who are ofIsrael; neither are all they who are the seed of Abraham, children". So, too, we can observe in all theNew Testament the importance attached to the promises made to Abraham. In theActs of the Apostles, iii, 25,St. Peter reminds theJews of the promise, "in thy seed shall all thefamilies of the earth beblessed". So doesSt. Stephen in his speech before the Council (Acts 7), andSt. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, vi, 13. Nor was thefaith of the ancient patriarch less highly thought of by theNew Testament writers. The passage of Genesis which was most prominently before them was xv, 6: "Abraham believedGod, and it was reputed to him untojustice." InRomans 4,St. Paul argues strongly for the supremacy offaith, which he says justified Abraham; ' for if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not beforeGod." The sameidea is inculcated in the Epistle to the Galatians, iii, where the question is discussed: "Did you receive the spirit by the works of thelaw, or by the hearing offaith?"St. Paul decides that it is byfaith, and says: "Therefore they that are offaith shall be justified with faithful Abraham". It is clear that this language, taken by itself, and apart from the absolute necessity ofgoodworks upheld bySt. Paul, is liable to mislead and actually has misled many in thehistory of the Church. Hence, in order to appreciate to the full theCatholic doctrine offaith, we must supplementSt. Paul by St. James. In ii, 17-22, of theCatholic Epistle we read: "Sofaith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hastfaith, and I have works, show me thyfaith without works, and I will show thee by works myfaith. Thou believest that there is oneGod. Thou dost well; thedevils also believe and tremble. But wilt thouknow, O vain man, thatfaith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, and by worksfaith was made perfect?"

In the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews,St. Paul enters into a long discussion concerning the eternalpriesthood ofJesus Christ. He recalls the words of the 109th psalm more than once, in which it is said: "Thou art apriest for ever according to the order ofMelchisedech." He recalls the fact thatMelchisedech is etymologically the king ofjustice and also king of peace; and moreover that he is not only king, but alsopriest of theMost High God. Then, calling to mind that there is no account of hisfather, mother, or genealogy, nor any record of his heirs, he likens him toChrist king andpriest; noLevite nor according to the order ofAaron, but apriest forever according to the order ofMelchisedech.

In the light of profane history

One is inclined to ask, when considering the light which profane history may shed on the life of Abraham: Is not the life of the patriarch incredible? That question may be, and is, answered in different ways, according to the point of view of the questioner. Perhaps it will not be without interest to quote the answer of Professor Driver, an able and representative exponent of moderate critical views:

Do the patriarchal narratives contain intrinsic historical improbabilities? Or, in other words, is there anything intrinsically improbable in the lives of the severalpatriarchs, and the vicissitudes through which they severally pass? In considering this question a distinction must be drawn between the different sources of which these narratives are composed. Though particular details in them may be improbable, and though the representation may in parts be coloured by the religious and other associations of the age in which they were written, it cannot be said that the biographies of the first threepatriarchs, as told in J and E, are, generally speaking, historically improbable; the movements and general lives of Abraham,Isaac, and Jacob are, taken on the whole, credible (Genesis, p. xlvi).

Such is the moderate view; the advanced attitude is somewhat different." The view taken by the patient reconstructive criticism of our day is that, not only religiously, but even, in a qualified sense, historically also, the narratives of Abraham have a claim on our attention" (Cheyne, Encyc. Bib., 26). Coming now to look at the light thrown by profane history upon the stories of Abraham's life as given in Genesis, we have, first of all, the narratives of ancient historians, as Nicholas ofDamascus,Berosus, Hecateus, and the like. Nicholas ofDamascus tells how Abraham, when he left Chaldea lived for some years inDamascus. In fact inJosephus he is said to have been the fourth king of that city. But then there is no practicaldoubt that this story is based on the words ofGenesis 14:15, in which the town ofDamascus is mentioned. As to the great man whomJosephus mentions as spoken of byBerosus, there is nothing to show that that great man was Abraham. In the "Praeparatio Evang." ofEusebius there are extracts recorded from numerous ancient writers, but no historical value can be attached to them. In fact, as far as ancient historians are concerned, we may say that all weknow about Abraham is contained in the book of Genesis.

A much more important and interesting question is the amount of value to be attached to the recent archaeological discoveries of Biblical and other explorers in the East. Archaeologists like Hommel, and more especially Sayce, are disposed to attach very great significance to them. They say, in fact, that these discoveries throw a serious element ofdoubt over many of the conclusions of the higher critics. On the other hand, critics, both advanced as Cheyne and moderate as Driver, do not hold the deductions drawn by these archaeologists from the evidence of the monuments in very high esteem, but regard them as exaggerations. To put the matter more precisely, we quote the following from Professor Sayce, to enable the reader to see for himself what he thinks (Early Hist. of the Hebrews, 8):" Cuneiform tablets have been found relating to Chodorlahomor and the other kings of the East mentioned in the 14th chapter of Genesis, while in theTel-el-Amarna correspondence the king ofJerusalem declares that he had been raised to the throne by the 'arm' of hisGod, and was therefore, likeMelchisedech, a priest-king. But Chodorlahomor andMelchisedech had long ago been banished to mythland and criticism could not admit that archaeological discovery had restored them to actual history. Writers, accordingly, in complacentignorance of the cuneiform texts, told the Assyriologists that their translations and interpretations were alikeerroneous." That passage will make it clear how much the critics and archaeologists are at variance. But no one can deny that Assyriology has thrown some light on the stories of Abraham and the otherpatriarchs. Thus the name of Abraham was known in those ancient times; for amongst other Canaanitish or Amorite names found in deeds of sale of that period are those of Abi-ramu, or Abram, Jacob-el (Ya'qub-il), and Josephel (Yasub-il). So, too, of thefourteenth chapter of Genesis, which relates thewar of Chodorlahomor and his allies in Palestine, it is not so long ago that the advanced critics relegated it to the region of fable, under the conviction thatBabylonians and Elamites at that earlydate in Palestine and the surrounding country was a gross anachronism. But now Professor Pinches has deciphered certain inscriptions relating toBabylonia in which the five kings,Amraphel King of Senaar, Arioch King ofPontus, Chodorlahomor King of the Elamites, and Thadal King of nations, are identified withHammurabi King of Babylon, Eri-aku, Kudur-laghghamar, and Tuduchula, son of Gazza, and which tells of a campaign of these monarchs in Palestine. So that no one can any longer assert that thewar spoken of in Genesis, xiv, can only be a late reflection of thewars of Sennacherib and others in the times of the kings. From theTel-el-Amarna tablets weknow thatBabylonian influence was predominant in Palestine in those days. Moreover, we have light thrown by the cuneiform inscriptions upon the incident ofMelchisedech. InGenesis 14:18, it is said: "Melchisedech, the King of Salem, bringing forthbread andwine, for he was thepriest of theMost High God, blessed him." Amongst theTel-el-Amarna letters is one from Ebed-Tob, King ofJerusalem (the city is Ursalim, i.e. city of Salim, and it is spoken of as Salem). He ispriest appointed by Salem, the god of Peace, and is hence both king andpriest. In the same mannerMelchisedech ispriest and king, and naturally comes to greet Abraham returning in peace; and hence, too, Abraham offers to him as to apriest atithe of the spoils. On the other hand, it must be stated that Professor Driver will not admit Sayce's deductions from the inscriptions as to Ebed Tob, and will not recognize any analogy between Salem and theMost High God.

Taking archaeology as a whole, it cannot bedoubted that no definite results have been attained as to Abraham. What has come to light is susceptible of different interpretations. But there is nodoubt that archaeology is putting an end to theidea that the patriarchal legends are mere myth. They are shown to be more than that. A state of things is being disclosed in patriarchal times quite consistent with much that is related in Genesis, and at times even apparently confirming the facts of theBible.

Viewpoint of legend

We come now to the question: how far legend plays a part in the life of Abraham as recorded in Genesis. It is a practical and important question, because it is so much discussed by modern critics and they allbelieve in it. In setting forth the critical view on the subject, I must not be taken as giving my own views also.

Hermann Gunkel, in the Introduction to his Commentary on Genesis (3) writes: "There is no denying that there are legends in theOld Testament, consider for instance the stories of Samson and Jonah. Accordingly it is not a matter ofbelief or scepticism, but merely a matter of obtaining betterknowledge, to examine whether the narratives of Genesis are history or legend." And again: "In a people with such a highly developed poetical faculty asIsrael there must have been a place for saga too. The senseless confusion of 'legend' with 'lying' hascaused good people to hesitate to concede that there are legends in theOld Testament. But legends are not lies; on the contrary, they are a particular form of poetry." These passages give a very goodidea of the present position of the Higher Criticism relative to the legends of Genesis, and of Abraham in particular.

The first principle enunciated by the critics is that the accounts of the primitive ages and of the patriarchal times originated amongst people who did not practise the art of writing. Amongst all peoples, they say, poetry and saga were the first beginning of history; so it was inGreece andRome, so it was inIsrael. These legends were circulated, and handed down by oral tradition, and contained, no doubt, a kernel oftruth. Very often, where individual names are used these names in reality refer not toindividuals but to tribes, as inGenesis 10, and the names of the twelve Patriarchs, whose migrations are those of the tribes they represent. It is not of course to be supposed that these legends are no older than the collections J, E, and P, in which they occur. They were in circulation ages before, and for long periods of time, those of earlier origin being shorter, those of later origin longer, often rather romances than legends, as that of Joseph. Nor were they all ofIsraelitish origin; some wereBabylonian, someEgyptian. As to how the legends arose, this came about, they say, in many ways. At times the cause was etymological, to explain the meaning of a name, as when it is said that Isaac received his name because his mother laughed (cahaq); sometimes they were ethnological, to explain the geographical position, the adversity, or prosperity, of a certain tribe; sometimes historical, sometimes ceremonial, as the account explaining the covenant ofcircumcision; sometimes geological, as the explanation of the appearance of the Dead Sea and its surroundings. Ætiological legends of this kind form one class of those to be found in the lives of thepatriarchs and elsewhere in Genesis. But there are others besides which do not concern us here.

When we try to discover the age of the formation of the patriarchal legends, we are confronted with a question of great complexity. For it is not merely a matter of the formation of the simple legends separately, but also of the amalgamation of these into more complex legends. Criticism teaches us that that period would have ended about the year 1200 B.C. Then would have followed the period of remodeling the legends, so that by 900 B.C. they would have assumed substantially the form they now have. After thatdate, whilst the legends kept in substance to the form they had received, they were modified in many ways so as to bring them into conformity with the moral standard of the day, still not so completely that the older and less conventionalideas of a more primitive age did not from time to time show through them. At this time, too, many collections of the ancient legends appear to have been made, much in the same way as St. Luke tells us in the beginning of his Gospel that many had written accounts ofOur Saviour's life on their own authority.

Amongst other collections were those of J in the South and E in the North. Whilst others perished these two survived, and were supplemented towards the end of the captivity by the collection of P, which originated amidstpriestly surroundings and was written from the ceremonial standpoint. Those that hold these views maintain that it is the fusion of these three collections of legends which has led to confusion in some incidents in the life of Abraham as for instance in the case of Sarai inEgypt, where her age seems inconsistent with her adventure with thePharao. Hermann Gunkel writes (148): "It is not strange that thechronology of P displays everywhere the most absurd oddities when injected into the old legends, as a result, Sarah is still at sixty-five a beautifulwoman whom the Egyptians seek to capture, andIshmael is carried on his mother's shoulders after he is a youth of sixteen."

The collection of P was intended to take the place of the old combined collection of J and E. But the old narrative had a firm hold of the popularimagination and heart. And so the more recent collection was combined with the other two, being used as the groundwork of the whole, especially inchronology. It is that combined narrative which we now possess.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT