In his seminal article, "Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought," Blake Ostler demonstrated the biblical and patristic evidence for the LDS view of creation (creatio ex materia) and the overwhelming problems with the "traditional" view of creation (creatio ex nihilo). Another good resource on this issue was a response to James Patrick Holding' article, "Ex Nihilo Creation and the Bible" by Daniel McClellan that he posted on the CARM board. The response is no longer available online, but I did save it when it was posted in response to another anti-Mormon:
Originally Posted by Catherine Aurelia
In case you aren't aware, Mr. Scholar, the Bible absolutely teaches that God created from nothing all that exists. And since it is evident you are no Hebrew scholar, and since that has been proven elsewhere in this thread, here's a little study for you:
http://tektonics.org/af/exnihilo.html
(How long will it take you to call all these sources naive, ill-equipped, blah, blah, blah)
http://tektonics.org/af/exnihilo.html
(How long will it take you to call all these sources naive, ill-equipped, blah, blah, blah)
Ah, you've actually provided a source. Too bad I've been told repeatedly that you're not allowed to simply link to another website to make an argument for you. Nonetheless, I will respond in full to the article.
The article starts out by stating that the notion of creation ex nihilo is not explicit in the text of the Bible, but that there are hints at it, and that it does not conflict with the biblical few. According to your article, it is found in the following passages:
The article starts out by stating that the notion of creation ex nihilo is not explicit in the text of the Bible, but that there are hints at it, and that it does not conflict with the biblical few. According to your article, it is found in the following passages:
|
|
Let's examine them:
Gen 1:1f
The first verse of Genesis is an introduction of sorts. Given that the actual creation of the heavens and the earth are explicitly described as taking place in vv. 8 and 10, well after the creation of other phenomena, their creation could not have taken place in any absolute beginning. The first word of the Bible (בראשית), then, cannot be understood as an absolute noun. It is in the construct state. When a noun in the construct precedes a finite verb, an inseparable prefix on the noun is usually rendered temporally. A much better translation of the first two verses would be, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and chaotic, and darkness was over it. And the spirit of God settled upon the face of the waters." In other words, God created the heavens and the earth from chaotic matter. This is the best reading of this verse, and most scholars today agree on this point (the NRSV has a similar translation, and Accordance syntactically tags the verse the same way). The Hebrew verb ברא, while only ever taking God as the subject, doesn't in any way require or even accept the notion of creation ex nihilo (your article states as much). There's simply no reason to suggest such a meaning.
Your article gives four reasons not to accept my reading. I respond to each in following:
1. I don't suggest this.
2. It's not rambling, it's just an introduction. I also don't suggest it parallels Gen 2:4.
3. Not at all. Peexistent matter is not "what is created," so it is not precluded by exclusion from the merism involving "what is created."
Ps 33:6
This text only states that God made the heavens and the host of heaven by his word. It doesn't address whether this was ex nihilo or not.
John 1:3
This verse only states that all things that were made were made by God's word. It simply does not address the question of ex nihilo. Additionally, since preexistent matter would not be something that was made, the text does not preclude creation ex materia.
Rom 4:17, 1 Cor 1:28, and Heb 11:3
In Rom 4:17 we find Paul describing God as he who "calls that which is not (τα μη οντα) as if it were." The other two use the same language. 2 Macc 7:28 appeals to the same vernacular. These texts align quite well with the Hellenistic notion of creation out of "non-being." A close look at the concept, however, shows that it is explicitly not creation ex nihilo. In the Hellenic worldview unformed matter was considered "non-being." Plato, Aristotle, Hermodor, and Plotinus all point out that creation drew from "non-being," but that this referred to pre-existent and unformed matter. Elsewhere it is pointed out that when a being comes into existence, the question of whether it existed as some other form or entity previously is not addressed. I can create a baseball bat out of "non-being," but this does not mean ex nihilo, it just means that where there was no baseball bat, one was created. The fact that it was created by taking pre-existing matter and changing its shape is simply not in view in the phrase "non-being." A good illustration of this is the statement from Xenophon's Memorabilia (2.2.3) that parents "cause their children to be from non-being" (μεν ουκ οντων). Obviously this does not refer to creation ex nihilo. The notion simply did not exist back then, and there was no need to be any more specific about creation. A rather popular axiom back then was Parmenides' statement, "ex nihilo, nihil fit," or "out of nothing, nothing comes." This is the worldview of Paul and other Hellenistic Jews and Christians. The two scriptures above fit perfectly within it and don't indicate creation ex nihilo at all.
Here is a brief bibliography with the best discussions of creation ex nihilo in early Judaism and Christianity (although note that O'Neill has since changed positions and agrees now with the consensus view that the doctrine developed in the second century):
Gen 1:1f
The first verse of Genesis is an introduction of sorts. Given that the actual creation of the heavens and the earth are explicitly described as taking place in vv. 8 and 10, well after the creation of other phenomena, their creation could not have taken place in any absolute beginning. The first word of the Bible (בראשית), then, cannot be understood as an absolute noun. It is in the construct state. When a noun in the construct precedes a finite verb, an inseparable prefix on the noun is usually rendered temporally. A much better translation of the first two verses would be, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and chaotic, and darkness was over it. And the spirit of God settled upon the face of the waters." In other words, God created the heavens and the earth from chaotic matter. This is the best reading of this verse, and most scholars today agree on this point (the NRSV has a similar translation, and Accordance syntactically tags the verse the same way). The Hebrew verb ברא, while only ever taking God as the subject, doesn't in any way require or even accept the notion of creation ex nihilo (your article states as much). There's simply no reason to suggest such a meaning.
Your article gives four reasons not to accept my reading. I respond to each in following:
1. I don't suggest this.
2. It's not rambling, it's just an introduction. I also don't suggest it parallels Gen 2:4.
3. Not at all. Peexistent matter is not "what is created," so it is not precluded by exclusion from the merism involving "what is created."
Ps 33:6
This text only states that God made the heavens and the host of heaven by his word. It doesn't address whether this was ex nihilo or not.
John 1:3
This verse only states that all things that were made were made by God's word. It simply does not address the question of ex nihilo. Additionally, since preexistent matter would not be something that was made, the text does not preclude creation ex materia.
Rom 4:17, 1 Cor 1:28, and Heb 11:3
In Rom 4:17 we find Paul describing God as he who "calls that which is not (τα μη οντα) as if it were." The other two use the same language. 2 Macc 7:28 appeals to the same vernacular. These texts align quite well with the Hellenistic notion of creation out of "non-being." A close look at the concept, however, shows that it is explicitly not creation ex nihilo. In the Hellenic worldview unformed matter was considered "non-being." Plato, Aristotle, Hermodor, and Plotinus all point out that creation drew from "non-being," but that this referred to pre-existent and unformed matter. Elsewhere it is pointed out that when a being comes into existence, the question of whether it existed as some other form or entity previously is not addressed. I can create a baseball bat out of "non-being," but this does not mean ex nihilo, it just means that where there was no baseball bat, one was created. The fact that it was created by taking pre-existing matter and changing its shape is simply not in view in the phrase "non-being." A good illustration of this is the statement from Xenophon's Memorabilia (2.2.3) that parents "cause their children to be from non-being" (μεν ουκ οντων). Obviously this does not refer to creation ex nihilo. The notion simply did not exist back then, and there was no need to be any more specific about creation. A rather popular axiom back then was Parmenides' statement, "ex nihilo, nihil fit," or "out of nothing, nothing comes." This is the worldview of Paul and other Hellenistic Jews and Christians. The two scriptures above fit perfectly within it and don't indicate creation ex nihilo at all.
Here is a brief bibliography with the best discussions of creation ex nihilo in early Judaism and Christianity (although note that O'Neill has since changed positions and agrees now with the consensus view that the doctrine developed in the second century):
|
|
Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees (Anchor Bible 41A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 307-11.
Jonathan A. Goldstein, "The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo," Journal of Jewish Studies 35.2 (1984): 127-35.
David Winston, "Creation Ex Nihilo Revisited: A Reply to Jonathan Goldstein," Journal of Jewish Studies 37.1 (1986): 88-91.
Jonathan Goldstein, "Creation Ex Nihilo: Recantations and Restatements," Journal of Jewish Studies 38.2 (1987): 187-94.
Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of "Creation Out of Nothing" in Early Christian Thought (trans. A. S. Worrall; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 6-8.
James N. Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas" (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995).
J. C. O'Neill, "How Early is the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo?" Journal of Theological Studies 53.2 (2002): 449-65.
Maren R. Niehoff, "Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in Light of Christian Exegesis," Harvard Theological Review 99.1 (2006): 37-64.
While discussing the Hebrew root ברא, your article suggests that because God is always the verb's subject, "something more than use of preexistent matter is in view." There's simply no warrant for this conclusion, though. Ps 51:10 uses the verb, exhorting God to "create a new heart in me." Parallel is the statement "renew a right spirit within me." Obviously this new heart is not created with "something more than use of preexistent matter." The nature of the material out of which creation takes place with this verb is simply not in view. The article is reading things into words that simply do not belong there.
Because Hellenistic texts frequently mention preexistence matter, the article opines that the lack of mention of it in creation texts is significant, and indicates it was not a consideration. This is untrue, though. Gen 1:1 describes the preexistent matter. Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome also espouse the notion of creation ex materia. The Bible is not a philosophical treatise, though, and the literature to which your article refers is. We should not be surprised that non-philosophers do not dwell on philosophical concepts.
The author brings up Prov 8:24, which discusses wisdom's creation before the depths were. The idea is that the depths are those in Genesis 1, and so there was a time when they did not exist. This text is not addressing cosmogony, though, and is clearly not concerned about consistency within the Jewish tradition. With the verses around it providing context, we see it is not talking about primordial waters, but about oceans. It is promoting a view of Wisdom over and against Assyro-Babylonian divine council imagery. God doesn't need a council since his own wisdom does everything any council could do. This is also the sense in Isa 40:12-14.
I see nothing else in the article that is not either immaterial to my point or not engaged by the discussion I've already provided.
Because Hellenistic texts frequently mention preexistence matter, the article opines that the lack of mention of it in creation texts is significant, and indicates it was not a consideration. This is untrue, though. Gen 1:1 describes the preexistent matter. Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome also espouse the notion of creation ex materia. The Bible is not a philosophical treatise, though, and the literature to which your article refers is. We should not be surprised that non-philosophers do not dwell on philosophical concepts.
The author brings up Prov 8:24, which discusses wisdom's creation before the depths were. The idea is that the depths are those in Genesis 1, and so there was a time when they did not exist. This text is not addressing cosmogony, though, and is clearly not concerned about consistency within the Jewish tradition. With the verses around it providing context, we see it is not talking about primordial waters, but about oceans. It is promoting a view of Wisdom over and against Assyro-Babylonian divine council imagery. God doesn't need a council since his own wisdom does everything any council could do. This is also the sense in Isa 40:12-14.
I see nothing else in the article that is not either immaterial to my point or not engaged by the discussion I've already provided.
