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

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.

If you’ll notice on the page/transcript I linked to above, the article opens like this (my emphasis added):

Appearing on Donny Deutsch’s CNBC show, “The Big Idea,” on Monday night, columnist/author Ann Coulter suggested that the U.S. would be a better place if there weren’t any Jewish people and that they needed to “perfect” themselves into — Christians.

I think that is an intentionally equivocal summation of what was said. Anti-Semitism is one of the most controversial buzzwords out there and I think we need to be very careful about just throwing that concept around or applying it to people. I can not emphasize enough what is under discussion between Coulter and Deutsch. They are not talking about Israelis or people of Jewish descent per se. Deutsch tries his hardest to spin it that way, even going so far as comparing Coulter to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! Rather, Coulter says - more than once - that she is simply echoing the message of the New Testament; i.e., that Jews are called to leave the “law of ordinances” and obey the new law, under Christ. Coulter isn’t talking about “wiping Israel off the map” by any stretch of the imagination. She is saying what the (Jewish) apostle Paul said throughout the book of Romans. Jews are called to a new law of liberty; they are called to become Christians.

This really shouldn’t be that shocking, and it wouldn’t be if the Catholic church’s “interfaith” mentality and political correctness had not gotten in the way of plain New Testament doctrine. Judaism is no longer a functional system and it was never a saving one. This says nothing about Jews as a nation or a people!

It’s frustrating to watch Deutsch try his best to spin what is being said, even as Coulter is clearly arguing against his claims.

COULTER: [Christians] believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that’s why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don’t believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, “Jews need to be perfected.” Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I’m saying that’s what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that’s what you said — don’t you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic –

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You’re an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn’t hateful at all.

This whole thing has (unsurprisingly) been blown out of proportion and sensationalized on sites such as Digg which are notoriously anti-Christian. How could the statements above be construed as “hateful” or “anti-Semitic”? Perhaps Coulter could have been clearer by saying that Judaism has been perfected in the sense that it was replaced with a better, less burdensome law. As I said, I am not a fan of Coulter, but I feel the need to defend honesty and reason when they are obviously under attack. One has to really try hard (and dishonestly, for that matter) to construe her statements as hateful or racist. On the other hand, her comments about a “happy Republican America” remain odd and scary.

As a side note, I’d like to remind or inform my readers that I am a Libertarian. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of legislatively attacking our constitutional freedoms, just from different angles. I discuss how this political viewpoint relates to Christianity in my article on Christianity & Government.

Share This

For those of you that are interested, here is a quick update on my various goings-on:

• I’m back in school finishing up my philosophy degree and enjoying it immensely. I’m currently in Metaphysics and Judaic Religion (both with the venerable Martin Yaffe). I’m tucking away a lot of fodder for Cogito (see below).
• I finally got Perk-O-Late (the coffee blog) off the ground, and it is growing splendidly. I recommend checking it out at Perk-O-Late.com.
• For those of you that read this blog for my commentary on religion and philosophy, as always, thank you so much for your interest. I enjoy writing, even if just for myself, but knowing that there are people reading makes it all the more enjoyable. I have a lot of ideas (as I recently described), and I actually plan to address them soon.

I am currently (re-)reading Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics. I look forward to writing about his true, philosophical notion of intelligent design (not the modern, oft-confused, politicized version). Contrary to the claims of dogmatic atheists, the concept of an intelligent Designer, separate and apart from specific religious faith can and does exist and has since the beginning of time of Greek philosophy.

Aristotle, who is in many ways the father of our scientific vernacular (and a role model for jargon-less philosophical exploration) came to the conclusion that there was an intelligent designer responsible for nature. That’s as far as he went. He stopped short of naming Him or claiming particular providence, which would require faith. Modern “science” has a lot to learn from Aristotle with regard to philosophical honesty. I’ll be saying more on this topic in the near future.

Peace!

Share This