Man's Dominion, or Subduing the Earth
Ever since the days of the Prophet Joseph, presidents of the Church have appealed to the Saints to be magnanimous and forbearing toward all of God’s creatures. But in the great West where everything was up for grabs it was more than human nature could endure to be left out of the great grabbing game, especially when one happened to get there first, as the Mormons often did.
One morning just a week after we had moved into our house on Seventh North, as I was leaving for work, I found a group of shouting, arm-waving boys gathered around the big fir tree in the front yard. They had sticks and stones and in a state of high excitement were fiercely attacking the lowest branches of the tree, which hung to the ground. Why? I asked. There was a quail in the tree, they said in breathless zeal, a quail! Of course, said I, what is wrong with that? But don’t you see, it is a live quail, a wild one! So they just had to kill it. They were on their way to the old Brigham Young High School and were Boy Scouts. Does this story surprise you? What surprised me was when I later went to Chicago and saw squirrels running around the city parks in broad daylight—they would not last a day in Provo.
Like Varro’s patrician friends, we have taught our children by precept and example that every living thing exists to be converted into cash, and that whatever would not yield a return should be quickly exterminated to make way for creatures that do. (We have referred to this elsewhere as the Mahan Principle—Moses 5:31.1) I have heard important Latter-day Saint leaders express this philosophy, and have seen bishops and stake presidents teaching their reluctant boys the delights of hunting for pleasure. The earth is our enemy, I was taught—does it not bring forth noxious weeds to afflict and torment man? And who cared if his allergies were the result of the Fall, man’s own doing, and could be corrected only when he corrects himself? But one thing worried me: If God were to despise all things beneath him, as we do, where would that leave us? Inquiring about the issue today, one discovers that many Latter-day Saints feel that the time has come to put an end to the killing.
The contemporary reappraisal of man’s relationship to his environment now confronts society at large with a question that has always been of major concern to the leaders of Israel, namely, What is man’s dominion? The key scriptural passage on the subject reads: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue [kivshū] it: and have dominion over [r∂dū b] . . . every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28). The words kivshū and r∂dū both have a basic root-meaning of exerting pressure; that being, however, merely a point of departure for a whole spectrum of derivatives, so that scholars have translated the words according to individual taste and temperament to convey various ideas and types of dominion. Thus the dictionaries tell us that radad, with the basic meaning of trampling the earth, in Genesis 1:28, specifically means “to plow,” while kavash, with the original idea of squeezing or hugging, can mean everything from “violate” to “cherish.”2
In all the interpretations we are confronted by two opposing concepts of dominion that have always divided the human race. From the beginning men have been asked to choose between them. Thus the Clementine Recognitions tell us that Abel’s claim to dominion was challenged by Cain, that Noah was challenged by the giants (the “Watchers” of Enoch’s day), Abraham by Pharaoh, Isaac by the Philistines, Jacob by Esau, Moses by the magicians of Egypt, Christ by the adversary in person, Simon Peter by Simon Magus, the apostles by the whole world, and finally, in the last days, Christ by the anti-Christ again.3 In each case the challenger argued from a position of strength and promised “all the kingdoms of the world” with all their power and glory to those who would worship and follow him, while the other offered the kingdom of heaven hereafter to those who worship the Lord and serve him only (Luke 4:5—8).
Each of the great leaders before entering upon his mission was allowed to make his own choice between the two ways, the case for each being presented personally to him by the highest authority on either side. Thus Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and ancient apostles, Joseph Smith, and, of course, the Lord himself were not only privileged to speak with God face to face, “even as a man talketh one with another” (Moses 7:4), but were also exposed to intimate and personal interviews, however harrowing and unsolicited, with the prince of darkness as well. Their opponents in each of the dispensations were also favored with direct ministrations from both sides, and each made his choice between enjoying power and dominion here or hereafter.
In commanding Adam to “be fruitful, and multiply,” God also informed him that he had given the identical command to all his other creatures, furthermore that he was putting Adam in charge of things to see to it that his purposes were fulfilled. Specifically, he was to “replenish the earth, and subdue it, and to have dominion over” every living thing in the biosphere (Abraham 4:28). There are two clearly marked departments—the earth itself as a storehouse and source of life, which Adam is to keep replenished (filled is the word), and the creatures that move about on and over the earth, over which he is to have dominion. As Brigham Young explains it, while “subduing the earth” we must be about “multiplying those organisms of plants and animals God has designed shall dwell upon it,”4 namely “all forms of life,” each to multiply in its sphere and element and have joy therein.
As usual, it is the Prophet Joseph who sets the record straight with an inspired translation: “And it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow” (Moses 5:1, emphasis added). Here, in the place of the “subdue” of the King James version, we have explicitly the word “till” applied to the earth alone, while “dominion” is reserved for the animal kingdom. And what is dominion? After commanding every form of life to multiply for the express purpose of having joy, God gave the identical command to Adam, at the same time putting him in charge of the whole operation, making him lord over the whole earth and giving him dominion over everything on the face of the earth. Lordship and dominion are the same. The word lord is the usual English slurring of hlafweard, hlaford, the loaf-ward or keeper of the bread, because according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “in its primary sense the word (which is absent from the other Teut[onic] lang[uage]s) denotes the head of a household in his relation to the servants and dependents who ‘eat his bread’ . . . the development of sense has been largely influenced by the adoption of the word as the customary rendering of [the] L[atin] dominus.”
Which brings us in the dictionary to “dominion, . . . deriv[ative] of domini-um, property, ownership, f[rom] dominus, lord,” specifically “the lord of the household,” in his capacity of generous host, “pater familias and owner of the house [domus].” The title of dominus designated the Roman Emperor himself as the common benefactor of mankind inviting all the world to feast at his board. In short, lordship and dominium are the same thing, the responsibility of the master for the comfort and well-being of his dependents and guests; he is the generous host, the kind pater familias to whom all look for support. He is the lord who provides bread for all; but how? By tilling the earth that he may “eat his bread by the sweat of his brow” (cf. Genesis 3:19)—he is not a predator, a manipulator or an exploiter of other creatures, but one who cooperates with nature as a diligent husbandman.
The ancients taught that Adam’s dominion was nothing less than the priesthood, the power to act for God and in his place. The idea is that God, while retaining his unshakable throne in the heavens, extended his glory to a new world below in the work of the Creation, “then as the culmination of that work he created man to be in charge” (li-mshol) of all the beings he had created5 with the understanding that “from this time forth man must work to improve the earth and preserve and take care of all that is in it, exactly as God had done before.”6
“The Spirit of the Lord and the keys of the priesthood,” said Brigham Young, “hold power over all animated beings. . . . In this dispensation the keys . . . will be restored.”7 God is a god of the living (see Matthew 22:32) and gives Adam dominion over every living thing, so that his rule ceases where life ceases. A king’s glory and success are measured by the happiness, prosperity, and increase of his subjects, even as the power and glory of God show forth, according to the Sefer Yetzira, in the exuberance of living things upon the earth;8 his “work and his glory” are to bestow the prerogatives of divinity on those below him (Moses 1:39). “From the hour in which I created the world it was my task to bless my creatures,” the Lord tells Abraham in making the covenant of the priesthood with him; “from now on, the bestowal of blessings is turned over to thee.”9 According to a Jewish legend, as God put Adam and then Noah in charge of all his creatures, he later put Abraham in charge, in order that he might bestow his blessing on them.10
All creatures are duly overawed by the presence of God’s representatives and image: “Even the fierce beasts of prey fear man,” says the Zohar, “as long as he keeps his covenant, his kingly dignity, and his eye fixed on God in whose image he is.”11 For “God formed man in his own heavenly form and made him to be Lord over them. Whenever man stands upright and lifts his eyes toward heaven, then all the animals raise their heads too, and look to man, fearing and trembling in his presence.” Throughout history an indispensable fixture of royalty has everywhere been the great animal park, paradise, or royal forest in which majesty could display itself in the role of God on earth, parent of the human race, and patron and protector of all lesser beings. In a word, the concept of man’s dominion as a holy calling and high responsibility has been the common heritage of the human race throughout history.12 God’s rule is before all a rule of love: “I love my creatures far more than you ever could!” the Lord tells Esdras in a vision.13 There is a tradition that Melchizedek, instructing Abraham in the things of the priesthood, explained to him that Noah earned his blessings by his charity to the animals, recalling how in the ark, “We did not sleep because all night we were setting food before this one and before that one.” Taking this lesson to heart, Abraham himself made a sort of Garden of Eden near Hebron, and there practiced charity toward all creatures that thus he might “become possessor of heaven and earth.”14 Adam, according to many accounts, was the great friend and companion of all the animals when they lived together in perfect peace and happiness, and they continued true to him even after the Fall.15 Indeed, “Adam was intimately acquainted with all the angels, all the seraphim [the spirits in heaven], and also with all the holy beasts, . . . before he came to this earth” so that he was peculiarly fitted in his priestly office to serve as mediator between the worlds as well as between higher and lower forms of life.16
The teaching of Israel laid the heaviest emphasis on responsibility. Since man is quite capable of exercising the awesome powers that have been entrusted to him as the very image of God, he must needs be an example to all, and if he fails in his trust, he can only bring upon himself the condemnation of God and the contempt of all creatures.17 “When men lose their viscious dispositions,” said the Prophet Joseph, “the lion and the lamb can dwell together.”18
A favorite theme of Brigham Young was that the dominion God gives man is designed to test him, to enable him to show to himself, his fellows, and all the heavens just how he would act if entrusted with God’s own power; if he does not act in a godlike manner, he will never be entrusted with a creation of his own worlds without end. So there is risk involved: “The rule over the world is in the hands of God,” says Ben Sirach, “and at the right time He setteth over it one that is worthy”; but if that rule is ever exercised in an arbitrary or arrogant manner, it is quickly taken away and given to someone else.19 God tells Adam, “The beasts, over whom thou didst rule, shall rise up in rebellion against thee, for thou hast not kept my commandment”;20 all creatures are quick to recognize the hand of the oppressor and impostor.
Some of the profoundest human commentary is contained in the vast and ancient corpus literature of the animal fables, a protest literature in which the beasts bring accusation against the human race for their shabby performance in the days of their probation.21 They are, moreover, responsible for more than their own survival, for by God’s rule for the animals, “if humanity perishes, then all perish; but if man lives, then all may live.”22 What kills men destroys other forms of life as well, and having dragged them down with us in the Fall (“On account of thee,” they say, “our natures have been transformed”23), we are answerable for them: “The Lord will not judge a single animal for its treatment of man, but He will adjudge the souls of men towards their beasts in this world, for men have a special place.”24 A familiar early Jewish and Christian teaching was that the animals will appear at the bar of God’s judgment to accuse those humans who have wronged them.25 “Happy is he who glorifies all the works of the Lord, but cursed is he who offends the creation of the Lord; for nothing will go unnoticed and unrecorded.”26 Jesus referred to God’s intimate concern for all when he said of the sparrows, “not one of them is forgotten before God” (Luke 12:6), and has declared in these last days: “I, the Lord . . . make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures” (D&C 104:13).
G. R. Driver has recently called attention to an important but forgotten teaching: “Few, if any, readers of the Old Testament seem to have noticed that, as our text stands and as it can only be read without violating normal standards of interpretation, they are committed to the strange doctrine of the resurrection not only of man and of birds and beasts but also of . . . ‘gliding things innumerable’ which swim in the sea.” 27 Modern revelation confirms this: “For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth; . . . in heaven created I them” (Moses 3:5). “Every tree . . . that is pleasant to the sight of man . . . became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it” (Moses 3:9).
“Always keep in view,” Brigham Young exhorts us, “that the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms—the earth and its fulness—will all, except the children of men, abide their creation—the law by which they were made, and will receive their exaltation.”28 We are all going to move together into the eternities, and even now look forward to “heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; . . . the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created” (D&C 77:2). What an admonition to proceed with reverence and care! It is only because the Latter-day Saints are ignorant of these things, according to President Young, that God has not already cursed them for their brutal and callous treatment of God’s other creatures.29
Normative Judaism and Christianity, following the lead of Aristotle and the Doctors of Alexandria, have always rejected and resented the idea that animals might in any degree be classed with men, who alone, according to the perennial doctrine of the schools, enjoy the powers of speech and reason, the mark of divinity that sets them uniquely and absolutely apart. “Man is bound to treat dumb animals kindly and to abstain from unnecessary cruelty,” an eminent churchman has recently written, “not because these animals possess any real rights (for only intelligent beings can have real rights) but because they are creatures of God.”30 The “Latter-day Saints,” on the other hand, “do not take the view that animals have no reason, and cannot think. We have divine knowledge that each possesses a spirit in the likeness of its body, and that each was created spiritually before it was . . . given a body on the earth. Naturally, then, there is some measure of intelligence in members of the animal kingdom.”31 Animals do possess real rights, “for all things have an equal right to live[!]” as President Joseph F. Smith would say.32 We are told that early Christian groups avoided the eating of meat, not as the flesh of irrational beasts, but as belonging to creatures having rational souls. Schopenhauer observed that the two most serious defects of Christian teaching are (1) the denial of spirits to all creatures but man, and (2) of life to all worlds but this one. These closely related doctrines have formed the common ground on which fundamentalism and scientism have joined hands, the former horrified at the thought of being related to lower creatures than man, the latter scorning any suggestion that we might be related to higher ones.33
God and Satan both presented plans of dominion to Adam and then to his son Cain. The father chose one plan, the son the other. It must be admitted that the second proposition was a very tempting offer and very skillfully presented—”Satan tempted me” is the stock excuse for giving in. But we must go back to Adam to see how clever the thing really is.
The story is told not only of Adam but of the other great patriarchs as well. Noah was confronted by the same party with the same proposition while he was working in his garden after the flood.34 Abraham too had an Eden and an altar, and while he was once calling upon God in prayer, Satan suddenly showed up with an insolent “Here I am!” and proceeded with his sales pitch.35 Moses like Christ was tempted on a mountain, by the same person and with the same proposal: “If thou . . . wilt worship me, all shall be thine” (Moses 1:12—19, Luke 4:7). Adam is thus only the first; the elements of the story that follow are found in various combinations among the many texts of the growing Adam literature that is coming to light in our generation. The texts often take dramatic form, indicative of ritual origin.36
As Adam was praying one day, runs the story, a distinguished gentleman appeared on the scene and engaged him in conversation. There was nothing of the hippy or tramp about the stranger; he was well-dressed and came to Adam with cunning and smooth talk, as a true friend genuinely concerned for his welfare.37 He began with some harmless generalities—the weather and the scenery: it was, he observed, a most glorious and beautiful world. This was, however, by way of leading up to his next point, which was that he happened to be the owner and proprietor of it all. Yes sir, as far as the eye could see it was all his, and he tolerated no nonsense in it: nobody dared make trouble where he was in charge. This was all hokum, of course; “Satan never owned the earth; he never made a particle of it,” said Brigham Young; “his labor is not to create, but to destroy.”38 But to demonstrate his authority, when three strangers (usually described as angels)39 appeared on the scene at this moment, he at once challenged them as trespassers, asking them if they had any money. He explained to Adam that everything in his world could be had for money,40 and then got down to business. For the fellow was all business, a person of integrity, ready to keep his part of an agreement (the agreement always turns out to be a trap for the other party), pious and God-fearing,41 dedicated to hard work—he works, in fact, “like a demon.” He was there to offer Adam the chance of a lifetime to buy in on a scheme that would give him anything he wanted in this world. It was an ingenious and simple self-financing operation in which one would buy power with wealth and then more wealth with the power, until one might end up owning and controlling everything. The initial capital? It was right under their feet! You begin by taking the treasures of the earth, and by converting them to cash, gold, and silver, and exchanging them for the services of important people in key positions you end up running everything your way. What if your rule is one of blood and terror? “Better to reign in Hell,” as Milton’s Satan puts it, “than serve in Heaven.”42
Satan’s tempting proposition has been the theme of much popular legend and great literature. A transitional figure between the ritual and the literary is Pluto of Hades, the god of wealth: “All the riches of gems and precious metals hidden beneath the earth are his, but he owns no property above ground.”43 So he brutally kidnaps the fair Proserpine, who represents all the beauty and harmony of nature, to establish his claim over the earth;44 but the marriage is barren—Pluto can intimidate and coerce, but like his Egyptian counterpart Seth he can neither beget nor create; what he buys with the treasures of the earth is nothing but a rule of blood and horror.45 But Greek comedy and Roman satire depict with agonizing frankness the irresistible success of Pluto’s program in a decadent world. In Aristophanes’ last play, The Pluto, Hermes the messenger of Zeus comes to earth as a prophet to denounce mankind for having turned from the worship of heaven to the worship of wealth or Pluto: “You have all committed a great sin,” he says, “and must be destroyed.” But seeing how well the people are living, he soon decides to change sides and asks for a job with the establishment. Next, the high priest of Zeus, finding himself unemployed, is forced to apply to Pluto for a job; what is his surprise when he finds none other than Zeus himself now working in the front office of Pluto, Inc.46 The cynical conclusion is that no one can resist Satan’s bargain, and in the history of the world very few people have. The first to accept was Cain, who “loved Satan more than God,” though at Satan’s advice he continued to make offerings to the Lord (Moses 5:18, 21). The “great secret” of success that he learned from his new teacher was that he could get anything in this world by the calculated use of force, with no need to be ashamed, since it could all be done in the sacred name of freedom; instead of being appalled at the blood on his hands, Cain “gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the flocks [wealth, pecus, Vieh] of my brother falleth into my hands” (Moses 5:31—33). Cain slew Abel not, as we like to think, in a fit of passion but with cold calculation, “for the sake of getting gain” (Moses 5:50, 38). He was all business. As for the victim, he was quite able to take care of himself, and if he failed, that, by the rules of the new game, was his hard luck: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Significantly enough, when this forthright, no-nonsense economy, unencumbered by enervating sentimentality, worked against Cain, he straightway became a “bleeding-heart” in his own behalf, and appealed for the mercy he would not give. “My punishment is greater than I can bear!” (Genesis 4:13). In making an example of Cain, God absolutely forbade the use of Cain’s own methods against him: “Whoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold” (Moses 5:40; Genesis 4:15).
One of the best-known teachings of the Jews is that when man (Israel in particular) falls away from God, all nature becomes his enemy.47 Modern revelation confirms this: when all the people became wicked in Enoch’s day, “the earth trembled, and the mountains fled; . . . and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness” (Moses 7:13). Just so, in the last days “all the growing things will be blighted by the . . . great lawlessness, and plagues will come over all creatures of all the earth.”48 Where people refuse the gospel, according to Brigham Young, “that land eventually . . . will become desolate, forlorn, and forsaken,” as nature refuses her bounties.49
The explanation of this all-out hostility is simple. “The animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms abide the law of their Creator; the whole earth and all things pertaining to it, except man, abide the law of their creation,” while “man, who is the offspring of the Gods, will not become subject to the most reasonable and self-exalting principles.”50 With all things going in one direction, men, stubbornly going in the opposite direction, naturally find themselves in the position of one going the wrong way on the freeway during rush hour; the struggle to live becomes a fight against nature. Having made himself allergic to almost everything by the Fall, man is given the choice of changing his nature so that the animal and vegetable creation will cease to afflict and torment him,51 or else of waging a truceless war of extermination against all that annoys him until he renders the earth completely uninhabitable.
This second course is Cain’s dominion. Satan, spitefully determined to destroy everything that God has commanded to live and multiply, began his earthly career by making war on the birds and fishes and systematically destroying the animals and trees. This, we are told, was because he was envious of the beautiful rapport that existed between Adam and the animals.52 Next, under the administration of his pupil Cain, all the forests of the earth rapidly disappeared, while that hero wandered through the earth with his bow for 130 years, looking for anything to kill—”a human angel of death.”53 While Noah refused Satan’s plan to divide up the world and rule with an iron hand,54 his sons accepted it, each driving out from his property all the animals as trespassers, so that the beasts that had loved Noah began to fear and hate man.55 In particular, Ham organized secret combinations “to work iniquity and to shed much blood . . . and after this, they sinned against the beasts and birds, and all that moves and walks on the earth.”56 Next Ham’s son Nimrod, the mighty hunter who boasted that no animal could escape his bow, turned that bow against men as well as animals and so subdued all things to his will, ruling all the earth with his inspired violence. He was the mortal enemy and rival of Abraham, and whereas Abraham gave Adam’s blessing to the beasts, “Nimrod ordered thousands of . . . cattle brought, . . . and sacrificed them.”57 This he was able to do through possession of the garment of the priesthood that had once belonged to Adam and that Ham had stolen from Noah. Seeing him in this garment, all creatures willingly came and submitted to him, mistaking the dominion of Cain for the dominion of Adam.58 From Nimrod, Esau, another hunter, inherited the garment but lost it to Jacob, from whom it passed down to Moses, who when it wore out replaced it with a garment of cotton or hair rather than skins to avoid the shedding of animal blood.59
These interesting old stories might be dismissed as literary oddities were it not that annals and chronicles of real history, “a continual scene of wickedness and abominations” (Mormon 2:18), are completely dominated by the Nimrod type. “The greatest acts of the mighty men” proclaim the nature of their dominion. “Before them the earth was a paradise,” said Joseph Smith, “and behind them a desolate wilderness.” There is another plan: “The designs of God, on the other hand,” are that “the earth shall yield its increase, resume its paradisean glory, and become as the garden of the Lord.”60 Meanwhile, when “we see all the world trying to lord it over God’s heritage,” we can be sure that “it is in the spirit that the evil principle and power is trying to overcome and rule over the divine principle planted there. This constantly leads the children of men astray.”61 To render its appeal irresistible, the program is pushed by a clever rhetoric and high ethical tone; Babylon has never wanted for dedicated and highly paid apologists to justify the ways of those who “seek for power, and authority, and riches” (3 Nephi 6:15; Hebrews 13:26—28).
Man’s dominion is a call to service, not a license to exterminate. It is precisely because men now prey upon each other and shed the blood and waste the flesh of other creatures without need that “the world lieth in sin” (D&C 49:19—21). Such, at least, is the teaching of the ancient Jews and of modern revelation.
* This article was printed as “Subduing the Earth” in Nibley on the Timely and Timeless (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 85—89; it also appeared as “Man’s Dominion,” New Era 2 (October 1972): 24—31, and New Era 11 (January—February 1981): 46—53.
1. Hugh W. Nibley, Approaching Zion (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and F.A.R.M.S., 1989), CWHN 9:166, 276, 436.
2. The Septuagint renders the two words “rule throughout” (katakyrieusate) and “be first” or “govern” (archete). Both the Hebrew words have the two main ideas of (1) bringing pressure to bear, and (2) treading the earth and walking about on it. Very ancient parallels suggest that the original idea was that of the new master of the earth going about on his royal rounds of inspection and discovery, as we read in the Egyptian Coffin Texts, Spells 80, 132, 136. See also Adriaan de Buck, The Egyptian Coffin Texts, 7 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), 2:27—43, 152—57, 160—65.
3. Clementine Recognitions III, 61, in PG 1:1308. Each usurper claimed to be a “cosmocrator,” or Ruler of the Universe.
4. JD 9:168.
5. Nicolas Sed, “Une cosmologie juive du haut moyen âge. La Bĕraytā di Maʿaseh Berēšīt,” Revue des etudes juives 124 (1965): 48—51.
6. Micha Josef bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, 5 vols. (Frankfurt: Rütten and Loening, 1913), 1:83, 354.
7. Elden J. Watson, Manuscript History of Brigham Young 1846—1847 (Salt Lake City: Watson, 1971), 142—43 (26 April 1846).
8. Gérard Encausse, The Qabalah (Great Britain: Thorsons, 1977), 224—25.
9. Rabbi Nehemiah, in William G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 2 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), Psalm 1:5 (cf. 1:8).
10. Bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, 2:137, 424, citing a number of sources.
11. Cf. Zohar 13b.
12. Discussed by Hugh W. Nibley, “The Hierocentric State,” in Western Political Quarterly 4 (1951): 235—44; reprinted in CWHN 10:110—23.
13. 4 Ezra 8:47, in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), 2:597.
14. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 37:1 (1:422—23); Midrash Proverbs 23:17a; Bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, 2:268—69, 428.
15. Book of Adam and Eve 8:3, in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2:135; Genesis 2:19—20.
16. Bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, 2:288.
17. According to the Pure Brethren of Basra, ever since Cain slew Abel, the animals have followed the example of man; see the Arabic text in Fredrich Dieterici, Thier und Mensch vor dem König der Genien (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1881), 36; cf. A. Vaillant, Livre des Secrets d’Henoch (Paris: Institut d’Etudes Slaves, 1952), 57—59, chap. 15 of the text. The teaching is attested to in very early times: L. Kákosy, “Ideas about the Fallen State of the World in Egyptian Religion: Decline of the Golden Age,” Acta Orientalia 17 (1964): 205—16.
18. TPJS, 71.
19. Ben Sirach 10:4.
20. Book of Adam and Eve, 24:4, in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudipigrapha of the Old Testament, 2:147.
21. Perhaps the most impressive treatment of the theme is the entire volume of Dieterici, Thier und Mensch.
22. Bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, 1:198.
23. Apocalypse of Moses 11:2; Jubilees III, 28, in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2:16—17.
24. Secrets of Enoch 58:4—5, in ibid., 2:464; cf. Vaillant, Livre des Secrets d’Henoch, 57.
25. Vaillant, Livre des Secrets d’Henoch, 57.
27. G. R. Driver, “The Resurrection of Marine and Terrestrial Creatures,” Journal of Semitic Studies 7 (1962): 12.
28. JD 8:191.
29. JD 15:227.
30. Francis J. Connell, “What about the Animals?” American Ecclesiastical Review 146 (1962): 270.
31. Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954), 194.
32. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine (1970—71 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual), 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 1:372 (emphasis added).
33. On the problem of preserving man’s uniqueness and dignity, cf. A. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964), 121—23. Synesius, in PG 66:1289, 1292, recognizes both upward and downward relationships.
34. Midrash Rabbah Noah 36:3; Bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, 1:228.
35. Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 6 vols. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967), 1:270—72; Testament of Abraham 16:6—10; K. Kohler, “The Pre-Talmudic Haggada,” Jewish Quarterly Review 7 (1895): 589.
36. Some of the old sources describing the confrontation of Adam and Satan are the Testament of Adam; various “Adam Books”; The Lives of Adam and Eve; The Cave of Treasures; The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan; sources in Bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, 1:92—94, 254—56; Manichaean Hymn Book; Thaʿlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyā; Testament of Abraham; Apocalypse of Moses; Slavic Adam and Eve; Secrets of Enoch; Theodosius, Abbatôn; The Precious Jewel; Midrash, etc.
37. Kohler, “Pre-Talmudic Haggada,” 589.
38. JD 10:320.
39. They are the “Sent Ones” who come to instruct Adam.
40. The theme is dramatically treated in the Testament of Job 6—7, 22—23, where Satan says, “pay the price and take what you like!”
41. To Moses he even claims to be the son of God (Moses 1:19); he speaks only with reverence of the Father as his father.
42. John Milton, Paradise Lost 1:263.
43. Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: Penguin, 1955), 31e (1:122).
44. Homer, Hymn to Demeter, lines 16—21.
45. Graves, The Greek Myths, 31d—f (1:121—22); on Seth, Erik Hornung, review of J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Origins of Osiris, and H. Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, in Orientaliche Literaturzeitung 65 (1970): 19; Siegfried Schott, Sieg über Seth (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1929), 18.
46. Gilbert Murray, Aristophanes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1933), 206.
47. Discussed by Oscar Holtzmann, “Die Schafe werden sich in Wölfe verwandeln,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 11 (1910): 231, 226—27.
48. Apocalypse of Abraham 29:16, in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 704.
49. MS 38:344.
50. JD 9:246.
51. See JD 1:203: When man changes his nature, “every animal and creeping thing will be filled with peace; the soil of the earth will bring forth in its strength.”
52. Psalms of Thomas I, 25—37, in C. R. C. Allberry, ed., A Manichaean Song Book (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938), 203—4; Bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, 1:151, on the destruction of the forest; ibid., on Satan’s jealousy of the animals.
53. Bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, 1:148—49, 151.
54. Midrash Rabbah Noah 36:3.
55. Bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, 1:226.
56. Jubilees 8:23—24, in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2:22.
57. Jewish Encyclopedia, 12 vols. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1905), 9:310.
58. Pirkê de Rabbi Eleazer, Gerald Friedlander, tr. (New York: Hermon, 1965), 175, chap. XXIV; Sperling and Simon, Zohar, 1:249—251, Noah 73b.
59. Robert Eisler, Iēsous Basileus ou Basileusas, 2 vols. (Heidelberg: Winters, 1929), 2:34.
60. TPJS, 248—49.
61. JD 9:107.