Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu/81

ABRAHAM was xv, 6: "Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice." In Romans, iv, St. Paul argues strongly for the supremacy of faith, which he says justified Abraham; "for if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God." The same idea is inculcated in the Epistle to the Galatians, iii, where the question is discussed: "Did you receive the spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" St. Paul decides that it is by faith, and says: "Therefore they that are of faith shall be justified with faithful Abraham". It is clear that this language, taken by itself, and apart from the absolute necessity of good works upheld by St. Paul, is liable to mislead and actually has misled many in the history of the Church. Hence, in order to appreciate to the full the Catholic doctrine of faith, we must supplement St. Paul by St. James. In ii, 17–22, of the Catholic Epistle we read: "So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works, show me thy faith without works, and I will show thee by works my faith. Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well; the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, and by works faith was made perfect?"

In the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Paul enters into a long discussion concerning the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ. He recalls the words of the 109th psalm more than once, in which it is said: "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." He recalls the fact that Melchisedech is etymologically the king of justice and also king of peace; and moreover that he is not only king, but also priest of the Most High God. Then, calling to mind that there is no account of his father, mother, or genealogy, nor any record of his heirs, he likens him to Christ king and priest; no Levite nor according to the order of Aaron, but a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech.

.—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 several patriarchs, 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 three patriarchs, 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 of Damascus, Berosus, Hecateus, and the like. Nicholas of Damascus tells how Abraham, when he left Chaldea lived for some years in Damascus. In fact in Josephus he is said to have been the fourth king of that city. But then there is no practical doubt that this story is based on the words of Genesis, xiv, 15, in which the town of Damascus is mentioned. As to the great man whom Josephus mentions as spoken of by Berosus, there is nothing to show that that great man was Abraham. In the "Præparatio Evang." of Eusebius 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 we know 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 archæological discoveries of Biblical and other explorers in the East. Archaæologists 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 of doubt 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 archæologists 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 the Tel-el-Amarna correspondence the king of Jerusalem declares that he had been raised to the throne by the 'arm' of his God, and was therefore, like Melchisedech, a priest-king. But Chodorlahomor and Melchisedech had long ago been banished to mythland and criticism could not admit that archæological discovery had restored them to actual history. Writers, accordingly, in complacent ignorance of the cuneiform texts, told the Assyriologists that their translations and interpretations were alike erroneous." That passage will make it clear how much the critics and archæologists are at variance. But no one can deny that Assyriology has thrown some light on the stories of Abraham and the other patriarchs. 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 Joseph-el (Yasub-il). So, too, of the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, which relates the war 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 that Babylonians and Elamites at that early date in Palestine and the surrounding country was a gross anachronism. But now Professor Pinches has deciphered certain inscriptions relating to Babylonia in which the five kings, Amraphel King of Senaar, Arioch King of Pontus, Chodorlahomor King of the Elamites, and Thadal King of nations, are identified with Hammurabi 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 the war spoken of in Genesis, xiv, can only be a late reflection of the wars of Sennacherib and others in the times of the kings. From the Tel-el-Amarna tablets we know that Babylonian influence was predominant in Palestine in those days. Moreover, we have light thrown by the cuneiform inscriptions upon the incident of Melchisedech. In Genesis, xiv, 18, it is said: "Melchisedech, the King of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the Most High God,