Relative Non-Being vs. Absolute Non-Being in Ancient Greek Thought

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’ve encountered Mormon apologists who claim the early church fathers (Justin, Athenagoras, etc,) only used the Greek word for relative non-being when referring to the creation of the world. There was a formless, shapeless matter that creation was formed from that is termed relative non-being by ancient Greek philosophers, and not absolute non-being, which the ancient Greeks also had a word for but which these early church fathers did not use. Can someone help me better understand all this? Is this true?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I am wary of modern (ish) scholars suddenly discovering that everyone has been reading the early writings wrong for thousands of years. I tried to google around for a bit to see what I could turn up, but the only relevant site that came up was this thread. This could of course mean that I just don’t know what to search for, but I think there are a couple of things to consider here:

• The Genesis creation stories were written in part to be in contrast with the other creation ideas that existed at the time. Other religions tended to claim that the universe was fashioned by some god or other out of pre-existing stuff (generally the dead body of some other god), and this is part of what Genesis soundly rejects.
• We have from John ch 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The contingency argument etc shows that God is the only “thing” that cannot be said to have been made, since He is not properly a thing, but in some sense “thingness” (the whole “I Am Who Am” thing). So if there was stuff that the world was fashioned out of, even that stuff was made by God.

Of course, I never have really understood whether Mormons believe that there is a God along these lines, a God who is not merely a being but rather being itself. So they might reject that.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I am wary of modern (ish) scholars suddenly discovering that everyone has been reading the early writings wrong for thousands of years.

I am also wary of modern scholars that discover “new meanings” to early writings. However, a lot depends on this question. I’ve read several early church fathers that seem to indicate they believe God created everything but Mormons dispute this with the relative non-being argument. That is why I am hoping someone here more knowledgeable than I can lend some insight here. I take the early church fathers to be representative of what early apostolic preaching was. If they teach something like creatio ex materia, then that would contradict the teaching of the Church. I don’t know what I’d do. Perhaps I am putting too much consideration to what the early church fathers wrote and believed. But I’ve always seen their teaching stressed as of utmost importance. I’m not sure what to do.

I tried to google around for a bit to see what I could turn up, but the only relevant site that came up was this thread. This could of course mean that I just don’t know what to search for, but I think there are a couple of things to consider here:

I tried googling the literal Greek terms and I literally got all Greek responses. I had no idea the subject could be so complicated.

• The Genesis creation stories were written in part to be in contrast with the other creation ideas that existed at the time. Other religions tended to claim that the universe was fashioned by some god or other out of pre-existing stuff (generally the dead body of some other god), and this is part of what Genesis soundly rejects.

Yes, the striking differences in the creation accounts has always amazed me. God creates by His word. Other gods create by war and slaughter.

• We have from John ch 1:

A powerful witness to creatio ex nihilo and one that does not, as far as I can tell, fall prey to this relative non-being vs. absolute being problem. Though one Mormon apologist has tried to make it so but it is so blatantly obvious that the Scripture refers to creatio ex nihilo the apologist just looked dishonest and desperate.

The contingency argument etc shows that God is the only “thing” that cannot be said to have been made, since He is not properly a thing, but in some sense “thingness” (the whole “I Am Who Am” thing). So if there was stuff that the world was fashioned out of, even that stuff was made by God.

I firmly believe that philosophy is on our side in the debate with Mormons.

Of course, I never have really understood whether Mormons believe that there is a God along these lines, a God who is not merely a being but rather being itself. So they might reject that.

As far as I know, Mormons believe in an embodied God who is part of the space-time universe.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I found the following from a Google search:

*Ouk on vs. me on. Absolute non-being vs. relative non-being. First mentioned in Parmenides but there is no consistent distinction until the German theologian Paul Tillich defined them as absolute and relative in the first volume of his famous Systematic Theology

Am I right to understand the Greeks had no consistent distinction between the two? What could that mean? Were they used interchangeably?

webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/309/greekterms.htm

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I also found this, which affirms relative non-being and absolute non-being among the ancient Greeks: ontology.co/being.htm

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

My search for the alleged Greek word for relative non-being, tou mē ontos with relative nonbeing added to the search, turned up only Mormon websites. I am a little bit suspicious now. Can anyone shed some light on this matter?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I emailed several professors about this subject. So far, only one has responded. She said these issues are much disputed and suggested I select a philosopher I like and read good secondary material on him. I don’t know if that answers my question, though. She said she didn’t understand what I meant by relative non-being vs. absolute non-being. Am I not being clear enough?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I emailed several professors about this subject. So far, only one has responded. She said these issues are much disputed and suggested I select a philosopher I like and read good secondary material on him. I don’t know if that answers my question, though. She said she didn’t understand what I meant by relative non-being vs. absolute non-being. Am I not being clear enough?

I’m not sure, but if this professor says both that this sort of thing is highly disputed (not just known as the Mormon apologist suggested), and if she was not familiar with the specific distinction you’re talking about (assuming that it would fall within her area of study), then that seems to suggest that the claim that ancient writers meant something different by their words is …suspect.

I’ve been kind of lurking here to see what you turn up, and it’s beginning to look an awful lot like the argument the apologists you were discussing this with are using is pretty much made up.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’m not sure, but if this professor says both that this sort of thing is highly disputed (not just known as the Mormon apologist suggested), and if she was not familiar with the specific distinction you’re talking about (assuming that it would fall within her area of study), then that seems to suggest that the claim that ancient writers meant something different by their words is …suspect.

I’ve been kind of lurking here to see what you turn up, and it’s beginning to look an awful lot like the argument the apologists you were discussing this with are using is pretty much made up.

Yes, I’m starting to think the argument is made up. I can’t say for sure, though, so I would appreciate any feedback anyone has to give.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’ve heard from two more professors on this subject. The Mormon can be safely ignored. He has overstated his case and misrepresented other parts. So much for honesty.