Though Oslter does not bring it up, I realize that some will be curious as to why my article on ex nihilo did not make it into The Mormon Defenders. The answer is twofold. First, I received word that a chapter on this would be included in The New Mormon Challenge, so I thought it best not to duplicate effort -- especially since (part two) every page I added cost me money. But the online version remains, and this is what Ostler offers in reply. In his article entitled "Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained: An Examination of Creation Ex Nihilo," James Patrick Holding argues that: (1) there is no scriptural source that is "definitive enough to support the doctrine of creation ex nihilo"; (2) there is only one non-scriptural source from Judaism that provides a clear statement of creation ex nihilo, the statement of Rabbi Gamaliel dated to the fifth century; and (3) even though the doctrine of creation ex nihilo cannot be supported on biblical grounds, it is nevertheless supported by the argument that it is impossible to traverse an infinite distance because, "if the universe had, in fact, an infinite existence, today would never take place!"1
In response, I argue that, while biblical statements are, in fact, ambiguous with respect to creation ex nihilo; nevertheless, the historical milieu and assumptions underlying the scriptural data strongly support the doctrine of creation out of a pre-existing chaos. Note that I don't actually dispute that a chaos did pre-exist the creation, so that Ostler is implying a false sense of opposition between the two positions. The question is, did that chaos pre-exist eternally, or for just a certain period of time? I also argue that the scriptural data cannot be used to support creation ex nihilo of the cosmos because those writing scripture did not have a modern scientific notion of the cosmos. In addition, I argue that Holding overstates the evidence with respect to the position of Rabbi Gamaliel. Finally, I argue that Holding is simply in error with respect to the "traversal of an infinite" argument which he (barely) presents.
1.1 The Scriptural Data.
Very little need be said in response to Holding's argument with respect to the scriptural data. He very cursorily reviews Genesis 1:1-2; Proverbs 8:24; II Maccabees 7:28; Romans 4:17; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 11:3. He concludes that none of these scriptural statements are sufficiently clear to support the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. I agree with Holding that these scriptural statements with respect to creation are not sufficient to support the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. However, I argue something more. The scriptural statements do not expressly address whether the Earth was created out of nothing or by chaos. Nevertheless, Holding overlooks the fact that it was universally accepted in the ancient world, including specifically the ancient Near East and the Hellenistic world, that the Earth was created from pre-existing chaos. Given this background assumption, it would take a fairly clear statement of creatio ex nihilo to support the view that the text actually has that doctrine in mind. Otherwise, it is more consistent with the evidence to interpret statements about creation in light of this background belief. This argument is absolutely fallacious in the same way that Paul Seely's is when he claims, "The Bible must teach that the earth is flat and the sky is solid, because a flat earth and a solid sky are universally accepted in the ancient world." It is not that I overlooked anything of the sort, but that such arguments are fallacious at their core. Coherence with such background must be demonstrated by example, not merely assumed. including specifically the ancient Near East and the Hellenistic world
Further, Holding overlooks the very strong evidence to support the doctrine of creation from chaos in Genesis 1. No, I do not -- again, Ostler misses that my view DOES include creation from chaos; the difference in position is whether that chaos was eternal, or itself created ex nihilo. Elsewhere, I have presented four arguments which are accepted by the majority of biblical scholars to support the doctrine of creation from a pre-existing chaos they may be "accepted" but once again, a pre-existing chaos is not by itself incompatible with ex nihilo, unless that chaos is eternally pre-existent: (1) as Genesis 1:1 presently stands, it is in the constructive form, which assumes creation from a pre-existing chaos But again, nothing about how far it pre-existed; (2) the syntactic structure of both the accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 support creation from a pre-existing chaos Ditto.; (3) the universal acceptance of creation by a pre-existing chaos in the ancient Near Eastern world argues very strongly that the biblical writers assumed the same world view See above -- this must be demonstrated by example and comparison, not merely assumed on a simple majority: (4) the structure and order of creation in Genesis 1 strongly supports the doctrine of creation from pre-existing chaos Ditto to 1 and 2. But note the following acknowledgements in any event.
However, none of these arguments are decisive so that a reasonable person could not interpret the record of Genesis differently. In particular, while the first sentence of Genesis is presently in a construct state, the vowel markings necessary to make the determination simply are not present in the most ancient manuscripts. Thus, whether the beginning clause of Genesis must be accepted as a construct is not absolutely certain; although the evidence for the construct state is very compelling. In addition, while the argument from the syntactic structure of Genesis 1:1-3 and Genesis 2:4-9 is quite persuasive, once again, the sentence structure permits various readings. Further, the fact that all of Israel's neighbors throughout the Near East assumed creation by chaos does not mean that Israel had to accept the same view. In many ways, Israel distinguished her views of God and creation from those of her Near Eastern neighbors. Nevertheless, the fact that the doctrine of creation from pre-existing chaos was universally accepted in the ancient Near East raises a strong presumption that the Bible should be accepted as teaching the same doctrine unless there is a clear statement to the contrary. By Holding's own admission, there are no clear statements to the contrary in the biblical records. The only problem is that ex nihilo is such a difficult concept to conceive of that a "clear statement" is unlikely in any event. The language on this is in fact equivocal, just as I said with respect to Seely on the flat earth and firmament issue. Finally, the order of creation in Genesis 1 strongly militates against creation ex nihilo. However, it also militates against taking Genesis as a statement of creation as we know it in modern science. In particular, no one should be arguing that the Earth itself was created ex nihilo because we know that it was created through a process of organization. Rather, we must speak of the creation of the "cosmos." However, the biblical records simply do not address the cosmos as we know it in modern science. Therefore, I believe that the biblical records simply do not address the issue which is being discussed by modern philosopher who discuss the issue of creation ex nihilo of the entire universe. The Hebrews simply did not have a conception of the universe that we now have. Exactly as I say: equivocal.
Holding should be commended for his honesty in admitting that the biblical records do not explicitly discuss the issue of creation ex nihilo or creation ex materia. In taking this position, he breaks with William Craig and Paul Copan, among others, who argue that the biblical documents do support creatio ex nihilo. However, I believe that the scriptural documents assume the common ancient Near Eastern view that the world was created from chaos. Nevertheless, a much larger issue remains. In light of Holding's admission that Bible does not clearly address the issue of creation ex nihilo, how can we resolve the issue? It seems that either we must remain ignorant regarding such matters or new revelation is necessary to resolve the issue. For Latter-day Saints, thankfully, there is additional revelation which specifically tells us that the Earth was created by organization from chaos. It is surprising that Holding, who purports to base his beliefs on the Bible rather than philosophy, would simply admit that the biblical record is insufficient to establish such a central doctrine of creedal "Christianity." Instead, he expressly admits that he must resort to philosophical arguments to support the conclusion that the universe was created ex nihilo. If Ostler knew me netter, he would not be surprised.
1.2 Extra-Biblical Sources and Creation Ex Nihilo.
I disagree with Holding as to whether Rabbi Gamaliel taught the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. In a passage preserved only in fifth century documents, the purported second century Jewish Rabbi Gamaliel is depicted as saying:
A philosopher said to our Gamaliel: Your God was a great craftsman, but he found himself good materials which assisted him: tohu wa-bohu, and darkness, and wind, and water, and the primeval deep. Said our Gamaliel to him: May the wind be blown out of that man! Each material as referred to is created. Tohu wa-bohu: "I make peace and create evil"; darkness: "I formed the light and create darkness"; water: "Praise him, ye heaven of earth, and ye waters" - why? - "For he commanded, and they were created"; wind: "For lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind"; the primeval deep: "When there were no depths, I was brought forth."
Exactly what is intended here is not easy to say. As David Winston said: "Gamaliel denies that any of these cosmic forces aided God in creation. He does not deny that there was a passive material, merely that there was any material which aided God in the construction of the cosmos." That's merely equivocation. Winston is trying to insert an idea that behind this statement, there were unnamed materials that Gamiliel coyly forgot to mention (that also happen not to be mentioned in the Bible). So to put it in an amusing way, had the philosopher added "whipped cream" to the list, maybe Gamiliel would have had to admit, "Well, yes, that may have been there before."2 However, Jonathan A. Goldstein finally concluded:
No known pre-rabbinic Jewish text can be proved to assert the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, but passages from scripture and Hellenistic Jewish literature ambiguous enough to have had that meaning read into them by intelligent believers. I am convinced, however, that the Patriarch Rabban Gamaliel II asserted the doctrine unambiguously, within a few decades after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. As for the earliest Christian literature, both inside and outside the New Testament, the texts are again ambiguous. They are not phrased so as to insist upon creation ex nihilo.3
I believe that James Hubler's interpretation is the more accurate than Goldstein's. Hubler places this text in the context of other rabbinic texts which strictly prohibit any speculation about what there may have been prior to the creation of Genesis. In this context, it seems fairly evident that Rabbi Gamaliel is actually teaching that God did not have any helpers in the creation-but in good rabbinic fashion, Gamaliel refuses to go beyond that principle and speculate about what might have existed before the creation. This is merely the same equivocation repeated in different words. What other options are there other than the four mentioned? None are left in the creation account; Gamiliel struck out all four from the list. To get around this one again has to speculate that there were unnamed materials Gamiliel or the philosopher could have mentioned.4
However, since very little turns on whether Rabbi Gamaliel did, in fact, teach creation ex nihilo, we can see the entire discussion as a mere sideshow. Similarly, we can dismiss the conclusions of J. C. O'Neill in his article And we in turn can delete them, since this has nothing to do with anything I have offered. We return to where Ostler speaks to my arguments again, which is after a little bit: In fact, the emergence of the doctrine of creation out of nothing is compelling evidence that philosophy had replaced revelation in the early-second century Church and took over from there. In fact, Holding's own essay is one of the clearest explanations available of how philosophical arguments are fallaciously used to fill in the gaping lacunae in doctrine in creedal "Christianity." Once again I would note that it is fallacious to make an issue of the source of a doctrine; it is no fallacy to fill in a gap with doctrine is what is espoused can be demonstrated to be true. Ostler's attitude here is not far from the unfortunate LDS tendency to dymo-type the words "Greek philosophy" om something and then conclude that this means the argument is over.
1.3 The Traversal of Infinity Argument.
Finding a lack of support for the doctrine of creation ex nihilo in the scriptural documents, Holding resorts to philosophical arguments to fill in the vast gap in traditional doctrine. Holding argues: "We have seen that creation ex nihilo is neither scriptural nor unscriptural, so we must now turn to the second question: Is it true?" Notice that Ostler does not say a word about any difference between arguments being "philosophical" and being "true". Holding continues:
Having concluded our examination of the Bible, and finding that there are only broad hints of, but no explicit reference to, ex nihilo creation; but also absolutely no indication, not even broad hints, that matter is eternal, what is left to be done to determine one way or another whether this doctrine is true? The issue involves many philosophical points which are beyond our general scope, but we will briefly consider the central philosophical proof of creation ex nihilo.
I would simply point out that Holding spends a good deal of time arguing that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is not an apostate doctrine derived from philosophy. However, we can dispense with all of the verbiage and arguments, because he admits flat out that he cannot derive it except based upon a philosophical argument. Further, the philosophical argument he produces is an exceedingly weak one. What this usually means is, Ostler knows he has no good answer to it, and so he sees a need to insert descriptors to bias the reader. One polemic is as good as another.
The entire argument goes as follows:
The classic theistic argument for creation ex nihilo is known popularly as the First Cause Argument. Simply put, everything that happens requires a cause, leading back to the principle of a first, "uncaused cause" in the person of God. A key aspect of the First Cause Argument is the premise that it is impossible to traverse an infinite distance. Since this is true, the universe must have had a beginning, for if the universe had in fact an infinite existence, today would never take place.
That's it. That's the entire argument. No, that's the argument, "simply put," as I make clear. Holding can hardly expect Mormons to take him seriously when he bases the entire doctrine of creation ex nihilo upon such a misstatement of an argument which has been presented by others. Uh huh. It's a "misstatement" but then watch as Ostler quotes someone else who says exactly the same thing in different words. This argument seems to conflate the Thomist "First Cause" cosmological argument with the Kalam cosmological argument based upon the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite period. Fortunately, we are not reduced to Holding's wholly inadequate statement of the argument. Once again, when Ostler has to insert these descriptors, you have to ask what's going on. William Lang Craig has produced the argument again in The New Mormon Challenge. He states the argument as follows:
In order for us to have "arrived" at today, existence has, so to speak, traversed an infinite number of prior events. But before the present event could arrive, the event immediately prior to it would have to arrive; and before that event could arrive, the event immediately prior to it would have to arrive; and so on ad infinitum. No event could ever arrive, since before it could elapse there will always be one more event to had to have happened first. Thus, if the series of past events were beginningless, the present event could not have arrived, which is absurd. In short, exactly what I said. So why is my description "wholly inadequate"?10
Indeed, this scenario is absurd because it does not accurately characterize the nature of the infinite past and its relationship to the present. Just what does it mean to "traverse" an infinite time to "arrive" at the present? If "traverse" means to pass through a temporal series beginning with an event and ending with an event-as I believe the term implies-then the infinite past cannot be traversed in this sense. However, the argument would then not apply to the infinite past since the infinite past has no beginning term. In fact, this seems to be the meaning of "traverse" implied in Holding's argument. The first member of this set is the present event and we begin this set by counting backwards into an infinite past. We begin the thought experiment proposed by Craig by thinking of the present event, and then regressing to the event before, and then the event before that, ad infinitum. Since we begin with the present event, the infinity at issue is merely a "potential infinity" and is in fact never completed. It is no infinity at all, but merely an open-ended finite series. Since no matter how long we count we cannot complete the infinite past, it is suggested that the past cannot be infinite. Thus, the argument is a non sequitur, for it does not follow from the fact that the past is infinite that we cannot "reach" the present, for there has been an infinity of time in which to do it. There is a way, and perhaps only one way, to create an actual infinite by counting or marking each successive moment, and that is to have been counting in each moment of existence of the eternal past as it occurred. Thus, it does not follow that no event could ever arrive because there will always be one more event which "had to happen first." All that follows is that there is in fact an event that preceded the present event, and an event before that, and so on. And that is precisely why an infinite past is an absurdity. Ostler is not answering the argument; he is merely covering it up by stressing the impossibility inherent in the scenario! We pass by what he says to Craig (it is simply more of the same) and move to:
Holding also argues that both Richard Hopkins and I misconstrue arguments made by Francis Beckwith and Stephen Parrish in their book, The Mormon Concept of God.12 However, Holdings' [sic] arguments against my critique consist of quoting long passages from my review and then observes: "Ostler is either misunderstanding or grossly misrepresenting the [Beckwith and Parrish's] argument." Uh, I say a LOT more than that in between! Holding asserts correctly that I made a mistake in asserting that the set of all even numbers and all whole numbers are not equal because the latter is twice as large as the former. That isn't correct and the only defense I have is that an editor at FARMS made a change without consulting me. What I actually asserted (before the change that went to press) was that there are different orders of infinity and not all orders of infinity are equal. So for example, the set of all whole numbers is not equal to the set of all whole numbers to any power, say the 10th power. My point is that Beckwith and Parrish assumes that all orders of infinity are equal, which is false. This statement is simply ridiculous. It's like saying that "not all examples of two equal two." It's still the same game as the one I pointed to with the odd and even numbers: just change the whole numbers into apples, and the whole numbers to the tenth power into oranges, and the result is the same.
In addition, Holding and Hopkins are speaking past each other. Hopkins correctly makes the point that mathematically there is a consistent notion of infinity. Hopkins appears to be a Platonist with respect to mathematics and so his real point is that assuming that numbers are real (in the Platonic sense), the notion that there is some incoherence in the notion of an actual infinity is simply false. However, the assumption of Platonism is never spelled out by Hopkins, so I can see why Holding missed the point. Holdings arguments simply fail to make contact with Hopkins because Holding (without recognizing the issue) assumes a form of conceptualism and thus assumes that mathematics are not real in the Platonic sense. To resolve this debate I would need to discuss the relative merits of Platonism and conceptualism in mathematics, which would take me too far afield from what I want to address. It tells me I'm wrong, but does not explain why. Why do we rather get the idea that Ostler is inserting this just to fill space and assure the reader that yes there is a problem? In the next portion Ostler addresses more of Copan, Craig, Beckwith and Parrish than me. This being the case, and that it is more of the same issue above, I will only note this comment: When I pointed out the fallacy in the argument, all of the proponents of the argument merely suggest that they never made it. Hmm. One has to wonder how it is that Ostler stands alone here in thinking the people who made the arguments, made the argument he claims they did...I omit Ostler's concluding remarks as they contain nothing but summary polemic. For a more detailed defense of this matter, see here.)
1 James Patrick Holding, "Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained: An Examination of Creatio Ex Nihilo," available online at URL http://www.Tektonics.org/JPH_NVNG.html3 Jonathan A. Goldstein, "Creation Ex Nihilo: Recantations and Restatements," Journal of Jewish Studies 38 No. 2 (Autumn 1987), 187.4 James Hubler, Creatio Ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy Through Aquinas, Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (Ann Arbor: UNI Dissertation Services, 1997), 94-101.6 2 Enoch, in James Charelsworth, ed. F. I. Anderson, trans.., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York, Doubleday & co., 1983), 142 note f..9 Frances Young, "'Creatio Ex Nihilo': A Context for the Emergence of the Christian Doctrine of Creation," Scottish Journal of Theology 44 (1991), 141.10 Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen (eds), The New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002).11 William Lang Craig, "Gram Oppy on the Kalam Cosmological Argument," URL http//campus.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/oppy.html.12 Francis Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish, The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis (Lewiston: Edwin-Mellen Press), 1991.13 Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen (eds), The New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), .
