HISTORY-ECONOMIC THOUGHT 125 (001) (Fall 2020)

THE GENESIS PARADIGM: CREATION, EXPLOITATION, AND THE INVISIBLE HAND Craig B. McLaren University of California, Riverside

“Economics is a “dismal” science

because it assumes man to be selfish and money grubbing1”

Milton Friedman

“No one can serve two masters . . . You cannot serve God and money.”2

Matt 6:24

0) Abstract

This paper treats the twin creation stories in Genesis (Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 and Genesis 2:4 – 3:24) as separate parables that define humankind’s intended role within creation. The main points made by the parables are: 1) The universe is the product of an intentional design, over which humankind has been given agency. Our species has the ability to manipulate nature. Along with such ability comes the responsibility for using such to maximize the wellbeing of creation as a whole. 2) Humans betray their agency when they exploit nature (and each other) for their own ends. Such betrayal explains the hardship that befalls civilized humanity. From the concept of intentional design, this paper argues that Christ’s “golden rule” is the standard of “rational behavior” under which human institutions work most efficiently. It is further argued the concept of “self love” originally put forth by Adam Smith is in agreement with the “golden rule”. Finally, this paper is argues that “rational self interest”, popularly interpreted by economists as selfishness, is a gross misinterpretation of Smith. It is in essence “the fall of man” and hence is socially destructive.

1) Introduction The biblical creation story stands as an anathema to many in modern society. To a scientific audience, it represents a dogmatic account of historical “facts” which one must accept on faith, along with blind superstition that shackles its believers to fear of the unknown. To many raised in the Christian Church, the story of Adam and Eve is a source of shame. With dismay, they ask why a loving God would have created humankind in a depraved “fallen” state that should require blood sacrifice to be acceptable to himself. What I shall argue is that the twin creation stories in Genesis are most productively read as a parables describing who humankind is, and his/her

1 Friedman (1953) p.30 2 Matt 6:26 NASV Bible (1973)

Craig McLaren The Genesis Paradigm UC Riverside Page 2

2

relationship to nature, including human nature. From this come its concepts of good and evil, two words that are extremely difficult to define, though most of us have held intuitive understandings of them since childhood. For economists, a thorny question is whether pursuit of self interest, often thought of as evil, can bring about public benefit. In his Economics of Good and Evil Thomas Sedlacek illustrates the question with a vision of the legendary Czech Saint Prokop harnessing the devil to a plough3. The answer of course turns on the perspective from which good and evil are defined. Sedlacek begins with perhaps the most primitive perspective from which good and evil can be viewed. He sees it as the struggle between humankind and the (perceived hostile) forces of nature as presented the Epic of Gilgamesh, perhaps the oldest work of fiction yet discovered. King Gilgamesh (the hero) begins by building a city fortified against outside forces. He later plunders land belonging to the gods for resources that will make him wealthy. Humankind’s natural instincts are portrayed in the character of Enkidu, a wild creature that Gilgamesh tames and befriends. Sedlacek proposes that the individual’s self interest is a base instinct that can be tamed by the market mechanism. Quoting Michael Novak, he states: “…only democratic capitalism accounts for how deeply sin is rooted in the human soul and can bring down its power by transforming its energy into a creative force4”. The problem however is in defining what “good” is. It is unlikely that the conquest of nature as seen in Gilgamesh, or the conquest of the American west with the “taming” of the American Indian, can be considered “good”. In spite of our scientific achievement, our ability to define what is “good” is elusive. From the standpoint of positive economics, the only measure of “goodness” that has been definable so far is Pareto efficiency, a technical term with little or no ethical meaning. Normative economists often define “goodness” in terms of aggregate wellbeing interpreted as “happiness”. Economic philosophers however have questioned whether the individual’s happiness, however defined, can be equated with her wellbeing or the choices she is willing to make. If word of suffering by a despised minority reaches the ear of a bigot, should his satisfaction with such be counted as an increase in his wellbeing5? In his critique of Arrow’s seminal work in social choice6 Ian Little recognized the problem when he observed that one may well prefer a distribution is that is more to his benefit, yet oppose policies leading to that distribution if he finds them unjust.7 Answers to these questions require value judgments based on criteria that are outside the realm of empirical science. As Amartya Sen commented: “Well being is ultimately a matter of valuation, and while happiness and fulfillment of desire may well be valuable for a person’s well being, they cannot - on their own or even together - adequately reflect the value of well-being.”8 The Libertarian begs the question of defining “goodness” entirely, to him such task should be left to each individual. His (or her) greatest good is achieved by the maximization his or her own 3 Sedlacek (2011) pp.37 4 Novak (2002) quoted in Sedlacek (2011) pp.37-38 5 See Sen (1970) p.79 6 Arrow (1951) 7 Little (1952) 8 Sen (1987) p.46. See also Sen (1980 and 1985)

Craig McLaren The Genesis Paradigm UC Riverside Page 3

3

preferences. To a libertarian, evil defined as any social entity that might restrict ones freedom to perform such a maximization. In keeping with the enlightenment concept of a noble savage, a libertarian might argue that there is no base aspect of human nature that must be tamed. They might argue that “sin” is nothing more than bounded rationality. In their article Christianity and Hayek, Elzinga and Givens argue that sin is merely a “disappointment of expectations”. They quote Hayek as arguing that the free market is a natural (or created) process that compensates for this weakness by facilitating: “…the human conversation , a process through which we overcome the limits of our minds and exchange in cooperative behavior to create, produce, and exchange.9” Elzinga and Givens go so far as to argue that “God orchestrates the economy for His purposes because no one else has enough knowledge to do so”10. While Smith would have affirmed the Scottish doctrine of “spontaneous order” i.e. that markets, language and the legal system are the product of social evolution11, he would not have affirmed that such institutions were immune from exploitation by “evil” individuals. He comments that whenever three or more who are in the same profession meet, their discussion inevitably gravitates toward how they might profit at the expense of others. Capitalism is not strictly a product of the enlightenment as libertarians might imagine. The free market is as old as the written word12. Its potential for abuse, and the need for public policy to restrain the greedy, goes back to the third millennium BC at least13. The problem with the above viewpoints is that define good and evil with respect to human reason alone. They presume humankind, be it in the form of the individual or of the collective, to be incorruptible judges of what is good. The creation stories in Genesis reject such a presumption. In the Genesis paradigm, good and evil are defined with respect to creation as a whole. While all things are the product of a single organized creative mind, God does not define good and evil with respect to his own whim. “Good” is defined to be that which allows his creation run most efficiently. As created “in God’s image” humankind is both part of, and separate from, the rest of creation. With humankind’s ability to observe, understand, and manipulate nature, comes the responsibility for acting as God’s agent. Humankind “sins” when it betrays its agency, and exploits creation (i.e. nature and his/her fellows) in pursuit of his/her own desires. 2) Historical Context As I have mentioned before, there are two distinct creation stories in genesis that I argue are separate parables that make different points. The first story is of the “seven day” creation. This comprises Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 and emphasizes God’s role in ordaining the universe. In so doing, it emphasizes the unity and purpose of creation along with humankind’s role within it. The second story, that of the Garden of Eden, comprises Genesis 2:4 – 3:24. This story places stronger emphasis on humankind’s agency, and ends with the consequences of humankinds betrayal of that agency.

9 Elzinga and Givens (2009) p.59 10 Elzinga and Givens (2009) p.59 11 Blaug (1996) p.57 12 See footnote 18 13 Kraemer (1962) p.52

Craig McLaren The Genesis Paradigm UC Riverside Page 4

4

Historically, how these stories came to be written is a matter of intense scholarly debate. All that can be agreed upon is that they were assembled together into Genesis’ final form, during or shortly after the Judean captivity in Babylon14. By that time, Sumerian – Babylonian worship practices had infiltrated Hebrew society and had become “an abomination” 15. Clarification in the people’s minds of the distinction between Hebrew and Babylonian beliefs would have become an issue. Carr cites the first story as likely coming from a “priestly” (P) set of documents, while the second story comes from a “non-priestly” (non-P) set that may have been written much earlier.16 Both stories directly refute the views of their Babylonian captors, and indirectly the more modern libertarian view. With this respect, the timing with which the Genesis stories were first penned is irrelevant, since the Babylonian’s viewpoint had been standard among the Hebrew’s neighbors since long before the time of Abraham. The Babylonian’s viewpoint is articulated in the culture and literature of the Mesopotamian region, which originated with the Sumerians a millennium or more before Abraham. The Akkadian language in which Sumerian literature was ultimately written, had become the scholarly lingua Franca for the entire region17. The Babylonian and Assyrian cultures that descended from the Sumerians, adopted the substantial body of their literature en toto, while the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, and possibly even the Greeks adapted the Sumerian works to their own needs18. According to Kramer, the Hebrew scribes would undoubtedly have been able to read Akkadian and would have been at least somewhat familiar with this literature19. Furthermore, the city of Ur, from which Abraham emigrated had been a Sumerian Capital and a main archeological site from which Sumerian documents have been recovered. Abraham would certainly been familiar with Sumerian lore. One might speculate that since he had sufficient resources to resettle westward, he would likely have come from the wealthier classes. Hence he or his kin would have studied these texts in a Chaldean eduba20. The Sumerian economy was free market, with fairly sophisticated institutions for recording the ownership and sale of property21. Following an argument used by Temin in his analysis of the Roman economy22, the presence of large urban city states would indicate that Sumerian markets must have been well developed. Support of an urban population consisting largely of tradesmen and professionals would require at least some long distance trade in agricultural products.23 The Sumerians would thus have understood “rational self interest” in the commercial sense. Samuel Kramer, one of the leading translators of Sumerian writings, likened the individualistic and

14 For a discussion of these texts see Carr (1996) p.62-68, See also Blum (1998) p.32-33 15 Reference to the women weeping for Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14) refers to worship of the Sumerian “dying-god” Dumuzi. Ezekiel’s vision of men prostrating themselves towards the sun (Exekiel 8:16) might well refer to worship of Utu, the Sumerian sun-god. 16 Carr (1996) p.67,68 17 Kramer (1963) p.166 18 Kramer (1963) p.166 19 Kramer (1963) p.166 20 Kramer (1963) p.292 21 Kramer (1963) pp.74,75 22 Temin (2013) pp.2,3 See also Kramer (1962) p.73 23 Since urban professionals often had plots of land outside of town, this argument does not as strongly as it does for Rome. See Kramer (1962) p.76

Craig McLaren The Genesis Paradigm UC Riverside Page 5

5

competitive nature of Sumerian culture to that of modern America24. Kramer notes a Sumerian tendency to eye one another with suspicion, from which he concludes which that their competitive nature led to the frequent inter-city wars that led to their downfall25. Sumerian theology had little impact on their social ethics. A Sumerian’s acts of worship were a form of transaction motivated by self interest. The Sumerian gods were invisible, quasi-immortal beings with superhuman powers and all-to-human temperaments26. Collectively they administered the universe, each god with a particular area of responsibility. Humans were created for the sole purpose of providing the gods with shelter in the form of temples, and food in the form of sacrifices. In return for their service, humans would be rewarded with good fortune27. The gods provided little moral guidance for mankind, having no apparent sense of moral direction themselves. While the gods usually preferred justice and compassion to their opposites, their motivations were generally unclear28. The Sumerian gods had little, if any real concern for the wellbeing of humans. Each Sumerian prayed to his/her “personal god”, the one assigned jurisdiction over that individual’s family or land. The purpose of such prayer was to motivate the individual’s “personal god” to plead his case before a heavenly council. As Kramer points out: advice to a prospective Sumerian Job would be to lament his case more loudly, so as to catch his personal god’s attention29. In the end, it was the individual’s responsibility to insure his own wellbeing to the best of his (or her) ability. The self sufficient, man against nature view of the Sumerians is evident in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the best known and most widely circulated piece of Sumerian literature. Themes of the Epic are humankind’s struggle against the gods. A more detailed discussion of the dichotomy between Gilgamesh and Genesis will be given shortly. For the mean time, note that the hero, King Gilgamesh sees nature as a source of plunder. To inhabitants of a land essentially devoid of trees30 the cedar forests near the Mediterranean cost were a potentially valuable natural resource. Such forests however, were the sanctuary of the god Shamash. Like Genesis’ angel with a flaming sword31, Humbaba the epic’s personification of evil, stands sentry over this “Eden”. As Sedlacek describes it: “Gilgamesh intends to stand up to the gods himself and turn a holy tree into mere construction material32. 3) The Genesis Paradigm In contrast, the Hebrew’s religion was heavily centered on social ethics. A Hebrew philosopher once described Hebrew theology as centered on a relationship triangle connecting a man, God, and the man’s neighbor. This emphasis follows from the Hebrews’ understanding of who God is and what his intentions are. I will discuss the points made by the twin creation stories in turn. 24 Kramer (1963) pp.74,75 25 Kramer (1963) p.268, 295. 26 Kramer (1963) p.117 27 Kramer (1963) p.123,294 28 Kramer (1963) p.117 29 Kramer (1963) pp.125,126 30 Kramer (1963) p.3 31 Genesis 3:24 32 Sedlacek (2011) p. 24

Craig McLaren The Genesis Paradigm UC Riverside Page 6

6

3.1) The Seven Day Creation Story: Creation, Order, and Efficiency The opening passages of Genesis would have first of all reminded its audience that there is but one God. Monotheism, with its implied omnipotence and omnipresence was a new concept. It redefined humankind’s relationship to God and the purpose of worship. Though the form of worship; (ritual ceremony, singing of hymns, sacrifices, etc.) had been adopted in some form by the Hebrews, the purpose of Hebrew worship is of necessity different. An omnipotent god has no need of being fed” with sacrifices, does not “dwell in temples made with hands33”, and does not need to have his ego stroked with praise. What it would mean to serve so radically different a God is also of necessity different. More will be said regarding that shortly. The emphasis of the this story is on the order and purpose of creation. From the syntax of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1,2, Towner translates these verses as:

“In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void and darkness was on the face of the deep, while a wind [spirit] swept over the face of the waters.34”

Towner’s addition of the word “when” implies the pre-existence of substance in chaotic form, which would have been a carryover from Sumerian stories. The primary point is made by the statement: “Let there be light.”35 Since the sun and moon were not created until later, we presume that “light” here is a metaphor for order. Creation’s “goodness” (or efficient function) is emphasized when “. . .God saw that it was good”36 at the end of each day of creation. This unity of creation would many years later be emphasized by the gospel writer John, when he equated Christ with the logos “through whom all things came into being”37. Nature operates efficiently when done so according to God’s design. The psalmist recognized that God’s law was intended to be a guide for efficient behavior, in effect “a lamp unto [his] feet and a light unto [his] path”38. The unity of creation is also reflected in the fact that Hebrew social ethics reduce to the form of general principles. Kramer points out that while social protections for the widow and orphan39 existed in Sumerian law, Sumerian society never developed the ethical principles such as are contained in Micah 6:840 or Psalm 24:441. Jesus would later summarize the Hebrew commandments into a standard of efficient behavior: “. . . in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets.”42 As I will argue elsewhere, Adam Smith likely envisioned this sort of

33 Acts 17:24 34 Towner (2001) p.15 35 Genesis 1:3 36 Genesis 1:12, 18, 21, 25 37 John 1:3 38 Psalm 119:105 39 Kramer (1962) p.82 40 “What does the lord require of thee? To do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God” 41 “Who shall ascend to the hill of the LORD. . . he that has clean hands and a pure heart.” 42 Matt. 7:12 NIV

Craig McLaren The Genesis Paradigm UC Riverside Page 7

7

behavior as necessary his “invisible hand” to function properly. Smith’s “self love” reflects the clause: “…what you would have them do to you”. Smith argued in affirmation of the Stoics, that self preservation is the first task committed to us by nature and that prudence is a virtue so long as it does not injure others43. It is to be remembered that in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith argues on behalf of sympathy as the root of ethical behavior. He introduces his impartial spectator analogy saying:

We suppose ourselves the spectators of our own behavior, and endeavor to imagine what effect it would, in this light, produce upon us. This is the only looking-glass by which we can, in some measure, with the eyes of other people, scrutinize the propriety of our own conduct.”44

In his “invisible hand” reference, Smith admonishes his audience to appeal to the butcher’s and baker’s self love rather than to his charity. In exchange for what they need, Smith’s hearers are admonished to be sympathetic and to serve, as they would wish to be compensated were they in the butcher or baker’s position. The invisible hand, understood in terms of Christ’s golden rule can be interpreted an observation that humans were in fact created to interact most efficiently according to that rule. When we do so, we achieve the kingdom of God. 3.1.1) Agency Genesis 1:26 defines humankind’s agency within creation. Based on the Hebrew syntax, Towner argues that this passage should be translated “Let us make humankind in our own image so that they may have dominion over the fish of the sea…”45. Towner notes that the Hebrew preposition translated as “over” is not adversarial but gentle, and better translated as “among”. As result, Towner argues that “dominion” implies “husbandry” or “nurture”46. Having been created in the image of God implies that humankind has agency that other creatures do not. “Dominion” is therefore the responsibility such agency entails. Genesis 1:26 implies that proper worship of God entails proper exercise of one’s agency. As St. Paul would later proclaim: “make of yourselves a living sacrifice, which is your spiritual profession47.” As God’s spokesman, prophet Amos had criticized his contemporaries’ worship saying:

“Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the Music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, And righteousness like a never-failing stream!”48

43 Smith (1976) p.8 44 Smith Moral Sentiments (1853) p.164 Quoted in Sedlacek (2005) p.197 45 Towner (2001) p.28 46 Towner (2001) p.28 47 Romans 12:1. I have used the term “profession” in place of “service of worship” based on Wm. Barclay’s commentary on this passage. See Barclay (1975) 48 Amos 5:23-24

Craig McLaren The Genesis Paradigm UC Riverside Page 8

8

Economic behavior can be defined as the means by which humans meet their survival needs through organizing for the production and distribution of goods and services. As I have already claimed, such organization is most efficient when its participants follow Christ’s “golden rule”. Genesis 1:26 carries this a step further. Agency requires that humans go beyond maximization of the interests of parties to a transaction. This is illustrated in the proactive responsibility taken by Jesus’ “Good Samaritan”49. Jesus mandates such responsibility from his followers in the parables of The Rich Man and Lazarus 50 and the Parable of the Last Judgment51. This is precisely the behavior that popular writers such as Ayn Rand ridicule. Acceptance of such responsibility on the part of society as a whole was mandated by the Hebrew law. The body of tithes required to support the temple, state, and Levites, amounted to 22%. This would place ancient Israel in the “large government” camp. The poor tithe in particular was a direct redistribution to the poor from those with adequate means. It is doubtful that a Hebrew would have dared criticize his God for reducing productive incentives with such tithes. When the poor were abused, and society failed to restrain the behavior of those that took advantage of them, prophets such as Amos rebuked the entire nation, threatening them with destruction as a group. Ultimately, it was the entire nation that was punished through captivity in Babylon. 3.2) The Garden of Eden Story: Creation, Agency and its Misuse The stories of Adam and Eve52 and of The Fall53 constitute a second creation story54. The acts of creation are essentially summarized in Gods planting of the Garden of Eden55. Its “goodness” is manifest by virtue of the fact that it is a paradise, containing all that is needed to sustain human life abundantly56. Humankind’s agency is established when “Got took Adam and placed him in the garden to work it and take care of it”.57 It is to Adam that all the animals are brought to be named58. This second story reflects Sumerian culture more directly than does the first. It places the Garden of Eden geographically in Sumer, in proximity to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Its mention of Adam being created out of the dust of the earth, and by God’s breathing breath into his nostrils59, is in the tradition of Sumerian creation stories. As Sedlacek points out, the Epic of Gilgamesh contains numerous parallels to this second story, but with meanings reversed. This emphasizes the contrast between Hebrew and Sumerian beliefs.

49 Luke 10:25-37 50 Luke 16:19-31 51 Matt 25:31-46 52 Genesis 2:4 – 2:25 53 Genesis 3:1 – 3:24 54 This is evident from Genesis 2:4 55 Genesis 2:8 56 Genesis 2:9, 11-12 57 Genesis 2:15 58 Genesis 2:19 59 Genesis 2:7

Craig McLaren The Genesis Paradigm UC Riverside Page 9

9

There was no paradise in Gilgamesh. the closest thing to it was the walled city built at the order of despotic King Gilgamesh. To thwart him, the gods created Enkidu, whom Sedlacek argues is the equivalent of Adam. Enkidu is at one with nature as is Adam, but in a very different sense. Enkidu is a fearsome wild creature who disrupts the efforts of Gilgamesh by terrorizing the food producers outside the city. He fights off the hunters, destroys their traps, sets the captured animals free. Gilgamesh’s solution is to engineer Enkidu’s “fall” by using the Harlot Shamhat to tempt him. After his “encounter” with the harlot, which lasted nearly an entire week, Enkidu found that his “body so pure”60 had been defiled and the wild animals now rejected him61. In Genesis, Gilgamesh is transformed into the serpent while Shamhat becomes Eve. At Towner points out, no devil ever appears in the Garden of Eden, only the snake. At that time, the snake was not considered a symbol of evil but of sophisticated knowledge62. This explains why the serpent appears in ancient symbols such as the Caduceus and the Rod of Asclepius, which are both used to represent medical knowledge. The serpent’s promise to Eve is that: Your eyes will be opened and you will become like God, knowing good and evil.”63 Eve proceeds to eat the fruit, seeing that it was “a delight to the eyes and that the tree was desirable to make one wise”64. Hebrews writers often portrayed civilization as the source of sin65, and it was to civilization that Shemhat had introduced Enkidu66. Following his week-long encounter with Shamhat, Enkidu by analogy arose to find “he had acquired judgment, had become wiser.67” “Though his legs that used to keep pace with his cattle were at a standstill”68 The beer, and pleasures of civilization to which Shamhat introduced Enkidu, are further symbolized in Genesis by knowledge of good and evil69. The knowledge acquired by Adam and Eve however, had an immediate disruptive effect. When they eat the forbidden fruit, the text emphasizes that “their eyes were opened”. What they discovered however was their nakedness, and that such implied vulnerability. It was because of their discovery and fear of their nakedness that God knew they had disobeyed. Obviously, there can be nothing evil about the human body or human sexuality. They are part of God’s creation as Genesis makes quite clear. Genesis 2:18-25 characterizes the purpose of sexuality as relationship. Eve is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. She provides him companionship as no other creature of the earth can. It is the order of creation that “A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”70. 60 Sedlacek (2011) p.27 61 Gilgamesh Tablet I quoted in Dalley (2008) p.54-56 This rather explicit account is likely the earliest known example of porn! 62 Towner (2001) pp.42 and 43 63 Towner (2001) pp.42 64 Towner (2001) pp.42 65 Sedlacek (2011) p.34 66 Sedlacek (2011) pp.27-30 67 Gilgamesh Tablet I quoted in Dalley (2008) p.56 68 Gilgamesh Tablet I quoted in Dalley (2008) p.56 NOTE: An epic hero’s stamina must be magnificent, not infinite! 69 Genesis 2:9 70 Genesis 2:24

Craig McLaren The Genesis Paradigm UC Riverside Page 10

10

Their nakedness never became a matter of shame until “their eyes were opened”. Then for the first time, each saw the other as an object to be exploited, and reciprocally their own sexuality as currency that could be used to exact favors or social status. As result of realizing their ability to exploit, they realized that they in turn were vulnerable to exploitation and hence they covered their private parts. It should be noted that at among the ancient peoples of the middle east it was all too common for a young girl’s beauty to be viewed as money in her father’s pocket if he could sell her to a rich man to be his concubine. It is perhaps for this reason that Mohammad would, centuries later, lay it down that women (and men) should be substantially covered when in public. Human sexuality becomes the first example of how humankind’s creativity and reason allows one to exploit God’s creation for their own desires. As the story closes, we see the first couple driven out of paradise, not merely because they had disobeyed God, but because of the knowledge they now possessed71. 3.3) Economic Reflections Aristotle recognized economic processes as a created or “natural” phenomena. In common with several of his Greek predecessors, he also recognized humankind’s proclivity to exploit such with “unnatural” practices that he deemed destructive. Prevention of such exploitation is the motive that underlies the so called “market unfriendly” policies of the Scholastics, who had merged Aristotle’s ideas with Christian ethics. The term Oeconomicus, from which the word “economics” is derived, literally translates as “household management”, since “Property is part of the household, and the art of acquiring property is a part of managing the household; for no man can live well, or indeed live at all, unless he is provided with necessaries.”72 In keeping with his distaste for greed, Aristotle scorned the art of acquiring wealth for its own sake, or chrematistics, as unnatural73 since one’s need is finite, one’s greed is not. In Politics, Aristotle’s condemnation of chrematistic behavior falls on retail trade which, to a modern reader would seem quaint. From his reasoning however his ire would more aptly fall on speculators, or rent seekers, as defined broadly by Joseph Stiglitz74. The purpose of the market interventions advocated by the scholastics was generally to protect the economically week from being exploited by those with market power. They understood full well that the “just price” was simply the market price that would prevail when markets were functioning well. Aquinas is interpreted as defining the just price to be: “the [price], which at a given time, can be gotten from buyers, assuming common knowledge and in the absence of all fraud and coercion.”75 To Aristotle’s concepts, they applied Christ’s Golden Rule. According to Sir Alexander Gray, the scholastic position was that: “We are all brothers and should behave as

71 Genesis 3:22-24 72 Aristotle (2003a) p.7 73 Spiegel (1991) p.25 74 Stiglitz (2013) pp.35-64 75 This is De Roover’s interpretation of Aquinas. See De Roover (1958) p.423

Craig McLaren The Genesis Paradigm UC Riverside Page 11

11

brothers, respecting each other’s right and position in life. Each should receive that to which he is entitled. … No one under any circumstances should take advantage of his neighbor.” To Gray, “this is the sum and substance of medieval teaching.”76 4) Conclusion What then is the chief end of humankind? Simply put, we were created “to work the garden and take care of it.” The knowledge of good and evil has allowed the would be Gilgamesh’s to turn it into a source of plunder. What is the result? The present state of the cities of Sumer are a bleak case in point. They have crumbled into indistinct mounds of barren earth, completely devoid of visible signs of life77. They lie near the city of Mosul78, which at the time of this writing is battered and bleeding. It is presently a place from where the beheadings of journalists are witnessed by a world that fights back with flying robots that drop bombs. The reality of sin renders the dream of a libertarian utopia a naive fantasy. The existence of sin guarantees that individual’s perceptions of their own best interest cannot be relied upon to align with what is in the best interest of society. Our eyes have been opened. Like Gilgamesh, we see how God’s creation may be plundered for personal gain. According to Jesus, such gain is at odds with what we have been created to serve. They constitute two conflicting masters, between which we must choose79. While public interference in the marketplace is what Hayek feared, it is the reality of sin that makes such interference both necessary and difficult. Society’s responsibility to protect the economically week from the strong is mandated by scripture80. Such protection was to be one of the hallmarks of the promised messiah81. Unfortunately, public officials are no less corruptible than the rest of us. Public institutions must be held accountable by the very individuals they are called to regulate. The reality of sin means that no clean solution is humanly possible. That, as they say, is the hell of it. Ghost Ranch - Abiquiu, NM September 2014

76 Gray (1959) p.46 77 See figure in Kramer (1962) p.64 78 Kramer (1962) pp. 7,15 79 Matt 6:24 80 A prime example is Amos 1:2 through Amos 2:8. Throughout Chapter 1 and the beginning of Chapter2, God’s condemnation is proclaimed against the peoples surrounding Israel. Such condemnation implies that as societies, these peoples betrayed their responsibilities to God. In Amos 2:6-8, similar condemnation is proclaimed against Israel for allowing the disadvantaged to be exploited. 81 Luke1:52,53

Craig McLaren The Genesis Paradigm UC Riverside Page 12

12

References Aristotle Politics (Benjamin Joett trans.) in The History of Economic Thought: a Reader (S. Medema, & W. Samuels ed.) Routledge NY (2003) Barclay, W. The New Daily Study Bible: The Letter to the Romans Westminister-John Knox Press (Louisville KY 2002) Blum, H. Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings" in In Sarah Shectman, Joel S. Baden. The strata of the priestly writings: contemporary debate and future directions. Theologischer Verlag (Germany 1998) Carr, D. M. Reading the Fractures of Genesis Westminster John Knox Press, (Louisville, KY 1996) Dalley, S. Myths from Mesopotamia (Revised Edition) Oxford (UK 2008) De Roover, R. The Concept of the Just Price: Theory and Economic Policy The Journal of Economic History Vol. 18, No. 4 (Dec. 1958) 418 - 434 Elzinga, K. and Givens, M. Christianity and Hayek Faith and Economics No. 53 (Spring 2009) Friedman, M. The Methodology of Positive Economics in The Methodology of Positive Economics: Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy Uskali Maki ed. Cambridge (Cambridge 2009) Gray, A. The Development of Economic Doctrine Longmans, (London 1959) Heilbronner, R. The Worldly Philosophers 7th ed. Touchstone (NY 1999) Holy Bible, New International Version, Zondervan (Grand Rapids MI 2011) Kramer, S. The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character Univ of Chicago Press (Chicago 1963) Little, I. Social Choice and Individual Values The Journal of Political Economy Vol. 60 No. 5 (Oct. 1952) Novak, M. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism Obcansky Institut (Prague 2002) Sen, A. K. On Ethics and Economics Blackwell Publishers (Cambridge MA 1987) Smith, A. The Theory of Moral Sentiments Oxford (Oxford 1976)

Craig McLaren The Genesis Paradigm UC Riverside Page 13

13

Spiegel, H. W. The Growth of Economic Thought (3rd ed.) Duke Univ. Press (Durham NC 1991) Spengler, J. Aristotle on economic Imputation and Related Matters The Southern Economic Journal (April 1955) Soudek, Aristotle’s Theory of Exchange: An Inquiry into the Origin of Economic Analysis Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 96 No. 1 (1952) pp.45 – 75 Stiglitz, J. The Price of Inequality Norton (NY 2013) Rand, A. Atlas Shrugged Plume Publishing (NY 1999) Sedlacek, T. The Economics of Good and Evil Oxford Univ. Press (Oxford 2011) Schumpeter, J. A. History of Economic Analysis Oxford University Press (1954) Sen, A. K. Collective Choice and Social Welfare Holden-Day (San Francisco 1970) Sen, A. K. Equality of What? Tanner Lectures on Human Values Vol. I (S. McMurrin ed.) Cambridge Univ. Press (1980) Sen, A. K. Well-Being, Agency, and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984 The Journal of Philosophy 82 (Apr. 1985) pp. 169-221 Smith, A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations W. Strathan and Cadell (London 1776) Smith, A. The Theory of Moral Sentiments Oxford Univ. Press (Oxford 1976) Temin, P. The Roman Market Economy (2013) Princeton Univ. Press (Princeton 2013) Tower, W. S Genesis Westminster John Knox Press, (Louisville, KY 2001) Warnock, M. Introduction John Stuart Mill - Utilitarianism and On Liberty (M. Warnock ed) Blackwell Publishing (Oxford 2003)