"Medieval Christian theologians clearly distinguished between beasts without souls and humans with souls"

I am sure this question is raised in many lives. What does it mean though to 'have a soul'? If our animals are as the poet Christopher Smart put it, 'servants of the Living God', they are as soulful as any of us. In seeing the soul of my rat, Amy, whom I have spoken of in the past, her lively play habits, finger wrestling, her wonderful seeking and mastering of knowledge, I have to consider that all those complex organisms we call animal and vegetable must 'have a soul' - a life of body over time that has purpose, drive, and memory, and that can at times communicate such even across species boundaries.

The Hebrew, nephesh, is translated in the King James version of the Bible as both 'Life' (119 times) as well as 'Soul' (428 times). (Also heart, person, self, creature, etc...).

I suppose that means that my son's instruction to me to 'get a life, Dad' could be seen as instruction to 'get a soul', to be the soul that I am, rather than to be so demanding of his! (This is not across species boundaries, but the communication can seem as difficult).

The quote continued: " and tended to distinguish between the beastly-earthy-natural (evil) and the human-spiritual (good), setting up a dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual (actually, this was derived primarily from neo-Platonic (Greek!) dualism, not from the Hebrew roots of Christianity. The Jews focused on nature/animals /body as being created by YHWH and therefore good."

I find the dualistic explanations of the Greeks to be demotivating to a 'present' ethic. The implication of traditional dualism seems to imply that I can mistreat or ignore the beggar at the gate because he will get his reward in the hereafter. It is important to emphasize, I think, that in this early move towards a 'scientific' view of creation, the scholastics lost the better unified view of the Hebrew root.

I don't think it is necessary to read Paul as dualistic. He is Hebrew to the core and has a unified view of the human - even of 'the whole creation groaning and travailing in one great act of giving birth', not a separated body/soul dualism (though there are times when he is difficult to defend). I hesitate to blame Paul for the misunderstandings of many who have come after him. Some popular scientists today like Hofstader, Dennet, and Dawkins are barking up a straw man by debunking 'soulists'. And the religious who insist on the body/soul separation are creating the tree that invites the dogs.

Biblical stewardship may be interpreted differently in different ages. Good stewardship cares for the known in the present with a view to the consequences for the benefit of the cared-for in _this_ world.

The nephesh of animals in relationship to God is well attested in Job. From the first speech of God out of the whirlwind: ch 38-39

Who gave the ibis wisdom and endowed the cock with foreknowledge?
Do you find a prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of her whelps?
Who makes provision for the raven when his squabs cry out to God and crane their necks in hunger?
Who gave the wild donkey his freedom and untied the rope from his proud neck?
I have given him the desert as a home, the salt plains as his own habitat.
Is the wild ox willing to serve you or spend a night beside your manger?
[O magnum mysterium - ut animalia viderent dominum to give the medievals their due!]

So he goes on with ostrich and horse, hawk and eagle - its a wonderful read. But the best is Behemoth, the masterpiece of all God's work, (ch 40) and Leviathan... pleading with his creator:

Will he plead and plead with you, will he coax you with smooth words?
Will he strike a bargain with you to become your slave for life?