Update on Pints With Jack

Quick update: I'm sure everyone has been waiting with bated breath to hear the conversation David Bates and I had a about P. H. Brazier's book, "A Hebraic Inkling: C. S. Lewis on Judaism and the Jews." Things are bit behind schedule over at Pints With Jack, but the conversation did happen and I'm excited to share it with everyone as soon as it comes out. Just hold tight! 

An Alternate Model: Loving Your Neighbor as Yourself

Treat [the Dumb Beasts] gently and cherish them but do not go back to their ways... 
The Magician's Nephew

There is an alternate biblical command that we may use to model Aslan's command to the first Narnians. That is the command to "Love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19:18)." Also known as the Golden Rule, this command has been philosophically analyzed by various midrashim and the Talmud and is repeated a number of times in the Christian Bible. 

What's perhaps surprising, is how little in Jewish law the command is concretized into defined actions. The Talmud's explicit utilization of the verse is highly restrictive: ensuring that when the death penalty is carried out it is done in the least harmful fashion (Pesachim 75a), that a child is permitted to let the blood of his father (something that was assumed to be a healing mechanism, Sanhedrin 84b), and warning against marriage before the bride and groom meet face-to-face (Kiddushin 41a).  

It was left to Maimonides to formally codify an explicit list of acts of kindness that fall under the rubric of the Golden Rule. And even those great acts (visiting the sick, comforting those in mourning, welcoming guests, etc.) are short on concrete rules because, as Nachmanides explains elsewhere there is no way to cover every possible interaction and make explicit rules and generalities are needed. 

From this approach it might perhaps make sense to include several broad categories as to what it might mean to cherish the dumb beasts and not return to their ways. But the variables of time and place render meaningless to provide an explicit list. 

Even so, the importance of the Golden Rule is emphasized in the Talmud (and taught in every pre-school). Why are Aslan's first commands not similarly revered? 

The Shabbos Model applied to Aslan's Commands

Treat [the Dumb Beasts] gently and cherish them but do not go back to their ways... 
The Magician's Nephew

What would happen should we apply the Shabbos model (defined in the last post) to Aslan's command? 

(We again note that this command consists of a positive and a negative which are opposites of each other. For now, we're only going to concentrate on the negative the command) 

OK, we first need to determine what might be included in the ways of the Dumb Beasts. Could the prohibition include seemingly innocent actions like when Talking Horses roll or when Talking Beavers build dams? Well, it might, after all Aslan my command whatever he wants even if our logic doesn't agree. 

But perhaps a more fruitful way to determine prohibited actions would be to look at the command in context. Aslan has just commanded the Talking Beasts to "Love. Think. Speak... be Talking Beasts." Perhaps returning to the ways of the Dumb Beasts is doing the opposite of these commands. Let's try this out starting with "Love."

Who should the Talking Beasts love? Well, Aslan of course. But also each other, both of the same species and of different species. 

Great, now we're getting somewhere. Let's say a Talking Beast would hunt or eat another Talking Beast. Well, that's certainly what Dumb Beasts do, and so if a Talking Beast were to do so (say a Talking Owl were to hunt a Talking Mouse) that would violate Aslan's command of returning to the ways of the Dumb Beasts. 

However, that is not enough. What's the definition of hunting? What if a Talking Beast just hunted his fellow for fun? Or what if a Talking Beast ate another Talking Beast that was already dead? Would that violate the prohibition? 

Once we walk down the road of definitions, categories, and rules we're kind of stuck. New questions appear, novel technologies develop. All of these may effect the way I love my fellow Talking Beast and needs and thus needs to be explored in that context. 

The same would be true if we analyze the requirement to love Aslan. Dumb Beasts don't recognize a creator nor do they show deference. So, if a Talking Beast failed to love Aslan or honor him, that might be another category of prohibited actions under the rubric of returning to the ways of the Dumb Beast. 

For example, Aslan has both a crown and a standard. If someone were to carelessly misuse the standard, perhaps that would violate the need to love Aslan. Or perhaps if someone did not pay proper respect in some other way. Again, all of these possibilities should be defined and outlined via logical derivation of Aslan's words. 

Furthermore, the care and love the Talking Beasts have for Aslan's commands should motivate them to ensure that Aslan's commands are not violated even by accident. 

There is no evidence that the Narnians ever did such things. 

But there's another Jewish model one can use to approach Aslan's commands. We'll explore that approach next. 

First Possible Jewish Approach to Not Returning to the Ways of the Dumb Beasts

After a bit of a tangent, it is now time to return to Aslan's command at the beginning of Narnian time. We recall that the command has a positive and negative aspect, "Treat [the Dumb Beasts] gently and cherish them but do not go back to their ways..." We spent a significant amount of time attempting to determine what (if any) particular actions or values are included in this command. We also noted that there does not seem to be much attention paid or centrality given this command. There is no warning to remember the command and precious few mentions of it outside of almost throwaway lines in various ones of the Chronicles. 

(Note that this is unlike the Signs given to Jill in The Silver Chair where, parallel to the Shema declaration, she is commanded to "say them to yourself when you wake in the morning and when you lie down at night, and when you wake in the middle of the night.")

I've always found this quite difficult. After all, if you heard a direct command from God, wouldn't you want to make sure you always remembered what He said and consider His words more precious than diamonds? Wouldn't you ensure there were written texts, rituals, reminders, and holidays so that for generations God's word would endure? To me that would be a given, but it doesn't seem to have happened in Narnia. 

With that in mind, I would like to do a quick thought experiment. Let us imagine a Jewish Narnia, in which the Talking Beasts mimicked a Jewish approach to Law and ritual, and to whom the same command was given. What would happen? 

Actually, I think there are a couple of models: the Shabbos (the Sabbath) model and the Love Your Neighbor model. We'll take each one, explain it, and then apply the model to Aslan's stated prohibition against returning to the ways of the Dumb Beasts. 

Let's start with the Shabbos model. On the seventh day of the week God commanded the Jews not to do work, "but the seventh day is a sabbath of your God, you shall not do any work..." (Deuteronomy 5:14). However, outside of an explicit prohibition against burning fire (Exodus 35:3), there is no explanation as to what constitutes work.  Nonetheless, following the given rules describing how to derive laws from the text of the Torah 39 different categories of work are defined! On top of that there are numerous rabbinic injunctions to (1) ensure that one does not unknowingly come to violate Shabbos, and (2) retain the aura of Shabbos as a day or rest.  

In fact, the definitions of the categories and their rules are so strong that there is little undefined wiggle room left in the unvarnished statement prohibiting work. Should someone suggest that an action violates the prohibitino of work on Shabbos, the immediate question would be, which of the 39 categories includes this action. And if it does not fit any of the 39 categories, it's not (biblically) prohibited. Similarly, with further categories enumerated by the Sages. One may decide, and even promulgate, the notion that a certain activity that does not fit into one of the 39 categories is not Shabbos-dik (meaning it is not in the spirit of Shabbos) and that may be correct. But no one would suggest that this newly defined activity violates the biblical prohibition. 

Instead, we have well-defined categories of work with a myriad of rules and details. 

Is it too easy to lose the forest for the trees? Perhaps, but I would counter that attention to details demonstrates Judaism's love, care, and seriousness about the word of God, and that the lived experience of Shabbos is easily and respectfully done without loss of forests. 

So, what happens when we apply this model to Aslan's command?

We'll try to guess in our next post. 

Are the Chosen Narnians to be a Kingdom of Priests?

Both the Chosen beasts of Narnia and the Chosen people of God are commanded to distance themselves from the ways of the Unchosen. In Narnia, Aslan warned the Chosen beasts at the very beginning as we have seen in the last few posts. In the Bible, the Children of Israel are consistently warned in ways such as the following verse from this week's Torah reading, "You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you; nor shall you follow their laws (Leviticus 18:3)." 

In addition, the Chosen have a positive obligation towards the unchosen. In Narnia the beasts are to "cherish" the dumb animals. Though there are no outlined methods as to how to cherish the Unchosen beasts, I have always assumed that it means to care for them in the way that (good) people in our world care for their pets. The Bible is far more enterprising and commands the Children of Israel to be a, "Kingdom of Priests and a Holy people, (Exodus 19:6)." This requires the Children of Israel to teach, minister, and guide the Unchosen in the ways of the true God.

The need for a Kingdom of Priests in the Bible arises from the expulsion of Adam from the Garden of Eden. Original man sinned and his descendants began to worship idols and steal, bringing about the Deluge. God saved Noah and his family from the Deluge in an attempt to reset humanity. That didn't seem to work either as demonstrated from in the infamous incident of the Tower of Babel. 

At that point humanity self divides into 70 nations each with their own language and (presumably) culture. To redeem humanity to its formerly pristine ways, humanity now needed a Chosen Nation. A nation that would teach and guide. Throughout the Bible God spends a lot of time forging that nation, as Lewis himself notes, "[God] selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was —that there was only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. (Mere Christianity).” And though there are glimpses of the proper function of such a nation such as in the time of Solomon (highlighted by the pilgrimage of the Queen of Sheba), and the prophetic visions of Isaiah and others, as a whole the experience has yet to succeed. 

But we try... 

Do the Chosen Narnians have a parallel calling? Are they, too, ordered to act as Kingdom of Priests for the Giants to the North, the Calormens to the South, and the inhabited Islands of the Eastern Sea? 

Frankly, I don't know the answer.  

Into Them You Can Return

For out of them you were taken and into them you can return. 

The Magician's Nephew

In the beginning, Aslan chose from amongst the beasts he created, a few to be endowed with consciousness and understanding. He gave the land of Narnia over to his chosen Talking Beasts and ordered them to care for the unchosen, Dumb Beasts. Furthermore, the Talking Beasts were warned against returning to the ways of the Dumb Beasts which, in previous posts, we have understood to mean placing instincts before morals. 

Once so defined we can understand the "punishment" to be meted out against those Talking Beasts who do return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts: they will cease to be Talking Beasts. As we have seen, this is precisely what happens to the Ginger the Cat, who joined with the Calormen to promote Tashlan. Perhaps, however, this is not simply a punishment but also a consequence. 

The Talking Beasts are chosen and given, at least implicitly, a moral framework which includes believing in Aslan, remembering and respecting the past, treating others with dignity and respect, defending those who are weak, and in general maintaining a code of honor. What happens when one breaks from that moral framework? Such an individual has, on their own volition, returned to the ways of the Dumb Beasts and, more so, has lost the uniqueness of being chosen. Thus, this individual once again becomes a Dumb Beasts.

This same moral underpinning of the chosen underlies the Exodus from Egypt that we just celebrated and commemorated on Passover. The Children of Israel were "freed" from the slavery of Pharoah only to become slaves of God. One may question whether anything was gained, are the Children of Israel not still slaves? 

The answer of course, is yes. The Exodus enabled the Children of Israel to fulfill the mission set for them by God when He chose Abraham to father the Chosen People. The midrashic literature tells that a large number of Jews were lost during the plague of darkness because they were not interested in leaving Egypt. Usually this is understood that they were killed, but perhaps they simply chose to become unchosen. They returned to the pagan ways of Abraham' father and were thus returned into them.    

Chosen for the Sake of the Un-chosen

A quick introduction to our next few posts, as we approach Passover, the holiday in which God took His chosen out of Egypt. 

The ‘chosen’ people are chosen not for their own sake (certainly not for their own honour or pleasure) but for the sake of the unchosen. (C.S. Lewis, Miracles)

How do the "chosen" fulfill what is demanded of them for the sake of the unchosen? Lewis notes that the chosen suffer for the un-chosen, but presumably would not argue the point that the chosen are to guide and teach the un-chosen the reality of the true God.

Should there be a social separation between the chosen and the un-chosen? Can members of the chosen lose their way due to assimilation or apostasy? 

In the Chronicles of Narnia the Talking Beasts are chosen from amongst all the Beasts of Narnia and have an obligation to the un-chosen, as Aslan commands:

The Dumb Beasts whom I have not chosen are yours also. Treat them gently and cherish them but do not go back to their ways lest you cease to be Talking Beasts.

While such a chosen-ness must be different from that of humanity's chosen (only the Talking Beasts are sentient), perhaps both are commanded to remain chosen and not mimic the ways of the un-chosen.