Aristides of Athens. Copan and Craig also assert that perhaps the earliest
philosophical apologist for Christianity, Aristides of Athens, expressly taught
the doctrine of creation out of nothing. Their analysis is seriously flawed
and, indeed, borders on being irresponsible. Aristides reportedly delivered an
apology to the Roman emperor Hadrian about ad 130. Copan and Craig fail to
inform the reader that the textual sources vary and are quite questionable.54 There
are three recencions of Aristides’ Apology: a shorter Greek version, a much
longer Syriac version, and Armenian translations of the Syriac. Aristides
reportedly stated:
Let us come now, O
king, also to the history of the Jews and let us see what sort of opinion they
have concerning God. The Jews then say that God is one, Creator of all and
almighty: and that it is not proper for us that anything else should be
worshipped, but this God only: and in this they appear to be much nearer to the
truth than all the peoples, in that they worship God more exceedingly and not
His works. (Aristides, Apologia 14, in Harris, Apology
of Aristides, 48)
They also cite a
passage found only in the shorter Greek recension: “O King, let us proceed to
the elements themselves that we may show in regard to them that they are not
gods, but perishable and mutable, produced out of that which did not exist (ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος) at the command of the
true God, who is indestructible and immutable and invisible, yet he sees all
things and, as He wills, modifies and changes things.” (Aristides, Apology 4 (Greek), in Harris, Apology of
Aristides, 101, author’s translation) Copan and Craig argue
that these statements imply creation out of nothing because Aristides claims
that God is both “Artificer and Creator.” They thus claim that the text asserts:
(1) “there is an ontological distinction between Creator and creature . . . ;
and (2) God created in stages, first bringing into being the elements and then
shaping them into a cosmos” (CON, p. 131).
Neither of these assertions is supported by the text. There is not
a word about a two-stage creation in Aristides’ Apology. There is a distinction
between creator and creature, but it is not an ontological distinction as
claimed by Copan and Craig. Rather, the text merely states that God is incorruptible
and unchangeable, whereas “the elements” (not “matter” ) are subject to decay
and change. The elements were always seen as created from a preexisting
substrate that the Greeks called the τοῦ μὴ ὄντος (tou mē ontos) or “non-being.” Those who believed in
creation ex materia never claimed that matter should be worshipped or
that it is somehow equal with God. It was lifeless and liable to fall into
chaos, whereas God is the source of life and order. Moreover, those who accept
creation from preexisting matter also saw a distinction between the creator who
organizes everything that is created and the created, which would be no-thing,
completely devoid of order and form, in the absence of God’s creative activity.
Thus, merely recognizing that God is creator and that he created all that is
created does not imply or logically require creation out of nothing.
More important, this
analysis shows very clearly that Copan and Craig have failed to grasp the
essential distinction between relative non-being, which refers to a material
substrate without form, and absolute nothing in these texts. Aristides (if he
said it at all) uses the exact phrase used by Aristotle to refer to generation
of life “out of non-being” ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. The technical language used shows that this text actually refers to
the creation from the preexisting material substrate of relative non-being
without form. Thus, May concludes quite accurately that: “Aristides means that
the elements are created by God; but it does not appear from his book that he
consciously distanced himself from the philosophical model of world-formation
and . . . creation.” (May, Creatio ex
Nihilo, 119–20) (Blake T. Ostler, "Out
of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought,"
FARMS Review 17, no. 2 [2005]: 281-83)
