Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 25.1 (March 1973) 4-9.

Copyright © 1973 by American Scientific Affiliation, cited with permission.


Biblical Perspectives

on the Ecology Crises


Carl E. Armerding

Regent College

Vancouver 8, B.C., Canada




Is There a Crisis?

     Professor Kenneth Hare of the University of Toronto

recently answered the questionl by dividing people and

publications into 3 categories.  First, and perhaps most

vocal today, are the alarmists, many of whom are prof-

iting immensely by writing and speaking on a kind

of apocalyptic level, who see the technological society

as having created a monster which, if unchecked, will

swallow up both man and nature within a few short

years.  Hare suggests that much of this group's concern

is with what he calls "nuisance pollution", i.e., the kind

of thing like cloud or smog factors created by man in

a city resulting in a slightly decreased aesthetic or com-

fort state, but hardly a major threat to life.

     A second group consists of those who attempt to de-

bunk the whole pollution effort.  There is still land for

more people, there are still many resources for develop-

ment, and we have always been able to develop new

methods and resources when the old were exhausted.

After all, when coal supplies ran short, we hardly

noticed the loss.  Why not recognize that new forms of

energy, new synthetic materials for construction, new

ways of increasing our ability to feed ourselves, and

new social structures making it possible for even greater,





numbers to live on this planet are all just around the


     In a third group (the golden mean) Hare places

himself.  His concern is with what he calls "transcendent"

pollution--i.e., the relatively few but vitally important

factors that affect not one area but the entire ecosphere.

In such a category he would include the population

explosion, the problem of non-renewable resources, and

the problem of atmospheric and water pollutants now

present in the world-wide system of the earth's surface.

It is not my purpose to referee this debate.  Rather, I

should like to suggest that, whatever our view of the

seriousness of the problem, there is an area in which

we must develop a response.  Even the most optimistic

'de-bunker' of the ecology crisis is functioning on the

basis of a philosophy--usually a philosophy built on an

unlimited confidence in man and his ability to control

his own destiny.  And, because our response inevitably

involves values, and values in our Judeo-Christian

society have always related to Biblical religion, I feel we

can and should begin our search for a value-structure

at that point.  Especially for us, as evangelicals, there is

a mandate for a fresh look at our sources, partially be-

cause they are under attack in ecological circles, but

more basically because we purport to find in them "all

things necessary for life and godliness".

    What then does the Bible say to guide our response

to the problems of ecology?  Does it speak with a clear

voice in favor of concern or does it, perchance, leave

us in the embarrassing position of 'drop-out' from the

company of the concerned, or worse yet, does it provide

us with a mandate for exploitation of the worst sort?

To these questions my paper will attempt an answer.


Approach to the Crisis:  Ecological or Theological?

     Perhaps at this point we should pause to consider

the criticism of the "theological strategy" offered by

          BIBLICAL  PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY               5b


Prof. Richard Wright in a recent article.2  Dr. Wright

suggests that an "ecological strategy" (i.e., educate

people to see that a proper use of their environment is

beneficial in terms of their own quality of life) is more

effective than a theological one, as Christian churches

have neither the ability to agree on a particular theolog-

ical strategy, nor the ability to influence the secular

majority in our society.  The theological approach must

be, therefore, merely a supplement to the more prag-

matic, realistic appeal to self-preservation which secular

man can understand.

     I question whether one can separate the two, even to

the limited extent proposed by Dr. Wright.  If ecological

decisions are to be made at all they must be made in

the context of a human value system.  Who is to say

that self-preservation is a strong enough motive for

action, especially when, for those in affluent parts

of the world, it usually is a problem of assuring the next

generation's survival not our own?  What will convince

the consumer of wood and paper, the traveler in his

fume-spewing automobile, or the land-speculator pro-

tecting his investment that to modify his behavior

severely is necessary?  I suggest that a theological con-

viction, though traditionally limited in its appeal, may

make more sense in the context of an increasingly

apocalyptic debate than even the appeal to an en-

lightened self-interest.  Though we may never convert

the world, we may, as Christians, better set our own

response and activity in the context of a Biblical world-

view, and thus convince contemporary leaders to follow

after what we believe is good.  It was not, after all,

through the conversion of all England that Granville

Sharpe, William Wilberforce and John Newton brought

about the end of child labor and the slave trade.  It was

rather by formulating a course of action growing out

of a Christian world-view, convincing themselves and

some influential contemporaries of its rightness, and

          BIBLICAL  PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY               5c


then seeking legislation on the subject. Thus, I opt for

a theological approach.  But, which theology shall we

espouse?  At least three options are available and I shall

discuss them in turn.


Theological Approaches

     1. Attack the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Attacks on

the Judeo-Christian tradition and its view of nature are

by now familiar to most of us. Wright (and others)

quotes Ian McHarg's Design with Nature3 in which

man's "bulldozer mentality" is traced to Genesis 1 and

its alleged "sanction and injunction to conquer nature--

the enemy, the threat to Jehovah".  We shall have more

to say presently about this kind of reasoning; suffice

it to note for the moment that such a charge is certainly

open to question, Biblically if not also historically.

     2. Modify the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Not all at-

tacks on Biblical theology have come from outside the

Christian church.  It is significant that Lynn White, in

some ways the father of modern discussion of the sub-

ject, recognized that the roots of the problem were

religious and himself claims to be a faithful church-

man.4  His thoughts on the subject have been reprinted

in the Journal ASA and the questionable nature of their

claim to represent Christian dogma faithfully has already

been examined.5  However, it should be noted that many

who claim to follow the Christian tradition are, in one

way or another, supporting the contention made by

White.  A United Church minister in Vancouver recently

called for a rejection of Genesis 1 as the basis of a new

theology.  On a more academic level, Frederick Elder,

a Presbyterian minister, in his book Crisis in Eden6, has

zeroed in on the so-called "J" account of creation, as

contained in Genesis 2:4b ff., with its anthropocentric

view of the world, as the real culprit.  Elder sees some

hope for redemption in the "P" document from Ch. 1

(despite its offensive vv. 26-27), an account in which

          BIBLICAL  PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY               5d


man is at least placed on some equal level with other

parts of creation.  Man is at least chronologically last in

the "P" version, in opposition to the "J" document

wherein Adam is first to appear and he then names the

animals (a very significant function in light of Hebrew

psychology surrounding the name.)

     Elder goes on to divide mankind, and especially

theological mankind, into two groups.  The "exclusion-

ists", represented by such "traditional" Christians as

Harvey Cox, Herbert Richardson, and Teilhard de

Chardin, advocate the kind of anthropocentrism of

Genesis 2.  To them man is king, his technology repre-

sents the height of redemption from the old "sacred

grove" concept, wherein God and nature were never

distinguished, and his dominance of the physical world

is but a step in the direction of the ultimate kingdom of

CARL E. ARMERDING                    6a


God.  Of course, there are major differences among such

thinkers as I have mentioned, and Elder would be the

first to acknowledge such, but all have in common a view

that God has somehow ordained that man shall be the

master of nature and, as its despot (whether benevolent

or otherwise is debated) does the work of God in

subduction of what is basically a godless and hostile


      His second group, styled the "inclusionists", represents

Elder himself, along with such Christian and marginally

Christian thinkers as George H. Williams, McHarg,

Rachel Carson, and Loren Eiseley.  Theologically he

finds roots of the position in Calvin and H. R. Niebuhr,

in each of whom there is present that holy regard for

Mother Earth that Rudolf Otto has called a "sense of

the numinous".

     Elder is suggesting that Christian theology must rid

itself of its anthropocentrism and begin to see the earth

as a self-contained biosphere in which man is little more

than a plant parasite (to use McHarg's terminology).

He must see himself no longer as custodian of but

rather a "part” of the environment.  Along with this de-

throning, or more properly abdication, of the king of

the earth, will come a fresh sense of man's worth as an

individual, unique in his ability to perceive eternity in

various forms of natural history, and set over against a

view of man as the collective, the mechanical, the

technical master of the world's fate.  In short, there must

remain in man that mysterious sense of wonder as he

stands before the burning bush, though that bush be the

heart of a simple seed.7

     A critique of such a view must consider first whether

it is Biblical and second, whether it has drawn adequate

and accurate conclusions from the sources it has used.

Turning to the second point first, I would contend that

Otto's "sense of the numinous" is by no means restricted

to persons with a so-called "biocentric" world view, nor

CARL E. ARMERDING                    6b


is there any real conflict between a truly Biblical anthro-

pocentricity and the concern for ecology Elder sets forth

as a goal.  Certainly Calvin, for one, quoted by Elder

as having an "inclusionist's" sense of wonder at creation,

was firmly in the anthropocentic camp when he wrote

''as it was chiefly for the sake of mankind that the world

was made, we must look to this as the end which God

has in view in the government of it."8  Although any

attempt to see in Calvin the concerns of modern ecology

is doomed beforehand, there is still here a valid example

of what I should like to show as a Biblical anthropocen-

trism combined with the necessary attitudes for dealing

with today's heightened concerns.

      Elder's view has many other problems, but rather

than offer a critique of Elder I will suggest a Biblical

alternative.  Let me say at the start that I am convinced

that all talk of man's abdication, of a biospheric world-

view, and of a sense of mere equality with the animal

and plant world is not Biblical, Christian, or practical.

In the appeal to St. Francis of Assisi, in the blur created

between man and nature and in the almost personaliza-

tion of the natural world one senses more than a hint of

a pantheistic response.  I suggest that, in a Biblical view,

nature has a derived dignity as the separate and sub-

ordinate creation of a transcendent God.  Man has his

God-given role as under-Lord, as manager and keeper,

and is possessed of a cultural mandate which includes

submission of any hostile forces and just as importantly,

dominion over friendly forces.  In this he is a partner

with God who created him and, were it not for the Fall

into sin (which Elder and most theological writers on

the subject seem to ignore), he might have brought

about the kingdom of God on earth and found out the

deepest secrets of his biosphere en route.

CARL E. ARMERDING                    6c




     Any Biblical perspective on ecology must begin with

a Biblical view of God.  In this sense, a Biblical world

view is really theocentric rather than either anthropo-

centric or biocentric.  Significantly, Genesis 1 begins

this point and I argue that any value system or truth

structure without such a starting point must quickly

reduce to subjectivity.  The very extent to which nature

is meaningful, whether in a pantheistic, animistic, or

Christian sense, is a derivative of the view of God

espoused.  The God of the Bible is a God who is there

prior to any and all creation.  Though He can stoop to

converse with his creatures (witness the anthropomorph-

isms of Genesis 2, to say nothing of the incarnation of

Jesus Christ) he is still consistently presented as above

and beyond any and all of his works.  In a masterful

summary delivered on the Areopagus in Athens, St. Paul

said of this God that He made the world and every-

thing in it (Acts 17:24).  He is the source of life, breath

and everything else and He is the determining force in

created history, but never can be reduced to any spatial

context that man can identify and enshrine. Thus, our

love of nature must be in the context of it as the handi-

work of the Almighty and not as some part of God

(i.e., pantheism).

     Such a view is important because it has not always

been universally held, and we are in position to examine

the results of alternate views.  It should be self-evident

that such a view of a Creator-God endows nature as well

as man with a real dignity, but dignity for nature, at

least, can also be derived from pantheism.  But what are

the implications if we lower God to the level of nature

or raise nature to the level of God?

      We have a model for this in the Babylonian view of

the universe. "Enuma Elish", representing Babylonian

cosmology in the 3rd and 2nd millenium before Christ,

CARL E. ARMERDING                    6d


has the usual pagan pantheon, but the notable fact is

that the world was created out of certain gods and each

element in the universe furthermore represented the

personality and will of a particular deity. Thus, deriving

from its view of god, the society came to view nature

not as an "it" but a "Thou".9  Such language, reproduced

on a more sophisticated plane, and overlaid with a

residual Judeo-Christian world-view, is seen again in

many of Elder's favorite "inclusionists", and even Lynn

White himself seems to long for the good old days when

the groves were sacred.

     For the Christian, however, God must be the God

of creation.  The grove may be perceived as a wonder

of order and beauty, but it must never be given the

robe of divine dignity.  Its meaning to man must be

derived from the fact of its createdness rather than its

essence.  Its mystery must be that God has created it

and given it properties for man to study and marvel at,

          BIBLICAL  PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY               7a


but never worship or fear.  For the Babylonians no such

confidence in the grove existed.  It was feared, not ap-

preciated.  It was irregular and capricious in its person-

ality, not in any sense the ordered subject of scientific

investigation we know today.  It possessed a sense of

authority, but even that authority was no guarantee

against the sudden return of chaos.  All of this, which

we call cosmology, is clearly dependent on one's view

of God, and I can hardly emphasize sufficiently the

force and majesty of the Hebrew concept of a depend-

able and transcendent Creator as presented in Genesis

chapter 1.

      Nor is the transcendence of God absent in the so-called

2nd account of creation.  In Genesis 2:4 we find God

again completely in control of His work, creating (lit:

"making"; Hebrew 'asah) the earth and the heavens.  No

primitive mythology is here; rather there is a God who

can be close to his creation and even direct its affairs

personally, but who Himself is above it, beyond it and

outside it.  Again the view of the world is theocentric

rather than anthropocentric or biocentric.  It is this God

who tells Adam to till and keep the garden.



      The inclusionists" tell us we must rid ourselves of

Biblical views of nature and return to a kind of neo-

pantheism, a resurrection of the sacred grove, which has

to mean some kind of independent element of deity

within the natural order.  But what is the Biblical view?

Is nature a worthless mass of material to be exploited

and left to rot as man sates himself in luxury, while

trampling underfoot his environment?  Some would have

us believe that this is the implication in Genesis 1:26-28.

Elder attempts to convince us that the Biblical picture

degrades nature at the expense of exalting man, but

does the Genesis account actually reflect such a state of


          BIBLICAL  PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY               7b


     We have already seen in both Genesis accounts that

the created order is radically separate from God.  Up to

the sixth day, with its creation of man, each natural

element brought into being finds its meaning in ful-

filling a role cast for it in the benevolent order of things.

Light dispels darkness and we have day.  The firmament

keeps the waters separated.  The dry land provides a

platform for vegetation which in turn feeds all the living

creatures.  The seas become in their turn an environment

for the fish and swarming creatures.  The two great

lights rule (or give order to) the principle parts of the

cycle: day and night.  And finally man, as the highest

of the created order, serves to keep all of the rest in

order, functioning smoothly.  In fact, it is in Genesis 1

with its penchant for order and its transcendent and

over-arching concept of a purposeful universe, that a

truly balanced cosmological system can be found--and

this in the very document that is supposed to down-

grade nature by its command for man to subdue and

have dominion.  In this document creation is seen as

orderly (note the structure in the chapter), it is re-

peatedly stated to be good, and it is throughout seen to

be serving a great and noble purpose.

     Genesis 2 has relatively little to add, as it is, funda-

mentally, a treatise on the nature of man and his mean-

ing in the structure.  However, contrary again to what

we might expect in an "anthropocentric" account10

Genesis 2 also argues for a healthy respect for environ-

ment.  Indeed for most ecologists who concern them-

selves with the Bible at all, Genesis 2 is more palatable

than Gen. 1.  Here the garden is full of "every tree that

is pleasant to the sight and good for food" (v. 9).  Here

man's mandate is even expressed in more ecologically

desirable terms.  No longer is he to conquer and subdue,

but rather to "till (lit: work) and guard (Hebr: shamar,

keep)" the treasure entrusted to him.  True, its value is

cast in terms of its usefulness for man, but at least

          BIBLICAL  PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY               7c


one tree had a value totally separate from any use man

was to make of it.  Note however, that Harvey Cox

and Herbert Richardson, with their anthropocentric

universe, are really closer to the mark here than is Elder

and his so-called "biocentrists", though neither has

grasped the full fact that theocentrism must precede

either second option.  Cox and Richardson sometimes

lose sight of the fact that it is the garden of God, not

Adam, no matter how central Adam may appear in the


     Further testimony to the value and wonder of nature

is not wanting in other parts of scripture.  There is the

familiar and majestic Psalm 19, "The heavens declare

the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handi-

work. . ."  Add to this the prologue of Psalm 8--"When

I consider Thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the

moon and the stars which thou hast ordained--What is

man. . . "  Or Psalm 104, a marvelous Creation hymn

in which nature's beauties are celebrated so graphically,

but the whole is carefully set in a context pointing to

man's utilization of nature as the real purpose of all its

beauty and productivity.  The springs in the valleys give

drink to the beasts of the field and the earth is satisfied

with the fruit of God's creative works.  But all is

ultimately for the service of man (v. 14) whether

directly (as when man drinks water) or eventually (as

in the wine and bread made from the plants which

drink from the springs).  Any suggestion that the rela-

tionship is exploitive or that nature is degraded by

relegation to a utilitarian function is, of course, non-

sensical.  It is only when man's greed and lack of ap-

preciation of his own proper role becomes a factor that

nature is trampled underfoot.  In fact, again nature's

real meaning comes from her role in the sphere of

created orders, and in her proper role she shines.

One final word should be said on the destiny of the

natural world.  Biblical theology is well aware that we

          BIBLICAL  PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY               7d


live in no pristine Garden of Eden and that we are not

likely to restore such a paradise, as things now stand.

The reasons for this I discuss in more detail presently.

But the Biblical writers never lost sight of the fact that

God's original purpose for nature was that it should

freely reflect His glory in a state of untrammeled beauty.

Man was, from the beginning, to be the center of this

paradise, and all things were to function in a harmonious

relationship to man.  Thus, when the prophet Isaiah

speaks of the new heavens and new earth, (ch. 65:17)

his covenant includes terms for harmony within both

plant and animal kingdom:  vineyards bear fruit, wolf

and lamb feed together and none hurt or destroy in all

God's holy mountain.  This ideal of a cosmic element in

redemption, combining the theme of creation from

CARL E. ARMERDING                    8a


Genesis and that of redemption from Exodus, is no-

where more pronounced than in the later chapters of

Isaiah and is taken up in Paul's letter to the Romans,

Ch. 8 vv. 19-25.  There the whole creation is seen with

an earnest or eager longing (lit: an uplifted head in

expectation) for the day when she shall be freed from

bondage and obtain liberty to function without her

present decay.  Just when this shall become a reality,

and particularly the relation it has to our own environ-

mental efforts, is not clear.  What it does say is that

God's purpose for the natural world is not abandoned,

and the very "hope" which is here expressed for the

natural order should lend continuing dignity to our

efforts in the field of ecology.  When we work to free

nature from some of the effects of man's sin we are

upholding that which is "good" in God's sight, and

expressing a commitment to a program which will find

its consummation in some form of eschatological king-

dom of God.  That we can never hope to complete the

process no more renders the charge futile than does our

inability to finally eliminate poverty, racism, broken

homes, or disease.  In fact, by the demonstration of a

Christian concern we are witnesses to the continued

expression of God's ultimate purposes in the world.



     The key to the discussion lies in a theology of man.

We have already sensed that the fly in the ecological

ointment is man himself--his greed, his self-centered

economic motivation, his desire for the kind of "free-

dom" which regards any restraints as odious.

     For the inclusionists the answer seems to be found

in reducing man to the level of nature, in ridding him of

this Biblical anthropocentrism where he sees himself

as something inherently of more value than "many

sparrows".  My own, and I think the Bible's, answer lies

in quite the opposite direction.  Both creation accounts

place man at the pinnacle of creation, whether in terms

CARL E. ARMERDING                    8b


of its climactic event (as in Ch. 1) or its primary inter-

mediary (Ch. 2, in which man is first formed and then

completes creation through his naming of the animals).

In the former account he is given dominion which

separates him from the animals and is thus a primary

element in working out the imago dei within him. Thus,

by his creation, he already represents the highest

potential for biological development and we may not,

with Loren Eiseley, expect that something greater may

yet come along.

     As the highest form of the created order, he is to be

lord of nature, not part of it.  Herein lies the origin of

science and technology, and the inclusionists seem at

times to be calling for a return to the state existing prior

to the neolithic revolution, where man would again take

his place as a gatherer and predator, but would abandon

his role as organizer, producer, and planner.  Such an

option is, of course, a practical impossibility, as I'm sure

most inclusionists would admit.  We simply know too

much science and technology, and furthermore we have

the brainpower to duplicate the process again, even if

rolled back to square zero by some catastrophic event.

    But what are the Biblical restraints on man in his

lordly role?  I think herein lies the key.  Herein is the

forgotten element in most of human development,

herein is the weakness in any truly anthropocenric

world-view. For, as C. F. D. Moule has so cogently

pointed out in his small but weighty book, Man and

Nature in the NT,11 man is never seen just as lord, but

as lord under God.  Moule uses the term vice-regent or

sub-manager.  Man derives his meaning from God whose

program, though it from the beginning offered man the

kingdom, included a recognition of God's ultimate lord-

ship over all creation and saw man as a responsible

steward, not an independent tyrant.  Every tree of the

garden was given to man, but there were rules.  Dominion

was given (never, by the way, as a license to exploit

CARL E. ARMERDING                    8c


but it was dominion within (as Elder himself points

out) a created order, the violation of which would

naturally lead to imbalance and disaster.  There is no

such thing for Biblical man as unlimited freedom un-

limited rights.  His freedom is that of the operator of a

beautifully functioning machine.  As long as he treats

the machine with respect and uses it in a way consistent

with the functions and properties of the machine, he

may continue to exercise his managerial function with

no problems.  But when he ignores the rules and decides

he can ignore the complexities of his machine and the

instructions left by its maker, his freedom is lost and he

becomes the destroyer both of the machine and his own

function as its lord.

     Now man, through his overthrow of the rules (Bibli-

cally summarized in Genesis 3) has brought slavery

both to himself and his universe.  Of course, enough of

God's image remains within him so that he can still

exercise a powerful technical control and he can for a

while appear to be creating a kingdom of his own quite

independently of that kingdom promised "where

dwelleth righteousness".  But now the books on the city

of man are beginning to be audited, and it appears that

this city has one grave and mortal fault.  It simply cannot

overcome the selfish desires of its own citizens, even

when those desires threaten to destroy the whole king-


     The options we are given are all insufficient.  Ecolo-

gists (and Richard Wright) appeal to self-preservation

but existence without meaning becomes a farce.  Lynn

White, Richard Means and others seem to be calling

for man to abdicate his role as king of the world, but

this would simply leave the whole process with no


     I believe the only real solution is to restore the

created order that freedom it lost, by freeing men from

their bondage to sin and self and then showing how

CARL E. ARMERDING                    8d


they, in turn, may progressively set their environment

free from the bondage into which it has been placed

This will demand a realistic view of man's problem

and perhaps the Achilles Heel of almost all modern

theological attempts at solution is that they discuss

creation in terms of Gen. 1 and 2, but ignore Gen. 3

     In setting a man free Jesus Christ did not promise

instant return to paradise. Though the head of the

serpent has been bruised, thorns and thistles continue

to come forth, I do not believe we will ever see a real

ecological, or social harmony, until that day when the

glorious liberty of the children of God shall become

universal for all creation.  But let us never forget that

in Christ, we are already free, and we can, despite the

weaknesses of the "flesh", began to demonstrate our

freedom by applying it to the many institutions of our

          BIBLICAL  PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY               9a


social order.  Christians have often failed to live as free

men (hence the continued presence of race prejudice

and materialism among us) but where they have

grasped the meaning of redemption (as witness the

Clapham Sect in England or the Abolitionist preachers

of New England), the effect on their world has been

magnificent.  The kingdom of God still awaits an

eschatological consummation, but this has never pre-

vented citizens of that kingdom from acting out in this

kingdom the principles of that other.  And the unique

Biblical fact is that in some mysterious sense, that new

order, the new heaven and the new earth, seem to be

a re-creation or restoration of that order we now know!

What exactly is the connection I cannot tell, but the

very fact of the identification lends tremendous force

and dignity to my weakest efforts at freeing this order

from its bondage to sin.




lIn lectures given at Regent College, Vancouver, B. C., Summer,


2Christian Scholars Review (Vol. I, No.1, pp. 35-40).

3Garden City, N. Y.: Natural History Press, 1969, p. 26.

4Science (Vol. 155,1967), as quoted in the Journal of the ASA.

(June, 1969, Vol. 21, No.2, p. 45)

5ibid., 43-47.

6Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970, p. 87.

7Much of this terminology comes from Elder's favorite "inclu-

          sionist", Loren Eiseley.

8Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk. I, Ch. XVI, Sect. 6.

9T. Jacobsen in Before Philosophy (H. Frankfort, et al, eds.),

Pelican Books, 1949, p. 142.

l0 Elder, loc cit., p. 84.

11 Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967


This material is cited with gracious permission from:

American Scientific Affiliation:  ASA
                P.O. Box 668
            Ipswich, MA 01938

Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: