Is Creation ex nihilo

[shunyadragon]

Actually, you and Shuny seem to be on opposite sides of this question. Shuny believes creatio ex nihilo is the more ancient view and that creatio ex materia is more recent. In his post #358, he claimed that "creatio ex materia is fairly modern belief. The Baha'i Faith is the first, I believe, to clearly state that creatio ex materia is the relationship between God and Creation." After I reminded him of the more ancient world view as variously expressed, he modified his claim (#369) to: "The Baha'i Faith was the first to establish creatio ex materia in scripture definitively." Note, however, the wiggle words 'clearly' and 'definitively'.

I think seven7up and I agree on the ancient views being dominantly creatio ex nihilo. What we' of course disagree on is which closer to the reality of God's relationship to Creation

"I will have to look into your references more, but these germinal views of creatio ex materia views did not catch on in neither Christianity nor Islam. I do not think it is clear that the Neo-Platonic view was creatio ex materia. I think, Gemistus Pletho described it differently in his translations. I have to check. I do believe both views were represented in Neo-Platonic philosophy.

I question your reference to Medieval Judaism that creation ex materia was strongly considered, and would like a reference. I am personally looking into it. I believe the dominant view remained creatio ex nihilo. '. . .probably dates' from the 2nd century AD without references needs more explanation. Yes, some Jews were likely influenced by Greek philosophers."

I acknowledged that the possible beliefs in creatio ex materia were germinal views and based specifically on scripture.

Yes one reference in Wisdom (controversial as far as scripture goes.) I cited, and Justin Martyr also cited, did not convince the majority, which held to creation ex nihilo, because of the predominate understanding of scripture as a whole. There lacked enough specific references in Hebrew, Christian and Islamic scripture to makecreatio ex materia even a strong contender.

Yes Baha'i scripture is the first to "clearly" and "definitely" consider creatio ex materia as the description of the relationship of God to Creation without ambiguity.

[robrecht]

I think seven7up and I agree on the ancient views being dominantly creatio ex nihilo. What we' of course disagree on is which closer to the reality of God's relationship to Creation

Ask him.

"I will have to look into your references more, but these germinal views of creatio ex materia views did not catch on in [n]either Christianity nor Islam.

I never said they did.

I do not think it is clear that the Neo-Platonic view was creatio ex materia. I think, Gemistus Pletho described it differently in his translations. I have to check.

So you've said. Let me know when you find the translation (please provide the Greek also). He may have had a bit of a bias and an interest in trying to the superiority of Plato over Aristotle in terms of compatibility with Christianity, but I'm not sure he went so far as you think:

Plethon continues by noting:

...that Aristotle does make God the end and the final cause; but even this must be regarded as a not very exalted claim and not one worthy of God, if he makes God the end not of the existence or essence of particular things but only of movement and change.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...mistos_Plethon

I do believe both views were represented in Neo-Platonic philosophy.

I would expect some diversity on this point, especially with the growing influence of Christianity, but recall that your initial claim was that creatio ex nihilo was the dominant view in Neoplatonism.

I question your reference to Medieval Judaism that creation ex materia was strongly considered, and would like a reference. I am personally looking into it. I believe the dominant view remained creatio ex nihilo. '. . .probably dates' from the 2nd century AD without references needs more explanation. Yes, some Jews were likely influenced by Greek philosophers."

You are still misquoting me here on a few points. First, my belief is that the ex materia reading of Genesis 1,1-3 may date as least as far back as late 2nd Temple Judaism (not 'the 2nd century AD') and I gave you the references and reasons for why I hold that opinion. And I clearly stated that the dominant view in later Judaism was creatio ex nihilo so you are not disagreeing with me on this. I also referred you to Rashi for his vieew of the syntax of Gen 1,1-3, as well as the differing view by Rambam.

I acknowledged that the possible beliefs in creatio ex materia were germinal views and based specifically on scripture.

Yes one reference in Wisdom (controversial as far as scripture goes.) I cited, and Justin Martyr also cited, did not convince the majority, which held to creation ex nihilo, because of the predominate understanding of scripture as a whole. There lacked enough specific references in Hebrew, Christian and Islamic scripture to makecreatio ex materia even a strong contender.

I never claimed it was a strong contender.

Yes Baha'i scripture is the first to "clearly" and "definitely" consider creatio ex materia as the description of the relationship of God to Creation without ambiguity.

There's nothing ambiguous about Wisdom 11,17:

οὐ γὰρ ἠπόρει ἡ παντοδύναμός σου χεὶρ καὶ κτίσασα τὸν κόσμον ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης ...

For your all powerful hand was not at a loss, and having created the world from formless matter ...

But, the issue of whether the belief appears unambiguously in specific scriptures or in nonscriptural writings seems irrelevant to me with respect to the larger development of the various views.

[seven7up]

Actually, you and Shuny seem to be on opposite sides of this question. Shuny believes creatio ex nihilo is the more ancient view and that creatio ex materia is more recent. In his post #358, he claimed that "creatio ex materia is fairly modern belief. The Baha'i Faith is the first, I believe, to clearly state that creatio ex materia is the relationship between God and Creation." After I reminded him of the more ancient world view as variously expressed, he modified his claim (#369) to: "The Baha'i Faith was the first to establish creatio ex materia in scripture definitively." Note, however, the wiggle words 'clearly' and 'definitively'.

Wrong on many accounts. Ex Nihilo was defined in the mid second century A.D. Almost everything before that was Ex Materia; although the Gnostics held a certain form of Ex Deo and the Stoics a form of pantheism.[/URL] Into the third century A.D., Ex Nihilo became the prominent theistic view in Judaism, Christianity and Islam and gained strength from there, and much later became "official" for Christianity in the Fourth Lateran Council. Now, traditionally, it is the dominant view for "monotheistic" traditions.

Joseph Smith made statements supporting Ex Materia in the 1830s, and there were scriptures canonized to this effect at that time, then Bahai in the 1840s.

Relatively recently (the last few decades), scholarship has been bringing the Ex Nihilo view into question. Bruce Waltke wrote a book Creation and Chaos, which detailed an exhaustive Biblical exegesis of creation Ex Materia (suprisingly the book was printed by the Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in two printings, the first in 1974). Gerhard May made a more recent study on the historical development of Ex Nihilo, and he found that it was actually a novel thread of Gnostic thinkers that helped develop the theology. Jon Levenson concluded in his Old Testament study, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, that Ex Nihilo was not supported. Many other scholars have come to the same conclusion, like John H. Walton and James Hubler.

My own research has led me to believe that, based on the records we have available from the mid to the end of the second century, the transition defining Ex Nihilo as we currently understand it occurred between Basilides, Valentinus, and Tatian. Justin Martyr was prior to Tatian, and he understood creation to be Ex Materia. I provide specific quotes and texts (both Jewish and Christian) prior to the transition including an interesting perspective from Philo, ..... and after the transition.


-7up

[Adrift]

Wrong on many accounts. Ex Nihilo was defined in the mid second century A.D. Almost everything before that was Ex Materia; although the Gnostics held a certain form of Ex Deo and the Stoics a form of pantheism.[/URL] Into the third century A.D., Ex Nihilo became the prominent theistic view in Judaism, Christianity and Islam and gained strength from there, and much later became "official" for Christianity in the Fourth Lateran Council. Now, traditionally, it is the dominant view for "monotheistic" traditions.

Joseph Smith made statements supporting Ex Materia in the 1830s, and there were scriptures canonized to this effect at that time, then Bahai in the 1840s.

Relatively recently (the last few decades), scholarship has been bringing the Ex Nihilo view into question. Bruce Waltke wrote a book Creation and Chaos, which detailed an exhaustive Biblical exegesis of creation Ex Materia (suprisingly the book was printed by the Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in two printings, the first in 1974). Gerhard May made a more recent study on the historical development of Ex Nihilo, and he found that it was actually a novel thread of Gnostic thinkers that helped develop the theology. Jon Levenson concluded in his Old Testament study, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, that Ex Nihilo was not supported. Many other scholars have come to the same conclusion, like John H. Walton and James Hubler.

My own research has led me to believe that, based on the records we have available from the mid to the end of the second century, the transition defining Ex Nihilo as we currently understand it occurred between Basilides, Valentinus, and Tatian. Justin Martyr was prior to Tatian, and he understood creation to be Ex Materia. I provide specific quotes and texts (both Jewish and Christian) prior to the transition including an interesting perspective from Philo, ..... and after the transition.


-7up

Point of correction here. John Walton (at least) does believe in creatio ex nihilo. He simply doesn't believe that it can be read from Gen. 1:1.

[seven7up]

Point of correction here. John Walton (at least) does believe in creatio ex nihilo. He simply doesn't believe that it can be read from Gen. 1:1.

Yes, I was including John Walton with those who say "that Ex Nihilo was not supported". But you are right to separate him from the others because the others don't believe in Ex Nihilo at all.

If John Walton holds to Ex Nihilo, it is similar to the way that some Christians hold to a "pre-Tribulation rapture". It isn't actually taught by the text.

-7up

[Adrift]

Yes, I was including John Walton with those who say "that Ex Nihilo was not supported".

If he holds to Ex Nihilo, it is similar to the way that some Christians hold to a "pre-Tribulation rapture". It isn't actually taught by the text.

-7up

He does believe it's taught in the text, he just believes you have to go to the New Testament to see it (so, in The Lost Wold of Adam and Eve he says that it can be found in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, he also sees it in Hebrews 1:2 (though less explicit) in The Lost World of Genesis One).

[seven7up]

He does believe it's taught in the text, he just believes you have to go to the New Testament to see it (so, in The Lost Wold of Adam and Eve he says that it can be found in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, he also sees it in Hebrews 1:2 (though less explicit) in The Lost World of Genesis One).

Hebrews 1:2 shouldn't be mentioned at all, as it gives no insight whatsoever.

John 1:3 reads as follows: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

A couple points about this verse though:

1) Everything appears to be referring to the physical Universe (ie Creation of the Heavens and the Earth). Should "spirit" (or whatever spirit is made from) be included as a "thing" that is "made"?

and that leads to the next point...

2) everything that "was made", was made by Christ ... but what about things that were NOT made?

Again, it isn't as "explicit" as those claiming Ex Nihilo would like it to be. Furthermore, I provided specific Biblical examples where the term for "everything" , clearly should not be taken too far, because it makes no sense to do so and actually leads to contradictions.


So, I think that if you ignore the Ex Materia passages of the New Testament (like 2 Peter 3:5-6 and Hebrews 11:3) , then Colossians is probably the best New Testament scripture to try and use for Ex Nihilo.

"He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together"

The problem is that it specifies that it refers to things "both in heavens and on earth", but Ex Materia is the idea that things exist OUTSIDE the heavens and the Earth; so it doesn't address that idea specifically.

Indeed, in the scripture I mentioned above, Hebrews 11:3, Paul states that God DID create the Universe from something. But that something is "not seen".

That is this idea that Henry Chadwick and others were expanding upon based on the texts of contemporaries in early Christianity and other ancient documents prior to the end of the second century A.D. , with this "something" that is "so shadowy and vague that it cannot be said to have the status of 'being', which is imparted to it by the shaping hand of the Creator."


-7up

[robrecht]

Wrong on many accounts. Ex Nihilo was defined in the mid second century A.D. Almost everything before that was Ex Materia; although the Gnostics held a certain form of Ex Deo and the Stoics a form of pantheism.[/URL] Into the third century A.D., Ex Nihilo became the prominent theistic view in Judaism, Christianity and Islam and gained strength from there, and much later became "official" for Christianity in the Fourth Lateran Council. Now, traditionally, it is the dominant view for "monotheistic" traditions.

Joseph Smith made statements supporting Ex Materia in the 1830s, and there were scriptures canonized to this effect at that time, then Bahai in the 1840s.

Relatively recently (the last few decades), scholarship has been bringing the Ex Nihilo view into question. Bruce Waltke wrote a book Creation and Chaos, which detailed an exhaustive Biblical exegesis of creation Ex Materia (suprisingly the book was printed by the Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in two printings, the first in 1974). Gerhard May made a more recent study on the historical development of Ex Nihilo, and he found that it was actually a novel thread of Gnostic thinkers that helped develop the theology. Jon Levenson concluded in his Old Testament study, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, that Ex Nihilo was not supported. Many other scholars have come to the same conclusion, like John H. Walton and James Hubler.

My own research has led me to believe that, based on the records we have available from the mid to the end of the second century, the transition defining Ex Nihilo as we currently understand it occurred between Basilides, Valentinus, and Tatian. Justin Martyr was prior to Tatian, and he understood creation to be Ex Materia. I provide specific quotes and texts (both Jewish and Christian) prior to the transition including an interesting perspective from Philo, ..... and after the transition.


-7up

Note that Hubler disagrees with May about Basilides. Otherwise, I agree with this summary of the scholarly consensus. When you speak of your own research, are you referring to your own contributions to scholarship or just your reading of these scholars? Personally, I think the most interesting part of this question is the Jewish interpretive trveadition.

[Adrift]

Hebrews 1:2 shouldn't be mentioned at all, as it gives no insight whatsoever.

John 1:3 reads as follows: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

A couple points about this verse though:

1) Everything appears to be referring to the physical Universe (ie Creation of the Heavens and the Earth). Should "spirit" (or whatever spirit is made from) be included as a "thing" that is "made"?

and that leads to the next point...

2) everything that "was made", was made by Christ ... but what about things that were NOT made?

Again, it isn't as "explicit" as those claiming Ex Nihilo would like it to be. Furthermore, I provided specific Biblical examples where the term for "everything" , clearly should not be taken too far, because it makes no sense to do so and actually leads to contradictions.


So, I think that if you ignore the Ex Materia passages of the New Testament (like 2 Peter 3:5-6 and Hebrews 11:3) , then Colossians is probably the best New Testament scripture to try and use for Ex Nihilo.

"He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together"

The problem is that it specifies that it refers to things "both in heavens and on earth", but Ex Materia is the idea that things exist OUTSIDE the heavens and the Earth; so it doesn't address that idea specifically.

Indeed, in the scripture I mentioned above, Hebrews 11:3, Paul states that God DID create the Universe from something. But that something is "not seen".

That is this idea that Henry Chadwick and others were expanding upon based on the texts of contemporaries in early Christianity and other ancient documents prior to the end of the second century A.D. , with this "something" that is "so shadowy and vague that it cannot be said to have the status of 'being', which is imparted to it by the shaping hand of the Creator."


-7up

This is all besides my point, which is that Walton believes in creatio ex nihilo based on what he believes the (NT) text teaches, despite your claim to the contrary in post #395.

[shunyadragon]

This is all besides my point, which is that Walton believes in creatio ex nihilo based on what he believes the (NT) text teaches, despite your claim to the contrary in post #395.

I agree Walton supports creatio ex nihilo, and his reasoning is based heavily on the NT.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, I was including John Walton with those who say "that Ex Nihilo was not supported". But you are right to separate him from the others because the others don't believe in Ex Nihilo at all.

If John Walton holds to Ex Nihilo, it is similar to the way that some Christians hold to a "pre-Tribulation rapture". It isn't actually taught by the text.

-7up

Gerhard May also believes that creation ex nihilo "corresponds factually with the Old Testament proclamation about creation" (Creatio Ex Nihilo, Foreword).

Oops.

[robrecht]

Gerhard May also believes that creation ex nihilo "corresponds factually with the Old Testament proclamation about creation" (Creatio Ex Nihilo, Foreword).

Oops.

Does May discuss the exegesis of specific Old Testament passages in any detail? I am only indirectly familiar with his general view of the philosophical/theological development of the doctrine, which I presume is what seven7up was sketching.

[One Bad Pig]

Does May discuss the exegesis of specific Old Testament passages in any detail? I am only indirectly familiar with his general view of the philosophical/theological development of the doctrine, which I presume is what seven7up was sketching.

Not sure. I was able to confirm the above via Google Books.

[shunyadragon]

Gerhard May also believes that creation ex nihilo "corresponds factually with the Old Testament proclamation about creation" (Creatio Ex Nihilo, Foreword).

Oops.

The text of Genesis is not that factual, It could easily refer to our universe only and not all of Creation.

[One Bad Pig]

The text of Genesis is not that factual, It could easily refer to our universe only and not all of Creation.

There's an assumption in there somewhere...