cogito

Happy 2008. I am in fact still alive.

There are a few new posts in the works, but in the meantime, check out The Round-Up, where I am blogging shorter, interesting tidbits and Internet curiosities.

Thanks for reading!

Share This

The following is the first half of a paper written for Dr. Yaffe’s Judaic Religion & Philosophy course at the University of North Texas. You can read about the assigned topic here.

The book of Genesis is a complete and interdependent narrative. From its account of the earth’s creation, to God’s covenant with Abraham, to the enslavement of Israel in Egypt, the story develops in a deliberately interconnected way. It follows, then, that any attempts at honest exegesis depend upon a thorough consideration of the greater context. I make this point to set the stage for answering a question concerning Genesis, God and mankind’s responsibility to the earth: Does the Hebrew Bible, or subsequent Jewish tradition, teach environmental responsibility or not?

To adherents of Judaism—or even Christianity—it may not immediately seem a serious inquiry. After all, if a holy God created this earth with man as its pinnacle, how could one possibly rationalize irresponsibility? Yet, the accusation has been made by historians Lynn White, Jr. and Arnold Toynbee that Genesis 1:28—which encourages man to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” and to “have dominion” over it—“[reads] like both a license and an incentive for mechanization and pollution.”

One might wonder how Adam and Eve, Abraham or ancient Israel possessed the capacity for the mechanized destruction of the earth. Following this line of thought, it behooves us to consider what Genesis 1:28 has meant historically as opposed to reading it (or reading into it) exclusively through the lens of modernity. Jeremy Cohen’s essay, “On Classical Judaism and Environmental Crisis” does just this by considering what pre-modern interpreters thought the passage meant. Cohen attacks White and Toynbee’s “methodology” as flawed, pointing out that they ignore what Genesis 1:28 meant to the adherents for whom it was most relevant. As Cohen points out, they opt instead to “link the verse directly to specific social and scientific tendencies of our own day.” In doing so, White and Toynbee essentially betray their roles as historians by making a significant claim with no consideration of its historical support.

Cohen considers the post-biblical and medieval interpretations of Genesis 1:28, many of which bring to light the human struggle to balance angel-like (spiritual) characteristics with beast-like (physical) ones. Cohen cites R. Tifdai’s interpretation:

R. Tifdai said in the name of R. Aba: The holy one, blessed be He, said, “If I create him like the creatures of the upper world, he will live and never die; and if [I create him] like the creatures of the lower world, he will die and not live. Rather, I shall hereby create him like creatures of the upper world and like creatures of the lower world. If he sins, he will die; and if he does not sin, he will live.

In other words, humans determine their own destiny, either reaping the harvest of the upper or the lower world, “epitomized in life and death, respectively.”

This, then, raises the question of whether or not destruction of the earth is in fact a sin. Cohen further cripples White’s and Toynbee’s claim by pointing out that rabbis do, in fact, place limits upon human interference with the “natural order.” However, it is not in their midrash of the creation account, but of Deuteronomy 20:19-20 a principle known as bal taschit, derived from the words “you must not destroy.” Bal taschit stands against the wanton destruction of anything. From this Cohen shows that Jewish tradition is not only mindful of stewardship (of the environment at the very least), but also that citing Genesis 1:28 as sanctioned environmental irresponsibility is scripturally misguided.

For the sake of answering White and Toynbee’s accusation directly, let us again consider Genesis 1:28 this time with careful attention to Robert Sacks’ commentary¹ on the chapter. As mentioned previously, regardless of any apparent “license” granted by Genesis 1:28 irresponsibility would seem to be always undesirable. That is, from a pragmatic perspective, the concept of mastery (in the sense of ownership) would never entail misuse or wanton destruction. Does God’s dominion over His creation entail malevolence toward it? How, then, could such be argued as the position of Genesis 1:28 or be maintained as the position of any rational, self-sustaining being?

I call to mind the concept of “self-sustaining” because it is, in a sense, the way Robert Sacks describes the created world. For example, Rabbi Judah understands the cognate accusative “grass grass” ( Genesis 1:11) as God’s expectation of “pure fruitfulness.” That is, “God wishes to see a world capable of maintaining and perpetuating itself.” Sacks does not dwell long on Genesis 1:28 in particular, but does indicate that—in light of Genesis 2—“dominion” is only a “partial view of mankind’s relation to the universe and one which is deeply in need of correction.” In a sense, this brings us full circle to the idea that Genesis 1:28 on its own is not an adequate consideration of the Bible’s position on environmental responsibility. When considering an appropriate portion of the scriptures and their historical interpretations, it becomes evident that the biblical position—though it may not explicitly address the modern environmental crisis—does equip the thoughtful reader with an attitude of respect which gives rise to stewardship rather than destruction.

1. As anthologized in Yaffe, Judaism & Environmental Ethics ↩

Share This

Two things you have likely never seen juxtaposed, much less pondered. Yet, I’m up to my ears in it at the moment, writing a midterm paper for PHIL 3575: Judaic Religion & Philosophy. I’m answering two questions:

Does the Hebrew Bible, or subsequent Jewish tradition, teach environmental responsibility or not? Answer this question by analyzing the argument or arguments of at least one of the essays anthologized in Part I of Judaism and Environmental Ethics. In conjunction with your answer, examine how well the essay(s) you choose to analyze take(s) into account the implications of Genesis 1:26-28 as understood by Robert Sacks (you will need to include a clear account of how Sacks understands Genesis 1 as a whole).

…and…

How do ecology, Judaism and philosophy fit together, or perhaps fail to fit, in attempting to face the current environmental crisis? Answer this question by analyzing the argument of at least one of the essays anthologized in Part III of Judaism and Environmental Ethics. In conjunction with your answer, examine how well the essay(s) you choose to analyze take(s) into account the implications of Leon Kass’s understanding of the environmental distinctions spelled out in Genesis 1 (you will need to include a clear account of how Kass understands those distinctions and their bearing on the biblical dietary laws).

So, I shouldn’t even be spending my time sharing this information. Just out of curiosity - do any of you have opinions about this, based on your understanding of the Pentateuch, particularly Genesis? I’m not asking for help on this paper (after all, it’s due tomorrow). I’m just curious if you have ever considered it.

That said, if you’re interested in checking out Dr. Yaffe’s book, Judaism and Environmental Ethics: A Reader, it is partially readable via Google Books. I must say, as esoteric as those topics sound, this anthology has been a very interesting read (and admittedly enlightening regarding dietary laws and even the creation account).

Wish me luck… Update: I’ll probably post some or all of my paper when I am finished. That is, at least the parts I think are relatively interesting!

Share This

Ann Coulter recently appeared on Donny Deutsch’s CNBC show, “The Big Idea,” where she had an interesting (now controversial) conversation about Christianity and Jews (read the transcript here). Let me say first of all that I am not a fan of Ann Coulter. However, the discussion that Coulter had with Deutsch (who is a Jew) is very interesting, important and has unfortunately been misrepresented and misunderstood by a lot of people. Before I offer my thoughts on the incident, you should watch the clip:

Here are the facts to begin with: Ann Coulter is notoriously extreme; that’s how she makes a living. Deutsch is Jewish and obviously opposes Coulter to begin with, so there’s no doubt he’d look for any opportunity to negatively sensationalize Coulter’s remarks. That said, let’s think about what happened.
[Read more →]

Share This