In our Biblical Studies seminar here at St Andrews we heard yesterday from Joel Kaminsky, professor of Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies at Smith College in Northampton, MA. He spoke on an article that he is writing about the theology of the book of Genesis. This was very timely for me, as I had just taught an Elders’ Quorum class on the Creation the day before. So I was understandably very interested in what he had to say.
While in the LDS Church we have at least four accounts of the Creation to work with, non-LDS biblical scholars have only two major canonical accounts (not counting allusions in the Psalms, etc.): Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 (which most believe to have been written by two different authors following different theologies). It is significant, therefore, to see the extent of the material that scholars can get out of those two chapters in Genesis.
As the work that Prof. Kaminsky presented to us is not yet published, I will not quote from it. But I do want to briefly outline some of the ideas that were discussed in our seminar and present them as a representative example of what some biblical scholars are saying today about the material we read in Genesis.
1. There is a significant difference between the creation story presented in Gen. 1 and the story in Gen. 2. There are also significant differences between these accounts and the creation material that is found in the book of Psalms, which is more representative of the creation myths found throughout the ancient Near East — the more common myth is that the cosmos was created after the cosmic battle of the gods. The Genesis accounts don’t preserve the more ancient ideas of the rebellion of the gods, the great pre-creation battle, or the struggle of God with chaos/the waters.
2. Although later Jewish and Christian interpreters would read the idea of creation ex-nihilo (out of nothing) into the text, that is not what it actually describes. In Gen. 1, the waters and the land are not created by God, but are put in their proper places by Him. There is a division and ordering of pre-existent materials.
3. Scholars see in the plural language of passages such as Gen. 1:26 a reference to an ancient Hebrew belief in a plurality of gods. Some would describe such passages as having reference to the Divine Council that planned the Creation. Many scholars are now of the belief that the religion of ancient Israel should more correctly be classified as monolatry (worship of one God, while acknowledging other gods) rather than monotheism.
4. Whereas some of the other ancient Near Eastern religious traditions (see Enuma Elish) see humans as having been created to be slaves to the gods, the Genesis account presents the first man and woman as having the potential to become god-like. It is largely recognized that the Serpent who beguiled Eve was, at least in part, telling the truth when he said that eating of the tree would make the human couple like God. When they ate the fruit, they didn’t die, but became like God, knowing good from evil.
These are just a few of the more significant (for my purposes) of the many ideas discussed at the seminar. I am grateful to Prof. Kaminsky for his insightful theological commentary on Genesis and for bringing his ideas all the way here to St Andrews to be discussed in our forum.
4 Comments
Hey David!
This whole creation this fascinates me.
There is a well developed understanding in LDS theology that “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes…” (D&C 131:7)
I wonder if our firmness in this teaching can prevent us from understanding a fuller understanding of this teaching? What I mean is if we out-of-hand reject the apostate teaching of “creatio ex nihilo” without understand the possible origins, we may be missing something.
Some of the so called “church fathers” of the first few century A.D. propagated the idea of “creatio ex nihilo”, meaning “creation out of nothing.”
This topic has been hotly debated over the centuries, and laid to rest by Joseph Smith in the minds of many fine LDS folks. But a mind at rest is not always the sharpest. Theophilus, Justin Martyr, and Origen believed matter was pre-existant with God, while Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. believed otherwise.
I submit that only a highly inspired mind could have seen beyond “creatio ex nihilo.” But to swing from there to a fundamentalist view that the mud of the universe always existed in it’s physical form, is an unnecessary swing, IMHO.
Joseph Smith taught that matter can not be created nor destroyed but that it only changes form . In short, the prophet taught matter is simply stored energy (long before Einstein came to the same conclusion). And that matter is only one of the forms energy can take. The LDS view is often, in my opinion, mistakenly reduced to thinking the physical matter is used and reused, but I believe it is the eternal underlying energy that always existed (and perhaps eventually recycled), not necessarily the mud.
The bones of dinosaurs are not left over from other worlds.
I further submit that much of the centuries of debate stem from misunderstanding the intent of words like “creation,” “beginning,” “matter,” and so on.
In ancient Hebrew thought they had the same problem. And in-fact I suspect it was their problem that spilled over to the “church fathers.” The Hebrew term “ein sof” is often thought of on one level to mean “nothingness,” a shapeless, lawless, non-physical, immaterial existence that God resided in prior to creation. It is from here that Irenaeus and Tertullian believed creation began.
But on another level, a fuller understanding of Hebrew thought resembled the prophet Joseph’s teaching that in Celestial spheres a highly organized being, a material being of “fine or pure” matter created our physical world. He is a being of light, intelligence, or energy. Where He lives is “ein sof” or the “Endless,” the “Eternal,” the “Boundless.”
That when He extended His arm downward it created the lower kingdoms of existence. The Cabalists describe this with the idea of the “sephirah” which create the Tree of Life (which is the pattern of creation and the path of return. The pattern of temple architecture).
In my view when God extended a portion of His light into our sphere it created the big bang, or creation. That light carried with it all the laws of physics (the actual dimensions) we now observe and experience
Littlefield
Great comments, David! I think you make some important points. I agree that we shouldn’t necessarily think of pre-existent matter as the physical “mud” that we associate with the our current existence. Joseph Smith taught that spirits are made up of a type of matter that is more pure and refined, as you note — spirits certainly do not have the type of matter that we are accustomed to experiencing.
“The bones of dinosaurs are not left over from other worlds” — great line! Yes, I do believe that that type of thinking is taking the physical nature of “pre-existent matter” much too far.
I would say my thinking on this idea is very much along the lines of what you have suggested here — although your knowledge of Kabbalah and its way of expressing these ideas is much greater than mine.
Thanks for sharing!
David
Very interesting. I like the way you put this, David, and it’s nice to hear there is perhaps a middle ground between hardline William Lane Craig ex nihilo creation and the New God Argument. Both of those views seem a bit much for me.
Not that I’m smart enough know which one’s right, just good to see people thinking outside the box.
Thank you, Arthur, for contributing to the discussion here. I like to think that there are a good number of scholars that do aim for the middle ground. This professor comes from a Jewish background, and Jewish scholars are much less inclined to follow the Creation Ex Nihilo doctrine.
I checked out your website and I think what you’re doing is really cool. Keep up the great work!