PHILADELPHIA SEMINAR ON CHRISTIAN ORIGINS MINUTES
Volume 11 (1973-74)
Topic: Creation -- Images Old and New
Co-Chairs: Patrick Henry (Swarthmore College)
Donald Winslow (Philadelphia Divinity School)
Recording Secretary: Robert V. Hotchkiss
Corresponding Secretary: Peter G. Maurer
1 (25 Sep 1973) Jerome McBride (St. Louis University)
The Argument of Creation from Uncreated Matter: Tertullian
and Hermogenes
2 (20 Nov 1973) Judah Goldin (University of Pennsylvania)
Genesis 1 in Rabbinic Interpretations
3 (22 Jan 1974) Donald Winslow (Philadelphia Divinity School)
Competing Concepts of Creation in Greek Patristic Exegesis
and Thought
4 ( 5 Mar 1974) Robert Wright (Temple University)
Genesis 1 in the Intertestamental Literature
5 (25 Apr 1974) Panel Discussion
Patristic and Modern Cosmologies
===
PHILADELPHIA SEMINAR ON CHRISTIAN ORIGINS, Minutes, Volume 11, Set 1.
Topic for 1973-1974, Creation -- Images Old and New.
Meeting of September 25, 1973; 7 pm, Philadelphia Divinity School Library.
The initial session of the 1973-74 Seminar was convened by co-
chairman Patrick Henry. After customary introductions and
announcements, the Seminar heard a presentation by Jerome McBride
of St. Louis University.
THE ARGUMENT OF CREATION FROM UNCREATED MATTER: TERTULLIAN AND
HERMOGENES>
The list of important materials relevant to Genesis 1 include
roughly a millenia of texts and social, historical, and cultural
details, from the Timaeus> of Plato to the hexaemeral
literature of Basil and Ambrose. At the turn of the 3d century
ce, the principles of the beginning were hotly contested by the
many religious groups, Jewish apologists had insisted on the
priority of Moses to Greek thinkers and thought, and Christian
apologists were quick to pick up this argument, often with
considerable ingenuity. At one time, Augustine even claimed that
Plato had been living in Egypt with Jeremiah, and got from him
the basic material for the Timaeus>.
Against the speculations of the Timaeus> were posited the words
of 2 Macc 7.28, "Observe heaven and earth, consider all that is in
them, and acknowledge that God made them out of what did not
exist, and that mankind comes into being in the same way." Though
the rabbis and the church fathers were roughly circumscribed by
this outlook, their own speculations ranged widely. There were
several major themes:
1) God is creator of all. Timaeus> 28C speaks of "the
father and maker of this universe," a phrase not uncommon in
Christian apologetic. However, Plato's four ideal forms were
eternal and uncreated; only sensible and visible things were
created. Ideas, like God, are ungenerated. Theophilus states the
usual Christian argument clearly when he writes, "If God is
uncreated, and matter is uncreated, God is no longer, for the
Platonists, the creator of all things" (Ad Autolycus> 2.4).
Dionysius of Alexandria argues that if any matter or Idea is,
like God, unborn, then unbegottenness is a genus which would be
superior to the species, even to God. An attempt at compromise
comes from the Pseudo-Clementines, where it is argued that God
created the pairs of opposites, but from the beginning was the
one and only God (Hom> 15.1).
2) God the artist. If God is the creator of all, including
matter, what did he have to work with? Philo and the rabbis
insist strongly that God needed nothing to work with but his own
word, and to suggest otherwise is a denigration of divinity
(De Opfic Mundi> 6.23; Pirke Avoth> 5.1; Gen.
Rabbah>). The problem for Jewish and Christian exagetes was to
maintain the self-sufficiency of God in spite of the view of the
Timaeus> that creation took place within the receptacle of
formless matter, Theophilus: "How can it be surprising, if God
made the cosmos out of underlying matter? For when a craftsman
has received his material from someone, he makes out of it
whatever he wants; but the power of God is shown by this, that he
makes whatever he wants out of nothing" (Ad Autol>. 2.4).
3) The condition of matter. Is matter eternal and/or corporeal,
or was there no matter at all in the act of creation? Many of the
fathers believed that Plato taught that matter was uncreated;
e.g. Theophilus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen. Augustine,
Basil, and Gregory also refer to this position. They follow Philo
in holding that God created matter first, and then followed with
the full extent of physical creation, Theophilus refers to Gen
1.2 ("the earth was invisible and unfinished"), stating: "These
are the first teachings which the divine scripture gives. It
indicates that the matter from which God made and fashioned the
world was in a way created, having been made by God" (Ad
Autol>. 2.10).
4) Creation and the Logos>. Justin could be adduced as
evidence for a theory of preexistent matter (cf Apol>
1.10.2), but his famous passage about the creation from the
substratum also serves to introduce the problem of whether God
created alone or with an agent: "By means of a Logos> of
God, the whole world was born from a substrate about which Moses
has previously spoken" (Apol> 1.59.4-5). Tertullian uses
the Word frequently, and saw it as a means of correlating
redemption with the doctrine of creation. It was difficult for
Christians to regard God as a logos>. The Logos> is
both the divine consciousness and the creative power and energy
to which we owe creation.
5) Anthropology and morality. Irenaeus accuses the gnosties of
making necessity a god. Turtullian argues that if God were
constrained in any manner, it would be better for him not to
create at all. Many fathers bind together very closely the
goodness of the creator, the goodness of his creation and the
responsibility of the creature: the Logos> who called man
out of nothing would be the same Logos> who rescues man
from sin.
Tertullian and Hermogenes>
Against Hermogenes> was probably written between 204 and
207, perhaps while Hermogenes was living at Antioch. Tertullian
appears to have based his arguments on a lost treatise of
Theophilus, as well as on some of the ideas contained in a
monograph on Platonic philosophy by Albinus. From Tertullian's
work, we can determine Hermogenes' thought on 5 basic points, as
well as see something of Tertullian's refutation of them.
1) Hermogenes argues that God created the world from unborn
matter by regulating the motion of matter. This argument is not
unusual in middle Platonism.
2) Hermogenes further argues that matter is neither corporeal nor
incorporeal. If matter were corporeal, we could not explain its
incorporeal motion; if it were incorporeal, it would be
impossible that bodies were created out of it. According to
Tertullian, this theory contradicts the view that matter has a
corporeal part from which all bodies are created, whereas the
unordered motion was its incorporeal part. Neither Hermogenes nor
Tertullian gives any argument as to why motion should be
incorporeal -- this is a dogma of Midddle Platonism,
3) Hemogenes argues that matter is neither good nor evil, and
that both good and evil come forth from matter. This idea does
not seem to have contemporary support, unless it is derived from
the doctrine of middle Platonism that matter is eternal.
4) Hermogenes regards the motion of matter as having existed from
all time and being intrinsic within matter. Tertullian sees a
paradox in the working out of this view: Hermogenes described the
intrinsic motion before creation as both "commotion" and
"slowness" (43.1). The former is traditional Platonism, the
latter seems to be in line with Hermogenes' suggestion that
matter waited for and desired to be ordered by God (42.1). The
intrinsic motion of matter may give some insight into another
paradox of Hermogenes: he says that evil took its origin from
matter (2.4), while at the same time claiming that matter itself
was neither good nor evil. August Neander resolves the paradox
this way: evil consists in the chaotic condition of matter, a
condition which did not totally disappear following the act of
creation. Evil, for Hermogenes, thus originated in the irregular
motion of unwanted matter.
5) Hermogenes describes God's action upon matter in a way quite
different from traditional middle Platonism: "It is not by
pervading matter that he makes the world,...but merely by
appearing to it and approaching it" (49.2). He feels that the
earth mentioned in Genesis 1 must have been pre-existent,
uncreated matter, described in Gen 1.2 as invisible and
unfinished, which is in accord with the attributes of uncreated
matter. Tertullian objects strongly, largely because of his
opponent's notion of matter. Instead of holding that matter is
coequal with God (eternity=divinity), Tertullian believes that
Scripture presents the proof that it is not materia that exists
in principio, but rather sofia>. The equation of
sofia> (Proverbs 8) with logos>, often attributed
first to Justin (Dial> 62), shows the influence of middle
Platonism in identifying the form with the thoughts of God. In
making the Wisdom of Prov 8.22 the materia for God to use in
creation, Tertullian shows the strong influence of Theophilus and
Albinus. Tertullian spends 7 chapters (23-29) arguing that the
earth of Genesis 1 is not the materia of Hermogenes. Then he
turns to Gen 1.2 and argues that God staked out the elements of
the universe in rough fashion, and then brought it to perfection
(29). As for the act of creation, Tertullian insists that the God
who created by mind, wisdom, powers understanding, spirit, and
might would have had no need for such attributes had he only to
"appear and approach" uncreated matter.
Tertullian closes his treatise with a choice piece of polemic and
invective, in which he accuses Hermogenes of painting a self-
portrait in his description of Matter confused, unordered, and
obtuse. It would be in error, however, to consider that
Tertullian has presented the normative 3d century exegesis of
Genesis 1, in contrast to Hermogenes' aberrant one. It would
probably be better to consider this treatise of Tertullian as
another complex chapter within the millenium of Platonic
speculation on the act of creation.
DISCUSSION>
During the discussion that followed the presentation, it was
suggested that to consider Tortullian's work as simply another
Platonic speculation is to underestimate the importance of the
specific Jewish and Christian input into these speculations. Over
the years, there developed three views of interpretation
regarding the Timaeus>:
1) That the world was always there, with no beginning, eternally
dependent on the Craftsman for structure and form only. This
view, as presented by Plotinus and the neo-Platonists, does not
speculate on the sources of form and matter.
2) That matter is an ultimate, but had a beginning, God fashioned
a formal universe out of formless matter. This is the view of
Proclus, Plutarch, Atticus.
3) That God created the universe out of nothing. This view is
difficult to document outside of Judaism and Christianity.
Perhaps the only pagan reference to this interpretation is in
Lactantius' Div. Inst. 2, where Cicero is quoted as combatting
such a view. Tertullian remains wholly within this peculiarly
Jewish-Christian viewpoint, while it may seem that Heracleon
overlooks its logical inevitability for Christians.
It is perhaps an oversimplification to argue that Tertullian's
concern for creation from nothing is mainly to preserve the
transcendence of God. Middle Platonism was greatly concerned for
divine transcendence, but saw quite clearly that a God who
creates from nothing could be less transcendent than one who uses
pre-existent matter. Hermogenes took the Aristotelian doctrine of
relations quite seriously and insisted that for God to be
eternally Lord, there had to be eternal matter for him to be lord
over. Tertullian dismissed this view as nonsense. Many Christians
were convinced that the doctrine of creation from nothing was
necessary to preserve God's omnipotence, rather than his
transcendence, and saw this question of omnipotence as a
differentiator between Christian and pagan. Galan attacked the
Christians for this view, but when the Christians appropriated
Platonism, it became a moot question.
It was suggested that a doctrine of creation from nothing is
necessary to Tertullian's eschatology. Only a universe which was
not eternal could be totally destroyed at the end. However, only
impermanent matter could be so destroyed, since the Kingdom is
eternal, and will survive the eschaton. In order to overcome what
appear to be rather large difficulties here, Christians such as
Tertullian appear to be falling back on distinctions which are
more Stoic than Platonic: that matter is not necessarily
corporeal, and that after the eschaton, souls will still remain
with some sort of non-material corporeality. In this, Tertullian
is following the example of Paul.
The doctrine of creation from nothing becomes extremely important
in speaking of anthropology. In terms of evil and sin, the
doctrine enables God to be considered completely out of the world
in which people experience evil, and yet be sufficiently powerful
to refashion and recreate this evil world into a perfect one.
There can be no non-redeemable structure or individual, since God
did it all from nothing to begin with.
The Seminar considered briefly whether social, ecclesiastical, or
cultic factors may be tied in with the doctrine of creation from
nothing. Factors such as the male dominance of the church or the
idea of the church as the present paradise with its daily and
weekly ritual. On this, no conclusions could be given, but such
factors should probably be considered more than is usually the
case.
ROBERT V. HOTCHKISS
Recording Secretary
===
PHILADELPHIA SEMINAR ON CHRISTIAN ORIGINS, Minutes, Volume 11, Set 2.
Topic for 1973-1974, Creation -- Images Old and New.
Meeting of 20 November 1973; Franklin Room, Univ of Penn
The second session of the 1973-74 Seminar was convened by co-
chairman Donald Winslow. After customary introductions and
announcements, the Seminar heard a presentation by Judah Goldin
of the University of Pennsylvania.
GENESIS ONE IN RABBINIC INTERPRETATION>
the best source for information on rabbinic teaching about
Genesis 1 is, of course, the Genesis Rabba>: the edition is
by Theodor and Alback. Supplemental material may be found in the
Yalkut Shimeoni> (1st edition, 16th century) and the
Midrash Ha-Gadol> (ed. Margolioth). Midrashim are not
treatises, but are compilations of midrashic interpretations of
the biblical texts, collections of the teaching of individuals of
different generations on individual words and verses of the text.
Because of their atomistic nature, it is difficult to categorize
the interpretations according to their sources, or to make
generalizations which will reflect adequately the variety of the
original. We may, however, risk making three observations on the
rabbinic interpretation of Genesis 1, based on the Genesis
Rabba>.
1. In the midrashim, there is a tendency to put what is of
fundamental significance for the history of Israel into the very
fabric of creation. This tendency is not at all unique to
Judaism. Some exmples:
1) The midrash on Gen.l,l, "In the beginning," interprets it as
though it were made clear by Prov 8.30, "I was with him as a
nursling, and I was his delight." For the rabbis, Wisdom was
obviously Torah, so that the Holy One looked into the Torah and
saw how to create the world. There seems to be no embarrassment
at the use of such a homiletical device to teach the significance
of Torah by projecting it back to the beginnings of creation.
2) The rabbis taught that six things preceded the creation of the
world. Two were made before the creation: the Torah and the
Throne of Glory (i.e. God is King of the universe from the
beginning). Four others were contemplated by God before creation:
the patriarchs, Israel, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah.
This way, the whole national history of the Jews is put within
the body of the creation.
3) The rabbis taught that the creation of "lights in the
firmament of the heavens to... be for signs and for seasons and
for days and for years" (Gen 1.14) indicates that the Sabbaths,
the appointed seasons (pilgrimage festivals), the new moons, and
the new year were appointed from the first. Thus, the Jewish
calendar has become cosmic.
History, in other words, has been given a meta-historical
significance, and thereby what one does and teaches is not simply
thrust into nature, but derives as it were from nature. The
rabbis saw notbing parochial in this.
2. By means of their interpretation of these verses, the rabbis
employed midrashim as an opportunity to draw lines between the
permissible and the forbidden in metaphysical speculation. For
instance, it is suggested that the creation account begins with a
beth> because the shape of the letter, closed on three
sides, indicates that questions are not to be asked concerning
what is above, below, or before creation; only what is after.
Likewise, the rabbis quote from a non-canonical source (Sirach
3.22-23) to show that one should not investigate or explore that
which is too wonderful or too difficult. The rabbis appeared to
be in great fear of speculation which might lead to heresy. Some
examples:
1) The rabbis were in terror of dualism, which attracted many
Jews since monotheism seems to engender a problem as to the
source of good and evil. In line with this, the rabbis were
willing to admit that the angels may have been created on the 2d
day (with the sky) or the 5th day (with the flying creatures),
but never on the 1st day, since this would raise the complication
of assistants in creation, and diminish the singularity of God.
2) The rabbis feared the idea that God used pre-existent
materials to create. A conversation between Gamaliel and a
philosopher is cited to show that God made it all. The 2nd
century is too early to expect talk of ex nihilo> creation.
3) The rabbis were afraid of the notion that God created a cursed
universe, which would imply an inferior universe made by an
inferior God. This, they say, is why the account of creation does
not begin with aleph>, the beginning of the alphabet. This
is the first letter in arirah>, curse, and could not be
used here.
4) The rabbis were concerned to demonstrate that God created
without any exertion whatsoever (i.e. he said>), as a
distinction between God and any other builder. It is difficult
for us now to understand why there was such a concern over this,
although of course they would wish to emphasize that what he does
is super>-human.
5) The rabbis were afraid that there might be an inconsistency
between parts of scripture. The problem was not one of confusion
in chronology, but of the possibility that the unity of the one
spirit might be compromised. Ingenious methods are used to
explain the creation of light on the 1st day but the sources of
light on the 4th; or the creation of male and female humankind
together in Genesis 1 and of man first in Genesis 2.
3. It is obvious that the rabbis were projecting their own time
into the Genesis text. Not being antiquarians, they were
convinced that the Genesis text was addressing itself to them.
Anachronism is therefore inescapable. They drew on everything
they knew to explain the various verses: the science of their
day, including magic; superstitions; mythological elements (the
sun cools off by dipping through a pool each night); doctrine (on
the Sabbath God did not stop rewarding the righteous and
punishing the wicked); legends about the sages; and events which
occurred in their own circle. All these are used to illustrate
the text and theme of creation; all these are what makes the
midrashic material so very interesting.
DISCUSSION>
During the discussion following the presentation, various members
of the Seminar contributed comments on aspects of the rabbinic
treatment of Genesis 1:
1) The rabbis' insistence on keeping the angels out of the
initial day of creation was considered by Turtullian (Contra
Praxeas> 19) as anti-Christian. It is not at all clear,
however, that this is what the rabbis had in mind. The idea
within Judaism of a demiurge as agent of creation goes back at
least to Philo and is later referred to by the Cabbalistic
sources, but is rejected wholly by the rabbis in their age of
intellectual turmoil. It may be that there were sectarians we do
not know about who had expanded the "Let us create" of Gen 1.26
into something quite offensive to the defenders of the unity of
God, and also quite outside of the Christian tradition.
2) The idea of God's creating without any exertion whatsoever
does not seem to derive from the Aristotelian doctrine of divine
imperturbability. At this distance, it seems impossible to
determine the locus of this rabbinic concern.
3) Of primary concern to the rabbis was the idea of Torah. This
concept seems to have shaped the process of canon, when during
the exilic period the practice of thinking of scripture in terms
of a hexateuch was abandomd in order to isolate the pentateuch --
the Torah -- as the essence of emerging exilic Judaism.
Originally, Torah> seems to have had three meanings a)
instruction; b) oracle; c) the book> of the Torah of Moses.
By the beginnings of the rise of rabbinic Judaism, Torah>
meant:
a) the Torah of Moses; i.e. the book; hence,
b) the Law; hence,
c) the Law and its oral interpretation. Since the Law was a
living thing, it could not exist without contemporary
interpretation. Thus, Torah was teaching, hence,
d) the whole of that which is written, including what was
earlier clearly differentiated as Wisdom>. This
identification of Wisdom with Torah had been completed by the 3d
century BCE, and is expressed in Sirach without defense or
argument. (However, Gentile wisdom is not Torah.) The rabbis said
that all knowledge was given to Moses at Sinai. Even the newest
ideas, since they were also known to Moses, are Torah. An idea
which cannot be traced to Moses breaks the continuity of Torah as
the totality of knowledge.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT V. HOTCHKISS
Recording Secretary
===
PHILADELPHIA SEMINAR ON CHRISTIAN ORIGINS: Minutes, Volume 11, Set 3.
Topic for 1973-74: Creation -- Images Old and New.
Meeting of January 22, 1974, Philadelphia Divinity School Library.
The third session of the 1973-74 Seminar was convened by co-
chairman Patrick Henry. Following customary introductions and
announcements, the Seminar heard a presentation by Donald Winslow
of the Philadelphia Divinity School.
COMPETING CONCEPTS OF CREATION IN GREEK PATRISTIC EXESIS AND
THOUGHT>
Greek patristic thought offers many models of creation. An
overview of them indicates several things:
1) On a purely descriptive level, although the models are
contradictory of each other, there appears to be no articulated
contradiction between the various Christian models. Consequently,
the source for the variance must lie outside the descriptive
content.
2) Within the traditional descriptions, the trend is to avoid
exegesis as such. Instead of elucidating the text, the models fit
the fairly sparse imagery of Genesis 1 into a cosmo-theological
pattern.
3) In this literature, creation is not so much a developing
doctrine as it is an integral part of some other kind of
argumentation, usually concerned with anthropology or
soteriology.
4) Creation is hardly ever considered in and of itself, but is
almost always creation-and-fall, leading to a discussion of
incarnation and redemption.
We will consider three familiar models of creation which are
competetive when placed next to each other, but whose basic
arguments are elsewhere than in the description. Perhaps it will
be possible to ask some questions of these models which could
reveal where the more basic competition really lies.
ORIGEN>: For Origen, creation is a post-lapsarian event;
i,e. after the fall. The cosmic intelligences which exist co-
eternally in the cosmic pleroma with God became bored, turned
away from their source of being, and fell into disruption. This
disrupting act of free will converted unity into miltiplicity.
The creation of Genesis 1 was a loving act on the part of God to
prevent the falling intelligences from falling too far. They were
stabilized on various levels (from angels to frogs). The creation
was primarily therapeutic, and was one of a continuing succession
of creations. Material creation is temporary, and ceases to exist
when the beings return to their places, restored to their
fullness in the pleroma and intimacy with God.
ATHANASIUS>: For Athanasius, creation is pre-lapsarian; he
believes it happened just the way the scriptures say it did.
Athanasius sees an unbridgeable gap between the creator and the
creature, the eternal and time, the absolute and the contingent,
the invisible and the visible. The only way to bridge this gap is
by means of the implantation of the image of the Logos> on
contingent created beings, who are intended to be immortal
humankind. All this is done without necessity and ex
nihilo>; the creation has an ever present penchant for
dissolution and return to non-existence. Creation is wholly
contingent upon God; all the data of creation is parallel to the
data of divine providence. The cross, the symbol of the
redemptive event, is the cure for the creation. Note that while
for Origen, creation is part of the salvific process, for
Athanasius creation itself is saved.
GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS>: Gregory has a threefold pre-
lapsarian ex nihilo> creation. He does not speculate
exegetically on the event of creation, but intrudes a series of
events into the account (in chronological order):
1) A spiritual creation: the angelic-noetic-rational is created
to be intimate with and have kinship to God.
2) A material creation: a stranger, alien to God, but not
inherently evil; esthetic, sensible, the opposite of the first
creation.
3) Humankind: a synthesis of the first two creations, with the
unique addition of a direct implantation of the rational soul by
God, within which is the image of God. Man, a dynamic
relationship between body and soul, is but an immature creation,
although he has a built in purpose and potential for the whole
man. The fall, which originates in the 1st creation, breaks up
the synthesis and turns man into a battlefield of the spiritual
and the material. Salvation is not to restore man to his original
purpose, which was immature, but to assist him toward his
eschatological maturity.
These three descriptions of models of creation do not lead us to
the depth of their differences, which seem to be on another level
than the exegetical. In these models, we should look for "hidden
agendas," in terms of which we should ask: Is the description of
God as creator and the cosmos as created incidental to, dependent
upong or derivative of a particular theologian's thought as a
whole? There seems to be no Greek father for whom the
doctrine> of creation is central and formative to the
balance of his "system." Athanasius, for instance, did not
develop his view of Logos> or of man from the assertion of
an ex nihilo> creation. Rather, the ex nihilo>
creation was a necessary, yet derivative, result of his placing
the Logos> on the divine and uncreated side of the
creator/creature abyss (as opposed to Arius). But the placement
of the treatment of creation in a derivative and dogmatically
contingont context is itself an oversimplification, since there
are also anthropological soteriological, Christological, and
theological factors involved in addition to the psychological,
sociological and political factors.
To get at the core of the fathers' use of the models of creation,
it is necessary to ask of these models the right questions. I
would suggest three such questions as a beginning:
1) The soteriological question: e.g. Is salvation a restoration
to pre-lapsarian or pre-creational existence, or a growth toward
a higher state?
2) The question of God: Whether God is infinitely beyond or
intimately bound to creation; and who is it who creates? (Origen
says the Father, Athanasius the Logos>, and Gregory the
Trinity.)
3) The anthropological question: Since creation-fall is the
predominant emphasis, most of our questions are about the fall of
man. What is the present state of fallen man? Is it natural or
unnatural? What part of man is fallen and in need of therapy?
These and similar questions carry us beyond description, to
analysis in context and eventually to the author's understanding
of God, who created heaven and earth.
DISCUSSION>
During the discussion following the presentation, several of the
members wondered whether the questions as stated were complete
enough to give us an understanding of the real issues involved.
The three questions all deal with controversies among Christians,
and leave open the possibility that the models are influenced by
dialogue with those outside the Christian community. In the case
of the three models cited, there seems to be little outside
dialogue, although it should not be discounted completely. There
are specific refutations of (not dialogue with) non-Christian
theories, especially the emanationist theories dealing with the
eternality of the cosmos, as well as the stock refutations of
idolatry. Athanasius, however, does deal with specific arguments
of Plato and of Marcion on small points. Origen, of the three,
was probably most in contact with the wider universe of non-
Christian discourse. In order to speak within this thought world,
he practically needed to posit a post-lapsarian creation.
Some other fathers who dealt with Genesis 1, however, had more
specific and non-Christian opponents in mind. Tertullian's
dialogue with Hermogenes has already been treated (PSCO 11.1).
Augustine, in Civ Dei> 11, deals directly with Porphyry and
the neo-Platonists, using Genesis 1 as a starting point to
explicate the nature of the soul.
The Seminar also considered whether the fathers were really so
reluctant to enter into dialogue with scripture at the creation
account that it is necessary to search for a "hidden agenda." A
brief review appears to indicate that there was really little
exegesis as such, even for Athanasius, who saw the account as
being historically accurate. In dealing with creation, the
fathers did not seem to feel it important to cite scripture as
their authority, leading us to believe that their real concern
was elsewhere. Even Augustine, who brings the text into play
immediately, quickly leaves it behind in his arguments on the
nature of eternity.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT V. HOTCHKISS
Recording Secretary
===
PHILADELPHIA SEMINAR ON CHRISTIAN ORIGINS: Minutes, Volume 11, Set 4.
Topic for 1973-74: Creation -- Images Old and New.
Meeting of March 5, 1974, Ely Room, Bryn Mawr College.
The fourth session of the 1971-74 Seminar was convened by co-
chairman Patrick Henry. Howard Kee introduced a special guest,
Dennis Nineham, resident scholar at Bryn Mawr, and Warden of
Keble College, Oxford. Members of the Seminar were presented
copies of a paper by Robert Wright of Temple University, which
was the topic of discussion for the evening. Those desiring
copies of this paper, with notes and bibliography, should contact
Dr. Wright.
GENESIS ONE IN THE INTERTESTAMENTAL LITERATURE>
There are at least 76 passages in the literature between the
testaments which reflect the creation narrative of Genesis,
chapter 1. This literature includes those Jewish writings which
are not included in the Hebrew Bible, and which are generally
identified by the titles of Apocrypha>,
Pseudepigrapha>, and Dead Sea Scrolls>. The limits of
the material will be those se7 by Charles in APOT plus the Qumran
literature. The passages selected for this study relate in some
way to Genesis 1, and are not merely those referring to the
creator, or creation motifs.
PART ONE: Genesis Hermeneutic>
1. Recapitulations of Genesis 1, clearly identified by comparing
the order and events with the Genesis account: generally, the
writers see 2 purposes for creation -- God's glory and man's
benefit, although if "man" includes only Israel, this raises the
question of why Israel did not possess creation. Most of the
writers also expand on Genesis, in an attempt to answer problems
not treated in the original.
1.1 Jub 2.1-17, the longest and most detailed of the
recapitulations, follows the order of Genesis closely, with a
number of additions. The author understands the creation of the
heavens, earth, and waters to be part of the 1st day's activity.
1.2 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) 6.38-54, somewhat shorter than Jubilees,
faces the question of "If the world was created for Israel's
sake, why does she not possess it?" (6.59). There are no major
omissions, and only a few expansions.
1.3 2 Enoch 27.1 - 30.18, extant in 2 Slavonic versions, contains
much embroidery on the text of Genesis: islands, circles of
heavenly orbits, troops of flaming angels, signs of the zodiac,
and many dislocations. It is an altogether disjointed account. In
several passages, the Genesis pattern is not explicit, but can be
found only by attempting to superimpose a 6 day pattern on each
example.
1.4 Pr Azar 35-60 contains an evident Genesis pattern, with some
realignment and additions, and no mention of the Sabbath. Heavens
and angels were created on the 1st day.
1.5 Qumran War Scroll, 1QM 10.11-16, retains the order of Genesis
1, with expansions and additions and some freedoms. The entire
"domain of spirits and dominion of the holy ones" is created on
the 1st day.
1.6 Qumran Hodayot, 1QH 1.6-10, follows the same arrangement as
the previous text, with a definite division of heavenly and
earthly creations.
1.7 Qumran Psalms Scroll, 11Qps\a/Creat, is a fragment of a hymn
to the creator, and seems to begin to follow the pattern seen
above.
1.8 1QH 13.7b-9, 14-15, is a very sketchy account, but seems to
follow the pattern of creation hymns already seen.
2. Interpretations of the purpose of creation; a series of
passages which reflect on the beneficiaries of creation:
2.1 Creation for God's glory: 1QH 10.12 and 1QH 1.9-10 speak
explicitly of this intent in creation. In 4 Ezra 6.48 and Sir
18.1, reflection upon creation prompts men to praise God. Bel 5;
Bar 3.32-35; 4 Ezra 6.1, 6; and 1QH 1.8, 13-15 link creation with
the lordship or uniqueness of God.
2.2 Creation for man's benefit: several places describe the
benefit of man as the purpose of it all: 4 Ezra 6.46 and 2 Apoc
Bar 14.8. This is often expressed as man's dominance over, or
administration of, creation Sir 17.1-2; 14is 9,1-3; 1QS 3.17-18;
1QH 1.15-16.
2.3 In several places, the world is created for Israel, not for
the nations: As Mos 1.12; 4 Ezra 7.11.
2.4 A further restriction on the beneficiaries of creation is
found where creation is only for the righteous: 2 Apoc Bar 21.24;
15.7. This restriction creates something of a dilemma, since
Israel, or the righteous of Israel, are obviously not in charge:
2 Apoc Bar 14.19; 4 Ezra 5.28-29; 6.55-59. The only answer given
is an apocalyptic one: 4 Ezra 8.1.
3. Expansions upon Genesis; nearly every rehearsal of Genesis has
its own special addition, expansion, or commentary:
3.1 The plan of creation was made prior to its execution; perhaps
a reflection on the greatness of God: 1QS 3.15; 1QH 197-8p 19; 4
Ezra 3.6.
3.2 Observations on the manner of creation God spoke: 1QH 1.20;
11Qps\a/Creat 4; 2 Apoc Bar 14.17; 21.4; 4 Ezra 3.4. God nodded:
2 Apoc Bar 21.5; 48.8. God's lack of raw materials is cited in
Wis 11.17 and 2 Apoc Bar 21.4, but with no hint of an ex
nihilo> doctrine. Several passages describe the order in
creation: Sir 16.26-27; Pr Man 2.
3.3 The creation of the spirits on the first day, a recurrent
addition to the Genesis account: Jub 2.2; 1QM 10.11-12;
11Qps\a/Creat 5; 1QH 13.8 (and 1.8-9).
3.4 A new creation at the flood and the exodus: Jub 5-12
(ambiguous); Wis 19.6. This is not merely an apocalyptic or
eschatological reference.
3.5 Creation is used as a time marker, the point from which time
is variously calculated, often with the other terminus as the new
creation: 4 Ezra 10.46; 14.48; As Mos 1.2; 10.12; Jub 1.29; 4.26.
In varying degrees, the rehearsals of creation in this literature
reflect the events and the order of the Genesis account, either
consciously or not. There does seem to be another structural
model influencing the accounts -- a binary model in which the
creation of the heavenly phenomena precedes the earthly. The
collection of passages appears to have 3 concerns: (1) The
authors reinforce their praise of the creator. (2) The authors
use the material to carry their special interpretations of the
nature of man and the problems of his existence. (3) There are
problems for which they cannot find the answers, particularly in
the divergence between Israel's inheritance of creation and its
inability to possess it. This unfulfilled creation can be
completed only in terms of apocalyptic -- the new creation.
PART TWO: Genesis Apocalyptic>
Some of the intertestamental writers who saw the approach of the
eschaton were informed of what to expect by their reading of
Genesis.
1. The term new creation> (to renew the creation) is most
commonly a time marker to designate the commencement of the
eschatological age. This renewal of creation marks the beginning
of, and is the conceptual carrier for the whole coming age.
History is measured from one creation to the other: 2 Apoc Bar
32.6; 4 Ezra 7.75; 1 Enoch 72.1; Jub 1.29. The continuity between
creations gives the reassurance that the end was planned from the
beginning: 4 Ezra 6.6; 7.70; 2 Apoc Bar 57.2.
2. The end of the age will be a restoration of the Genesis
creation, although not in any lengthy process (the exception is 4
Ezra 7.30). It will be a return to paradise: 4 Ezra 7.123; T Levi
18.10-11; 4 Ezra 8.52; 2 Enoch 8.9.
3. The limitations of the 1st creation will be removed, leaving
an enduring and sinless world: 2 Apoc Bar 85.10.; 74.2; 4 Ezra
7.123; 6.27-28; 1 Enoch 91.16-17; Jub 4.26. Thus, the eschaton
will be like it was in the beginning -- young, fresh, vital,
good, righteous, incorruptible. What was good in the creation
will return. What infiltrated and corrupted creation will be
eliminated.
There are in this material interesting implications for further
examination: (1) Why are the creation motifs used? Why
mythologies behind Genesis are transmitted as functional images?
(2) What do these speculations mean for understanding the
cosmology of the writers? (3) What are the writers' models of
history -- linear, cyclical, monocircular, spiral? (4) What are
the implications for Salvation History -- is judgment and
repayment within or beyond history? (5) What solutions other than
apocalyptic are available for the dilemma of Israel's failure to
possess her intieritance? (6) Is Gunkel's Urzeit wird
Endzeit> to be pushed further? (7) Where do creation motifs go
in rabbinic, NT, and patristic literature? (8) How do
speculations on Genesis and creation develop in Gnosticism and
Jewish mysticism?
DISCUSSION>
Following the presentation, Dennis Nineham led the Seminar in a
discussion and response. The Seminar expressed its gratitude for
the compilation of materials, which should prove quite useful.
Noted were the presence of parallels to NT material, the
occurrence of the usual philosophical questions (predestination,
the possibility of pre-existent material, etc.), along with a
striking lack of reference or allusion to the imago Dei> of
Gen 1.26. However, the Seminar seemed to feel a certain
incompleteness in the material, not in that it is not a fair
reflection of the use of Genesis 1 in the intertestamental
period, but that the intertestamental writers appear to have
moved beyond Genesis l, and were reflecting some other tradition
as well. There seems to be a constantly recurring mention of
spirits, angels, heirarchies, etc.; far more than would seem to
arise merely from the mention of heavenly counsel in Gen 1.26.
The path from Genesis 1 to the intertestamental period is hardly
a direct one, and we are seeing at least 2d or 3d generation
interpretation, reflecting the possibility of a parallel
tradition which reached the writers in a far different form than
that available to the writers of Genesis 1. Perhaps this other
tradition is reflected canonically in the beginning of Genesis 6.
The intertestamental writers, especially the apocaliptists,
seemed drawn to the fuller creation myths, in an effort to
express their hopes for a new creation.
The traditional Egyptian and Babylonian creation myths were used
to show the establishment and maintenance of order in the
unverse. The apocalypticists, on the other hand, were attempting
to stress the regaining> of order at the end time. For
this, the Genesis 6 story was more useful, dealing as it does
with the disordering of creation by humankind. As history and
theology moved toward apocalyptic, what became more important
were the passages concerning the beginnings of the disorder,
rather than order. The cosmological concerns of Genesis 1 did not
speak directly to the theological concerns of the people of the
intertestamental period. When they are used at all, they become
the carriers of other, more relevant ideas. The concern with
order as such does not appear to have been renewed until the time
of Tertullian, who revived the exegesis of Genesis 1.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT V. HOTCHKISS
Recording Secretary
===
PHILADELPHIA SEMINAR ON CHRISTIAN ORIGINS: Minutes, Volume 11, Set 5.
Topic for 1973-74: Creation -- Images Old and New.
Meeting of April 23, 1974, Bond Hall, Swarthmore College.
The final meeting of the 1973-74 Seminar was convened by co-
chairman Patrick Henry of Swarthmore College. Other members of
the evening's panel were introduced, all members of the faculty
at Swarthmore College: Olexa-Myron Bilaniuk, Department of
Physics, and Hugh M. Lacey, Department of Philosophy. These three
scholars contributed toward a panel discussion of PATRISTIC AND
MODERN COSMOLOGIES.
PATRICK HENRY>:
In the 1st seminar of this season, a passage from 2 Mac 7.28 was
cited: "Observe heaven and earth, consider all that is in them,
and acknowledge that God made them out of what did not exist, and
that mankind comes into being in the same Way." This passage
outlines the 3 basic concerns which have characterized the use we
have seen of Genesis 1: creation, the cosmos, and anthropology.
The studies in this year's seminar also have shown repeatedly
that the fathers, the rabbis, and the intertestanental writers
all tended to use Genesis 1 as a pretext>, rather than as a
text for genuine exegesis. The biblical text was worked into
preformed cosmological patterns and used as a springboard for
opening other discussions.
In terms of creation>, we saw the text used to begin
discussions on the transcendence and omnipotence of God, and
whether or not God used pre-existent matter. Regarding the
cosmos>, we saw the order in the universe used as evidence
of divine concern for man, as well as the basis for a prediction
of the coming age. Also, the text was used to attempt to
determine the function of the world itself -- as a home, a
school, or a prison for mankind. In terms of anthropology>,
the text started discussions on the nature of the fall and its
place in divine history (post- or pre-lapsarian, single or
triple), as well as on the origins of evil.
Considering that the text of Genesis 1 was not used as the basis
for creation theologies, the question is raised as to the place
of the cosmological mythologies in this speculation. If the
vastness of the cosmos, the changeability of the stars, and the
possible inevitability of the collapse of the universe had been
known to the church fathers, would theology have been
fundamentally different? The same question may be turned around:
To what extent is modern astrophysics as much bound to use
mythological language as were the church fathers?
Kenneth F. Weaver, in "The Incredible Universe" [National
Geographic> 145.5 (May, 1974)], shows that modern astrophysics
is at least in part still preoccupied with the 3 concerns of 2
Maccabees: creation and order (big bang vs. continuous creation
theories), the cosmos (life cycle of a star, the eschaton in
terms of ultimate collapse), and anthropology (mankind's
relationship to an age-old universe).
OLEXA-MYRON BILANIUK>:
The scope of what the scientist investigates is far too vast for
any person to comprehend, both in its macrocosm and its
microcosm. For this reason, the physicist relies on models>
to classify and organize his experience into something which can
be managed. Thus, a physicist speaks not of "reality," but of his
model of reality, and his observations of the model in
conjunction with other observable phenomena. These observations
concern what matter does>, and not what it is, and normally
avoid the question of why> things occur (considering
instead the questions of when, where, how, etc.). Any model has
its limitations (e.g. the map as a model of the globe, in which
both edges of the map signify the same point), and the ultimate
test of the usability of a model is its success in predicting
future physical events. A model which appears to pass this test
may then be used in terms of cosmology; i.e. it can be projected
backwards in time in order to determine origins. In doing this,
it is necessary to make certain assumptions: that physical laws
were always the same, and that the same laws hold throughout the
universe.
A recent example of such cosmological retrodiction can be found
in the applications of Hubbel's law of the expanding universe.
Reversed, it points to a time when everything was together>
(an atom primitif>) and the "big bang" occurred. This model
has come in conflict with the "continuous creation" theory, which
implies no such primal compression. In the last 5 years, tests of
residual radiation have tended to prove the expanding universe
model, to the detriment of its rival. A variation on the model is
the pulsating universe theory, wherein the universe does not
escape its own gravity, but sooner or later draws itself back
together, only to explode' again.
Scientists who have strayed beyond the confines of the physical
sciences into ideology have had difficulty with some of the
modern models. Hubbel's theory, for instance, requires a
beginning> of everything -- an ideological stumbling block
for some. However, ideology must not be the scientist's concern.
Scientists ought not to attempt to explain everything, but should
confine themselves to constructing models in order to make
predictions. They cannot ask of their methodology where it all
came from, or why.
HUGH M. LACEY>:
Creation myths are primarily concerned with the issues of the
relationships between God and the universe, God and man, and man
and the universe. The myths seek the answers in terms of the
origins of man and the universe, following the presupposition
that to know the origin of something is to know its nature. There
is something of this presupposition shared by those modern
scientific cosmologies which are sufficiently all-encompassing to
include the biological origin of humankind. However, those modern
scientific cosmologies which are founded essentially in physics
would seem to lack this factor. An overriding presupposition for
these cosmologies is the idea that the present illuminates the
past, rather than the other way around.
The laws of physics, descriptive as they are, enable us both to
predict and to retrodict. However, retrodiction is probably the
more hazardous. Given any presently occurring phenomenon, it is
compatible with the laws of physics that it could have been
brought about by a range of alternative past phenomena; whereas
predictions are more likely to be univocal. The expansion of
knowledge about the universe never completely removes the hazard
from retrodiction, leading us always to be more sceptical about
retrodictive claims.
As scientific cosmology now retrodicts, there is nothing to imply
that the universe as presently comprehended by us has or has not
a beginning. But, if there should have been such a beginning, and
we could learn from retrodiction about its original state, this
would give no indication of the source of this primal state --
whether it was always there, or was the product of a previous
phase of the universe. Scientific cosmologies cannot be rivals to
creation myths, which deal with the relationship between God and
the universe.
Clearly, however, scientific cosmologies can rival a creation
myth's account of the origin of humankind. Genesis gives an
interesting account of the relationship between man and the
universe, encompassing both dependence and control. Modern
cosmologies can be compatible with such a view, and can deepen
and enrich our understanding of this dual relationship.
Understanding our origins can illumine the potential of our
future.
DISCUSSION>
Following the presentation, the Seminar discussed some of the
issues which had been raised. On the question of whether it would
have made a difference to the church fathers if the true vastness
of the universe had been known to them, opinions varied. In terms
of the tools of language given to modern science (e.g. calculus)
which were unavailable to the church fathers, and in terms of the
postulated regularity of the cosmos implicit in the expanding
universe model, it would seem that the fathers would indeed be
unable to maintain their views in the face of modern knowledge.
Their view necessitated a primal chaos, without any form or
regularity. On the other hand, the question of man's place in the
universe appears to be untouched by modern scientific
cosmologies, since it depends on other models or myths than those
of the physical sciences. Some modern cosmologies would be quite
suitable for the fathers: Origen would have been quite at home
with the theory of the pulsating universe, with world upon world
upon world.
It was noted that the methodology given of physics -- using a
model to describe what occurs because the actual event is beyond
comprehension, could be one of the classical definitions of the
function of mythology. Indeed, the model carries on many of the
functions of the myth, but with perhaps a firmer foundation in
physical reality. In spite of scientific cosmologies, man still
looks for the ultimate reason for himself and his universe in his
ideology, and receives his answers by faith. With a little work,
ideologies can be made to fit in with almost any cosmological
model.
Following the Seminar meeting, the members adjourned to a
reception at the home of Dr. Theodore Friend, the president of
Swarthmore College.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT V. HOTCHKISS
Recording Secretary,
//end of PSCO Volume 11 Minutes//