Among all of the Creation Myths - Why Genesis?

[_mikwut]

Makalan,

Are you contending that Genesis 1:1 suggests creation ex nihilo?

Of other interpretations of course, I should emphasize I particularly pluralized 'meanings' in regards to the story. Wielding Jewish, philosophical and Biblical passages to argue and support the claim might have excited me years ago, the fact that it is a possible reading is attested by theological schools of thought today and for many ancients as well. As I am sure your aware a strong defense of the historical doctrine can be made - with many matters of interpretation of variant readings being plausible and possible. One such reading given by Westermann is that the hebrew construction of verses 1 and 2 are independent and should not blur together. Verse one is a hebrew idiom for god created the entire material universe and verse 2 then moves to this earth. That is a sharp contrast from the detailed chaotic fashioning most prevalent in creation tales. 'From nothing' has historical antecedents such as 2 Maccabees 7:28 and Jewish midrash as well as 1-2 century clear demarcations from a craftsman type of creation.

If so, that notion stands in quite direct contradiction to the academic consensus.

First, so what? Creation in any metaphysic outside of atheistic materialism currently fails to boast academic consensus. The consensus would also be different depending on belief factors. Westermann isn't radical in anyway.

Add to this the fact that the development of the notion of creation ex nihilo can be quite simply dated to the second century CE,

Possible, necessary for your creation framework for sure, but also ripe for disagreement, the Letter of Aristeas for example clearly predates your assertion, (between 150-100 and 1st century B.C.E.,) and it states, “For it would be utterly foolish to suppose that anyone became a god in virtue of his inventions. For the inventors simply took certain objects already created and by combining them together, showed that they possessed a fresh utility: they did not themselves create the substance of the thing.” This argument surely wasn't just discovered in this letter, it is a debate that had predated it and found in the Jewish consciousness.

Could you expand on "the fact that ברא cannot be shown to have anything to do with the notion of creation ex nihilo."? What word in hebrew would? My understanding is that related words fail, such as 'asah ("make") which connotes crafting from preexisting materials. Brevard Childs for example explains when bârâ' is used preexisting material is not manifest. "The product is always mentioned—never any material." Thus bârâ' is a word best-suited to express the concept of creation out of nothing. That is why it is used in a idiom format - hebrew didn't have words for 'universe' or totality - or out of nothing.

my regards, mikwut

[_maklelan]

Of other interpretations of course, I should emphasize I particularly pluralized 'meanings' in regards to the story. Wielding Jewish, philosophical and Biblical passages to argue and support the claim might have excited me years ago, the fact that it is a possible reading is attested by theological schools of thought today and for many ancients as well.

Modern theological schools of thought have no bearing on the sense of the text in antiquity, and I am unaware of any text from before the Common Era that expresses the notion of creation ex nihilo. Can you identify some?

As I am sure your aware a strong defense of the historical doctrine can be made - with many matters of interpretation of variant readings being plausible and possible.

For creation ex nihilo before the Common Era? No, there are no strong defenses that can be made for that.

One such reading given by Westermann is that the hebrew construction of verses 1 and 2 are independent and should not blur together. Verse one is a hebrew idiom for god created the entire material universe and verse 2 then moves to this earth. That is a sharp contrast from the detailed chaotic fashioning most prevalent in creation tales.

Yes, Westermann rather flippantly dismisses the construct usage of ראשית in order to assert the contextual value of other words, like מראש and מעולם. of course, those constructions function in entirely different ways from ראשית. For a much more grammatically oriented discussion that also isn't quite so beholden to the biblical theology movement, see Robert Holmstedt's two posts.

'From nothing' has historical antecedents such as 2 Maccabees 7:28 and Jewish midrash as well as 1-2 century clear demarcations from a craftsman type of creation.

No, 2 Macc 7:28 has nothing to do with creation ex nihilo. It draws from the Platonic being/non-being dichotomy. Matter that had no active function was considered "non-being." Once given a function, it is brought into "being." 2 Macc 7:28 (οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων ἐποίησεν) is grammatically identical to a comment from Xenophon's Memorabilia: "parents bring forth their children from non-being" (ἐκ μὲν οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησαν). Xenophon absolutely wasn't promoting creation ex nihilo.

The earliest Jewish midrashim that promote creation ex nihilo have been shown to be late interpolations. For the best recent publications on creation ex nihilo, and specifically on these texts you've mentioned, see the following:

Goldstein, Jonathan A. “Creation Ex Nihilo: Recantations and Restatements.” Journal of Jewish Studies 38.2 (Autumn 1987): 187–94.

------------, “The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo.” Journal of Jewish Studies 35.2 (Autumn 1984): 127–35.

Himmelfarb, Martha. “Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees.” Poetics Today 19.1 (Spring 1998): 19–40.

Hubler, James N. “Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

May, Gerhard. Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of “Creation Out of Nothing” in Early Christian Thought. Translated by A. S. Worrall. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.

Niehoff, Maren R. “Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in Light of Christian Exegesis.” Harvard Theological Review 99.1 (2005): 44.

Winston, David. “Creation Ex Nihilo Revisited: A Reply to Jonathan Goldstein.” Journal of Jewish Studies 37.1 (Spring 1986): 88–91.

First, so what? Creation in any metaphysic outside of atheistic materialism currently fails to boast academic consensus.

So you're just promoting a presuppositional cosmogony?

The consensus would also be different depending on belief factors. Westermann isn't radical in anyway.

That consensus has nothing to do with "belief factors." It has to do with scholarship.

Possible, necessary for your creation framework for sure, but also ripe for disagreement, the Letter of Aristeas for example clearly predates your assertion, (between 150-100 and 1st century B.C.E.,) and it states, “For it would be utterly foolish to suppose that anyone became a god in virtue of his inventions. For the inventors simply took certain objects already created and by combining them together, showed that they possessed a fresh utility: they did not themselves create the substance of the thing.” This argument surely wasn't just discovered in this letter, it is a debate that had predated it and found in the Jewish consciousness.

First, Ps.-Aristeas is dealing with that same Platonic framework, and you'll notice he refers to matter that already has utility, and thus doesn't really fall into the "non-being" category. This understanding is strengthened by the author's unyielding commitment to a Greek philosophical worldview. Contradicting the widespread Greco-Roman notion that "out of nothing, nothing comes" would have been the last thing the author would have wanted to do. If he did do it, as well, it would have been much more explicit. Second, Ps.-Aristeas hardly constitutes the "Jewish consciousness," unless you insist Jews viewed Zeus as just the manifestation of Yhwh to the Greeks. His rationalizations of the purity laws also have nothing at all to do with the "Jewish consciousness," but have quite a bit to do with Aristotelian and Platonic ideals. Ps.-Aristeas represents a unique manifestation of Hellenistic Judaism. Not surprisingly, so does 2 Maccabees 7. That text, however, likely dates to the Common Era.

Could you expand on "the fact that ברא cannot be shown to have anything to do with the notion of creation ex nihilo."? What word in hebrew would?

No Biblical Hebrew word expresses the idea, and the reason is that the idea did not exist during the composition of the Hebrew Bible.

My understanding is that related words fail, such as 'asah ("make") which connotes crafting from preexisting materials. Brevard Childs for example explains when bârâ' is used preexisting material is not manifest. "The product is always mentioned—never any material."

Well, this is false. ברא is used in Ps 51:10, where the author pleads with God to "create in me a clean heart." Childs, additionally, was a Biblical Theologian who was concerned with reception and a unified theology of the Hebrew Bible. He hardly represents critical biblical scholarship.

Thus bârâ' is a word best-suited to express the concept of creation out of nothing.

Completely untrue. There is no indication anywhere that the verb ever had anything to do with creation out of nothing. A recent and very good discussion is found in Walton's recent Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology.

That is why it is used in a idiom format - hebrew didn't have words for 'universe' or totality - or out of nothing.

They didn't have words for them because they didn't have the categories. There's not a shred of positive evidence anywhere in the Hebrew Bible that creation ex nihilo was ever espoused, and you have promoters of creation ex materia all the way up to Justin Martyr and the Rabbis.

[_mikwut]

Hello Makelen,

I can't get a firm grip on the disagreement. So let me start in the middle of your response.

So you're just promoting a presuppositional cosmogony?

I am not promoting any. On my posts in this thread I was simply dispelling the mind-numbing silliness that there exist no unique features to the Genesis accounts and/or distinctions between Genesis and other creation myths. That's it. I was decrying a scientistic nonsense that I find as off putting as fundamentalist religion. I don't really like absolutes and prefer thoughtfulness and refined attitudes that can recognize more than one perspective as at least possibly viable. I would sort of dispel my own argument or position if I attempted to rigidly hoist myself opposite you in the same manner, wouldn't I?

I began my reply to you (and pointed out its existence in my reply to DrW that you found question with) that plurality of meanings exist, a plurality of constructions of the text exist. That's why I didn't care where the current majority of scholarship laid. I was pointing out a rather huge distinction if the text is read in a particular way that does have professional support. I am afraid none of us can claim certainty, even the majority.

It is difficult to dialogue when your stance is not only rigid but necessarily so given your personal theology. I was Mormon once and I can spot it from a mile a way because I would many times approach matters the same way. Let me give you a few examples:

No, there are no strong defenses that can be made for that.

Westermann rather flippantly dismisses

No, 2 Macc 7:28 has nothing to do with creation ex nihilo.

Well, this is false.

I am a lawyer and I know this language well. I am not wedded to a particular reading, you might say I agree with the Halakha that only obliges one to believe in the existence of a Creator, and much room is left for the exact manner. I am not wedded to a particular sect or religion. Although I admit to finding great sympathy with Tertullian that once you open the door to pre-existent matter you have at the same time devalued that very creator God. This same philosophical problem was debated, and still is, regarding Plato's forms as pre-existent or created by god out of nothing or from his very existence for the exact reason. Neither is without its difficulties.

Regarding my question, you replied:

Completely untrue. There is no indication anywhere that the verb ever had anything to do with creation out of nothing.

Good grief. The word is only used in regards to God, it seems unfair for you to not even oblige what to others seems obvious that this is at least a rational implication that allows for the interpretation, because it is unique to God alone, what else is in regards to creation? Is crafting from pre-existing matter something unique to God? The sword is two sided. Of course your challenges are loaded because you deny any other possible reading - for example Isaiah 44:6 also affirms that God is the “First and the Last”; there is nothing that was before Him, and He was before everything else. This leaves no room in the Biblical account for creation from pre-existing material and could apply to creation ex nihilo. As Jurgen Moltmann writes, “The later theological interpretation of creation as creatio ex nihilo is therefore unquestionably an apt paraphrase of what the Bible means by ‘creation.’” But he is just a nave right? I assure you I have read the Maxwell Institutes response to Copan and Craig - I find noise on both sides of it. But my worship finds a transcendent being more worthy most of the time.

They didn't have words for them because they didn't have the categories.

A significance that seems lost on you?

There's not a shred of positive evidence anywhere in the Hebrew Bible that creation ex nihilo was ever espoused,

Isaish doesn't even deserve a "shed"?

and you have promoters of creation ex materia all the way up to Justin Martyr and the Rabbis.

alongside its debating partner, which is what they were doing by the way.

A recent and very good discussion is found in Walton's recent Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology.

I thank you for this and the other entries, I will purchase and read them. Things seem to sit better in my mind when referred.

I hope your studies are going well and that you had a good holiday.

regards, mikwut

[_maklelan]

Hello Makelen,

I can't get a firm grip on the disagreement.

The disagreement is with the notion that Genesis 1:1 has anything whatsoever to do with creation ex nihilo.

So let me start in the middle of your response.

I am not promoting any.

You're talking about the metaphysical truth of certain approaches to creation. I'm talking about how a certain ancient text should be interpreted. My concern doesn't really bear at all on yours.

On my posts in this thread I was simply dispelling the mind-numbing silliness that there exist no unique features to the Genesis accounts and/or distinctions between Genesis and other creation myths. That's it.

You appealed to creation ex nihilo as a distinguishing factor. While I agree that there are clearly distinguishing factors, creation ex nihilo does not get within centuries of that text.

I was decrying a scientistic nonsense that I find as off putting as fundamentalist religion. I don't really like absolutes and prefer thoughtfulness and refined attitudes that can recognize more than one perspective as at least possibly viable.

And what about when one of those perspectives is demonstrably anachronistic?

I would sort of dispel my own argument or position if I attempted to rigidly hoist myself opposite you in the same manner, wouldn't I?

You are doing that, though. My contention is that Gen 1:1 simply has nothing to do with creation ex nihilo. You contend it does.

I began my reply to you (and pointed out its existence in my reply to DrW that you found question with) that plurality of meanings exist, a plurality of constructions of the text exist. That's why I didn't care where the current majority of scholarship laid.

But the fact of plurality of meaning in general does not mean that creation ex nihilo is in view in Gen 1:1. Rejecting the academic consensus simply because it precludes reading creation ex nihilo into Gen 1:1 is not indicative of your transcendant semantic sensitivities. It just means you want there to be creation ex nihilo in Gen 1:1.

I was pointing out a rather huge distinction if the text is read in a particular way that does have professional support.

It appears you're not sensitive to the differences in scholarship involved here. The vast majority of those who find creation ex nihilo in Gen 1:1 are Biblical Theologians, which is a specific methodological movement in scholarship. They seek to establish a consistent and unified theology in the Bible as a whole, which necessitates its interpretation as a complete unit. This means it is read from the perspective of a reader of the finished Bible, not of an author of a single text within it. It's similar to reader-response criticism, only it exists for much, much different reasons and uses much different methods. Even Westermann acknowledges the late development of the idea of creation ex nihilo.

I am afraid none of us can claim certainty, even the majority.

The existence of disagreement in no way precludes certainty. There are plenty of people who insist we never landed on the moon. That doesn't mean we just have to throw our hands in the air and suspend judgment. When there is no evidence for a specific ideology in a certain time period and we can track quite clearly the development of that ideology in later time periods, there's no need to pretend that we just can't know.

It is difficult to dialogue when your stance is not only rigid but necessarily so given your personal theology.

My "personal theology" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.

I was Mormon once and I can spot it from a mile a way because I would many times approach matters the same way. Let me give you a few examples:

No, there are no strong defenses that can be made for that.

Westermann rather flippantly dismisses

No, 2 Macc 7:28 has nothing to do with creation ex nihilo.

Well, this is false.

Those are academic judgments that I am perfectly happy to defend with further argument, if you mean to imply that the arguments I already supplied are insufficient. The notion that certainty regarding a question like this means unthinking dogmatism is just silly.

I am a lawyer and I know this language well. I am not wedded to a particular reading, you might say I agree with the Halakha that only obliges one to believe in the existence of a Creator, and much room is left for the exact manner. I am not wedded to a particular sect or religion. Although I admit to finding great sympathy with Tertullian that once you open the door to pre-existent matter you have at the same time devalued that very creator God. This same philosophical problem was debated, and still is, regarding Plato's forms as pre-existent or created by god out of nothing or from his very existence for the exact reason. Neither is without its difficulties.

Of course, we're not arguing for which cosmogony is philosophically justifiable, we're arguing about what the author of Gen 1:1 meant.

Regarding my question, you replied:

Completely untrue. There is no indication anywhere that the verb ever had anything to do with creation out of nothing.

Good grief. The word is only used in regards to God, it seems unfair for you to not even oblige what to others seems obvious that this is at least a rational implication that allows for the interpretation, because it is unique to God alone, what else is in regards to creation?

This retrojects an anachronistic position on God's relationship to creation into a time period that simply did not worry about those questions.

Is crafting from pre-existing matter something unique to God? The sword is two sided.

Here you entirely misunderstand the significance of the exclusive use of the verb with God as referent. In antiquity God's uniqueness was asserted in his status and his authority, not in his ontology. Check out Walton's book for further discussion of that verb.

Of course your challenges are loaded because you deny any other possible reading - for example Isaiah 44:6 also affirms that God is the “First and the Last”; there is nothing that was before Him, and He was before everything else.

What leads you to believe that "the first and the last" means there was nothing before him and that he was before everything else? Of what is he the first and the last, and what is the goal of his rhetoric?

This leaves no room in the Biblical account for creation from pre-existing material and could apply to creation ex nihilo.

I don't see where he indicates he is talking about ontology. His rhetoric throughout Deutero-Isaiah has to do with Israel's singular devotion to him. Why not understand it in light of that? When Yhwh says that the nations are "nothing, and less than nothing," does that mean they don't exist? The first two verses of chapter 44 refer to a Jacob that God has formed from the womb. If we're reading this literalistically and ontologically, as you appear to suggest is indicated in v. 6, who is this Jacob? In v. 9 those that make idols are said to be void. Do they really not exist?

As Jurgen Moltmann writes, “The later theological interpretation of creation as creatio ex nihilo is therefore unquestionably an apt paraphrase of what the Bible means by ‘creation.’” But he is just a nave right?

No, just a Biblical Theologian, which is a moribund movement. He wasn't concerned for the historical critical reading, he was concerned for the modern philosophical reading.

I assure you I have read the Maxwell Institutes response to Copan and Craig - I find noise on both sides of it. But my worship finds a transcendent being more worthy most of the time.

Bully for you. That doesn't really mean you know what the grammar of Gen 1:1 does and does not indicate.

A significance that seems lost on you?

Not at all. You're the one who's reading the Bible through Enlightenment colored glasses.

Isaish doesn't even deserve a "shed"?

No.

alongside its debating partner, which is what they were doing by the way.

Name some of these debate partners and please cite their texts. Martyr wasn't debating anyone about creation ex nihilo. The issue comes up indirectly.

I thank you for this and the other entries, I will purchase and read them. Things seem to sit better in my mind when referred.

I hope your studies are going well and that you had a good holiday.

regards, mikwut

Thank you. I appreciate your kindness.