Creatio ex Nihilo, Monotheism, and Divinization

[maklelan]

I read a great paper last year that I'm working through again as part of my research for my current master's thesis ("'Worship Him All You Gods': The Divine Council and the Development of Monotheism"), and a section caught my eye as particularly relevant to LDS readers. The paper is Peter Hayman, "Monotheism - A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?" Journal of Jewish Studies 42.1 (1991): 1-15. The author's thesis is the following:

It will be my contention in this paper that it is hardly ever appropriate to use the term monotheism to describe the Jewish idea of God, that no progress beyond the simple formulas of the Book of Deuteronomy can be discerned in Judaism before the philosophers of the Middle Ages, and that Judaism never escapes from the legacy of the battles for supremacy between Yahweh, Ba'al and El from which it emerged.

Two aspects of Jewish ideology strike Hayman as particularly problematic if one wishes to assert strict monotheism in Judaism prior to the Middle Ages. First is the notion of creatio ex nihilo, or creation out of nothing. An eternal substratum of chaos precludes the notion of a God who is wholly other and transcendent. Hayman cites and agrees with the academic consensus that the doctrine originated in Christianity in the second century CE and was only later borrowed into Judaism. He posits an even later date for that borrowing than most, however, attributing it to the medieval philosophers (Maimonides, for instance, states that the Rabbis taught creatio ex materia). He quotes Sefer Yesira as well as Rabbi Huna from Genesis Rabbah discussing God's creation of the earth from chaotic matter as support of the veracity of Maimonides' claim. (Here I would point out that another scholar has recently argued that an anthropomorphic view of deity was not eradicated from Judaism until the same time period.)

Moving on, Hayman discusses divinization in early Judaism. If man can identify with God and ultimately become like him, then his transcendence is thrown in doubt. Here is an interesting section from that discussion:

This theme of self-identification with God, once we start to explore it, leads us virtually everywhere in Judaism, from the style of biblical prose to the claims of Jewish magicians, but above all to the claims of the Hekhalot literature that a man, Enoch, ascended to heaven and was metamorphosed into Metatron, the 'little Yahweh'. The theme of the apotheosis of the wise man, the mystic, binds the Jewish mystical trend together with Jewish Apocalyptic of the post-exilic era, for the most widespread version of belief in the Afterlife in the post-Maccabean period assumed that the faithful would join the heavenly assembly and become like the 'angels', the 'sons of God', the stars. The Dead Sea Scrolls seem to assume that this is a goal attainable in this life18 as does the present tense phrasing of Luke 20:36:

those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

The theme of 'becoming like one of us' reveals itself as the lurking sub-text of Judaism from Adam to Nachman of Bratslav. But how does this material square with the supposed transcendental monotheism of Judaism from the post-exilic period on? Not at all, as far as I can see!

Hayman goes on to discuss angelology, which is directly relevant to my thesis. He states:

Who were the angels and the archangels, the Cherubim and the Seraphim, Satan, Azazel and Mastema? The Hebrew Bible is quite clear on the fact that these figures belong to the class of divine beings 'sons of God', members of the 'host of heaven'. Yahweh belongs to this class of beings, but is distinguished from them by his kingship over the heavenly host. However, he is not different from them in kind.

Now, I and other scholars disagree that angels were originally identified with the sons of God, and I will discuss that in my thesis, but his statement that Yhwh originally belonged to that taxonomy and was not different in kind from the other members is spot on, as far as I'm concerned. The notion of his "species uniqueness" was an innovation of the Hellenistic Period, according to my argument (same time the angels are conflated with the sons of God, as well). Hayman continues:

This reflects the probable origin of Yahweh as one member of the heavenly host, namely the national god of the Israelite people, who became king of the gods when he was identified with El Elyon, the head of the Canaanite pantheon. This identification of Yahweh with El is the essential theme of the Hebrew Bible.

This probably won't make it into my thesis, but I'd like to publish a paper on Yhwh's conflation with El. As far as I can tell it is only treated peripherally in more general books. I've only seen one paper focused specifically on Yhwh and El as distinct deities, and it never discussed their conflation.

The final part of this paper I'll discuss is Hayman's treatment of monotheism in Rabbinic sources. He discusses Deut 32:8-9, as I have many times in the past, and discusses the preservation of the notion of divine beings having stewardship over the nations, as I have many times in the past, but he shares a rabbinic reading of the text that preserves a very early perspective on these divine beings (although filtered through Deut 4:19, which sees the gods as the inheritance, not the nations):

Hear, 0 Israel (Dt. 6:4). This refers to Lam. 3:24-'the portion of the Lord, says my soul'. What is 'the portion of the Lord'? When the Holy One, Blessed be He, shared out his world to the nations of the world, as it says, When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance (Dt. 32:8 ), and they each chose their own god, one chose for itself Michael, one chose Gabriel, yet another chose the sun and the moon. But Israel chose for itself the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is said, For the Lord's portion is his people, etc. (Dt. 32:8 ).

While most literature from the Common Era followed a particular stream of interpretation, represented by John 10:34-35, which sought to de-deify these early references to gods, this rabbinic reading, although tempered by the conflation of the angels and the sons of God, has no trouble calling them gods. He then points out that the rabbis had to work hard to subdue any runaway angel worship:

The rabbis had to mount a tremendous propaganda battle in the midrashim to downgrade the angels and stress Israel's superiority to them. Hence the theme, so comprehensively studied by Peter Schafer, and so widespread in the midrash, of the rivalry between the angels and human beings. As Schafer concludes, Israel and humanity are exalted in order to keep the angels in their place.

Compare this campaign to the rhetoric of Hebrews 1.

Hayman later discusses the need to be more diligent in searching rabbinic literature for other residual early Israelite beliefs. His paper discusses a wide range of issues that bear on the problems with the notion of our understanding of monotheism, not least of which the fact that belief in angels, seraphim, demons, Satan, etc. flatly undermines strict monotheism. They are divine beings, after all. Hayman finishes:

I conclude, then, that monotheism, as used, for example, by Vriezen in that passage with which I began this paper, is indeed a misused word in Jewish Studies. The pattern of Jewish beliefs about God remains monarchistic throughout. God is king of a heavenly court consisting of many other powerful beings, not always under his control. For most Jews, God is the sole object of worship, but he is not the only divine being. In particular, there is always a prominent number two in the hierarchy to whom Israel in particular relates. This pattern is inherited from biblical times. The attempt of the compilers of the Hebrew Bible to merge El and Yhwh never really succeeded.

Let me know your thoughts, and if you're interested in reading the paper give me your email address in a PM.

[Daniel Peterson]

That is a great paper. I highly recommend it.

I cited it in something I wrote quite some years back. I just can't remember what!

[WalkerW]

This is one of my top references for both monotheism and creatio ex nihilo. Last time I used it, I was told to check out The New Mormon Challenge...

[WalkerW]

Here is another link for Hayman's article. Goes straight there.

[WalkerW]

Mak,

When will you be finishing up your thesis? Plan on winning another award?

[Brennin]

Hayman cites and agrees with the academic consensus that the doctrine originated in Christianity in the second century CE and was only later borrowed into Judaism.

???? ?? ?????? ??????????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ????? ???? ??????? (2 Maccabees 7:28)

That's the second century alright. The second century B.C. (or B.C.E. if you prefer.) The doctrine is at least that old. And 2 Maccabees is a pre-Christian, thoroughly Jewish text.

[Vance]

Here is another link for Hayman's article. Goes straight there.

Thanks for the link.

[WalkerW]

???? ?? ?????? ??????????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ????? ???? ??????? (2 Maccabees 7:28)

That's the second century alright. The second century B.C. (or B.C.E. if you prefer.) The doctrine is at least that old. And 2 Maccabees is a pre-Christian, thoroughly Jewish text.

In the words of Blake Ostler:

The "poster-child" scripture to support creatio ex nihilo in Jewish sources prior to the time of Christ has always been 2 Maccabees 7:28, a text found in the Apocrypha and considered scripture by the Catholic Church but not by either Latter-day Saints or Protestants. Copan and Craig assert that it "states clearly the traditional doctrine of creatio ex nihilo" (NMC, p. 122). It reads: "I pray you son, look to heaven and earth and seeing everything in them, know that God made them from non-being [?

[Brennin]

In the words of Blake Ostler:

The "poster-child" scripture to support creatio ex nihilo in Jewish sources prior to the time of Christ has always been 2 Maccabees 7:28, a text found in the Apocrypha and considered scripture by the Catholic Church but not by either Latter-day Saints or Protestants. Copan and Craig assert that it "states clearly the traditional doctrine of creatio ex nihilo" (NMC, p. 122). It reads: "I pray you son, look to heaven and earth and seeing everything in them, know that God made them from non-being [?

[Vance]

This is not credible.

Nothing like a bald assertion.

What part of "Hayman cites and agrees with the academic consensus that the doctrine originated in Christianity in the second century CE and was only later borrowed into Judaism" don't you understand.

Do you think that none of those academics were aware of 2 Mac 7:28? Or did not take it into consideration?

[Brennin]

Nothing like a bald assertion.

That was not the extent of my response, of course.

What part of "Hayman cites and agrees with the academic consensus that the doctrine originated in Christianity in the second century CE and was only later borrowed into Judaism" don't you understand.

Do you think that none of those academics were aware of 2 Mac 7:28? Or did not take it into consideration?

I apprehended maklelan quite well. I just don't care about his assertion, which is offered without evidence and is contrary to my knowledge of the Greek phrase in question.

[volgadon]

I apprehended maklelan quite well. I just don't care about his assertion, which is offered without evidence and is contrary to my knowledge of the Greek phrase in question.

Are you familiar with Goldstein?

[Vance]

That was not the extent of my response, of course.

Well, yes it was. The whole of your response was a bald assertion.

I apprehended maklelan quite well.

Apparently not. Apprehension is nearly impossible for the closed minded.

I just don't care about his assertion, . . .

For which he provided references for you to peruse. But with your eyes closed and your ears plugged I can see why you don't care.

. . . which is offered without evidence

Except he DID provide the reference to support his assertion.

. . . and is contrary to my knowledge of the Greek phrase in question.

And who are you that we should take your "knowledge" over that of "academic consensus"?

[3DOP]

Do Mormons think it is important to me as a Catholic to establish a pre-Christian date for the teaching of creatio ex nihilo? If so, why? It is granted that the Nicene Trinity was not taught until the Council of Nicea. So why would it be critical to our position that a teaching with perhaps even less evidence became the de fide teaching so much earlier? Maybe you are saying that nobody had ever even conceived of the idea? That seems hard to reconcile with some writings that pre-date Nicea. But no matter. In any case, I couldn't think any Christian could be faulted for believing in pre-existent matter until at least the 4th Century.

[Vance]

Do Mormons think it is important to me as a Catholic to establish a pre-Christian date for the teaching of creatio ex nihilo?

I can only speak for myself, but, No!

Believing that "the Church" maintained authority to declare/clarify/(or even change) doctrine/practice, removes the need for Catholics to establish this.

Protestants (of the "sola scriptura" variety), on the other hand do.

Which brings up an interesting issue. Protestants reject Maccabees as authoritative. I don't know what kind of "Christian" Brennin clams to be (other than Anti-Mormon), but unless he is Catholic he hasn't a leg to stand on.

[Brennin]

Are you familiar with Goldstein?

The name does not ring a bell in this context.

[Brennin]

Except he DID provide the reference to support his assertion.

No, he did not. He is relying on this statement of Hayman's:

Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to JUdaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism.

That is not evidence. Evidence for Hayman's statement, which was made 20 years ago, would require a survey of the literature. Hayman may have performed such a survey 20 years ago (although, I'm not sure how extensive it was from the footnote) but I am reasonably certain that maklelan has not and that he is simply repeating Hayman's claim. Incidentally, I did not see Hayman treat the text from 2 Maccabees when I scanned his article.

And who are you that we should take your "knowledge" over that of "academic consensus"?

I don't care what you take or do not take from my posts. Were it not for my itch for disputation, I would not bother with you.

[maklelan]

I apprehended maklelan quite well. I just don't care about his assertion, which is offered without evidence and is contrary to my knowledge of the Greek phrase in question.

I presented a paper on 2 Macc 7:28 and creatio ex nihilo at a regional SBL a couple years ago. I later published an expansion of that paper (full disclosure: In my own journal - pages 81-96 here). My argument concerning the doctrine was that the academic consensus is sound, but that 2 Macc 7 was not published until the late first or early second century CE anyway, so it's pretty immaterial. Here are the reasons the consensus is sound:

The Platonists often used the same phrase to refer to preexistent matter, and Xenephon uses it to refer to the creation of children by their parents, which is obviously not ex nihilo (Memorabilia 2.2.3: ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ?????). You cannot find an example of this phrase used in Greek literature anywhere before the second century CE where the author is actually espousing creatio ex nihilo. The Greek usage was understood to refer to creatio ex materia, and 2 Maccabees really had no other context for its use. Even if the author intended it to mean ex nihilo, there's the audience would not have understood the concept in any other way. Your personal understanding of the Greek, then, misses the mark concerning how it was originally read.

My argument for a later date for 2 Maccabees 7 also places the text at a time period where philosophical speculation is rampant in polemic between Greeks and Christians. Christians are arguing for the resurrection, and their argument moves from the notion that God can create the human body out of so little material, so he can reconstitute it out of so little material to the absolutely novel idea that God created the cosmos out of nothing, and so he can reconstitute the human body out of nothing. May has a slightly different take on this process, but the context of the development of the doctrine is the same. At this point, Copan and Craig are the only scholars of which I'm aware that actually believe 2 Macc 7:28 is creatio ex nihilo. J.C. O'Neill wrote an article defending it, but has since changed his position (at a conference, not in print, as far as I can tell). Goldstein did the same, and because of the response of David Winston, had to admit the weakness of his positions. The most relevant scholarship is as follows:

David Winston,

[maklelan]

I am reasonably certain that maklelan has not and that he is simply repeating Hayman's claim.

In the future, if I start a thread on a topic, you would do well to just start with the assumption that I've read all the scholarship on anything I bring up in the thread.

[maklelan]

Do Mormons think it is important to me as a Catholic to establish a pre-Christian date for the teaching of creatio ex nihilo? If so, why? It is granted that the Nicene Trinity was not taught until the Council of Nicea. So why would it be critical to our position that a teaching with perhaps even less evidence became the de fide teaching so much earlier? Maybe you are saying that nobody had ever even conceived of the idea? That seems hard to reconcile with some writings that pre-date Nicea. But no matter. In any case, I couldn't think any Christian could be faulted for believing in pre-existent matter until at least the 4th Century.

I'm perfectly happy recognizing that multiple doctrines found their genesis in the theological milieu of Nicea and just before, and I wouldn't fault anyone for recognizing the same. There are quite a few traditional Christians who assert rather vehemently that creatio ex nihilo begins in Gen 1:1 and is found every step of the way since then. These arguments are aimed primarily at those antagonists.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In the future, if I start a thread on a topic, you would do well to just start with the assumption that I've read all the scholarship on anything I bring up in the thread.

I will just preempt this with a big "nu-uh".

[Brennin]

Which brings up an interesting issue. Protestants reject Maccabees as authoritative. I don't know what kind of "Christian" Brennin clams to be (other than Anti-Mormon), but unless he is Catholic he hasn't a leg to stand on.

Yet another absurd argument from Vance. The Eastern Orthodox, among others, accept 2 Maccabees. (No doubt Vance heard that absurd bit of apologia from the pulpit about there being only two legitimate choices, Mormonism and Catholicism, and accepted it enthusiastically.) I do not have to belong to a church that recognizes 2 Maccabees as authoritative, nor do I have to accept 2 Maccabees myself (not saying if I do or not) to appeal to it to counter maklelan's dating of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo to the second century A.D.

[maklelan]

Here is another link for Hayman's article. Goes straight there.

Ah, thanks. The good old Journal of Jewish Studies. I love how Seth Schwartz, Martin Goodman, Philip Alexander, or Geza Vermes has an article (or two) in pretty much every single issue.

[Vance]

No, he did not. He is relying on this statement of Hayman's:

Then, rather than whine about Mak's "assertion", you should be whining about Hayman's "assertion".

[Brennin]

In the future, if I start a thread on a topic, you would do well to just start with the assumption that I've read all the scholarship on anything I bring up in the thread.

Based on what I have observed, I am not willing to make that assumption.