A Hebraic Inkling: (My) Introduction

The aim of this book is to examine precisely what C.S. Lewis believed and wrote about the ancient Hebrews, their scriptures their status as God's chosen people and about today's Jews.

Is C.S. Lewis a Hebraic Inkling?

That's the question that P.H. Brazier attempts to determine in his recently published fascinating book, "A Hebraic Inkling: C.S. Lewis on Judaism and the Jews." 

As I mentioned in my last post, I had the opportunity to discuss this work on the podcast Pints with Jack. However, the work deserves more attention than one podcast can provide, so every once in a while, I'll write something here. 

By way of introduction, I want to muse upon the above question. 

That Lewis was an Inkling, as in the literary discussion group at Oxford, is historical fact and needs no further comment. The real question is whether Lewis can be described as Hebraic, and that is what Brazier seeks to prove.

Now, of course, Lewis was Christian not Jewish and so Brazier must first define what it means to be Hebraic (but not Jewish) and then determine whether Lewis fits that definition. 

At least that's what I would think the book should be about. but it's not quite so. 

Brazier's stated aim is the above quote which is a necessary endeavor should we try to determine whether Lewis is Hebraic. However, this work is not a disinterested analysis comparing a sample (Lewis) to a theoretical construct (a Hebraic).  Instead, it is a work of Christian theology, and I might even say polemics, arguing passionately that all Christians must be Hebraic and that Lewis in general fulfills this imperative. 

A couple of additional points. First, Brazier's stated motivation to write this book was being told by a friend of an encounter with someone who branded Lewis an antisemite. However, Brazier clearly wanted to go further than that. Lindskoog believes that Lewis demonstrated anti-antisemitism but my guess is that Brazier (properly in my opinion) did not like that description either. Brazier sets out to demonstrate that Lewis is much more than anti-something, he is positively for something. What Lewis is for, according to Brazier, is a vision of Christianity in which Christians see themselves as, "Grafted... onto a cultivated olive tree. Romans 11:24)." And this entails: a recognition of Israel as elected (and crafted) by God, a need to respect the Hebrew Scriptures, a realization that Jews are spiritually senior, among other theological truisms. Lewis does not always meet these standards, but he reaches towards them. 

Second, Brazier passion for his topic sometimes gets in the way of organization. Nevertheless, that should not lead one to think that imperfect organization echoes lack of rigor. Brazier has clearly done his homework delving not only into Christian sources, but also into Jewish ones.   

Bottom line up front: Brazier has convinced me that the moniker 'A Hebraic Inkling' fits Lewis pretty well. For me, that was quite revealing especially as I felt that "Till We Have Faces" (a work that Brazier does not reference at all is this book) completely ignores a Jewish stage in the evolution from paganism to Christianity. But what Brazier has convinced me of without a doubt, is that he is 'A Hebraic Inkling' (or he would have been had he been alive at the right time, in the right place). Brazier knowledge is expansive and deep, and his writing is (generally) engaging. I think the Inklings would have welcomed him with open arms. 

We'll continue soon...

A Hebraic Inkling on Pints with Jack

Hi All,

I'm happy to let everyone know that my interview with David Bates from Pints with Jack on Paul Brazier's book "A Hebraic Inkling" is now online.

Thank you to David for once again being such a gracious host and sparking a wonderful discussion. Also continued thanks to the entire team over at Pints with Jack for the great content they consistently put out.

As you can imagine, there's a lot more to be said about Brazier's fascinating work than can fit in a one hour podcast and so I'll plan to write a little more about it over the next few months. 

But in the meantime, please do go over and check out the great C. S. Lewis content they have at Pints with Jack!

Wishing everyone health and happiness for the coming year. May God inscribe us all in the book of life.

Yaakov

Final Judgment of Narnia (Part 3)

Eustace even recognized one of those very Dwarfs who had helped to shoot the Horses.

The Last Battle tells of the final judgment of all who inhabited the Narnian world. Those who loved Aslan were to live forevermore in the eternal, true Narnia of Aslan's country. Of course, we find there our Narnian heroes: Reepicheep the Mouse, King Frank and Queen Helen, Caspian the X, Puddleglum, and all the rest. Yet, Lewis records, there were some "queer specimens among them."  How did such specimens achieve final redemption? 

The straightforward answer is that one cannot know the heart and mind, or even the deeds, of others. Every culture in its own way tells us not to "judge a book by its cover." While the outer veneer may be rough, an observer does not necessarily see great acts of kindness, charity, and love of God, that may truly characterize his fellow. 

However, there is one such specimen who we do seem to know somewhat well, the dwarf noticed by Eustace. To recall, this dwarf participated in the murder of Narnia's Talking Horses. This dwarf was part of a dwarfish rebellion seeking to rid Narnia of all but themselves. When Lucy pleaded with Aslan to help this dwarf and his fellows Aslan demonstrates and then explains:

'You see,' said Aslan. 'They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.' 

So, again, how did this dwarf achieve eternity? 

To some degree Lewis answers the question for us. After Eustace recognizes this dwarf Lewis tell us that Eustace, "had no time to wonder about that sort of thing (and anyway it was no business of his)." And in one sense that is true. God is the judge, and we are not. He decides who enters the eternal world and we do not. We are assured that He is the True Judge and thank Him for whatever we may have without questioning His justice and mercy upon others. 

However, there is something beyond. We do not currently inhabit the eternal world. The final chapter is not yet written. Perhaps there is something we can learn from Lewis' placement of this dwarf in Aslan's country. 

One possible approach is that perhaps this particular dwarf was a good fellow for the great majority of his life. True at the end he turned evil and joined a murderous rebellion, but this was not enough to cancel the good he done before that. Aslan punished him before the Final Judgment, through the rough battle he had to fight and his misery in the stable, but, with that, he could enter the eternal Narnia. 

This approach would be quite startling given other writings of Lewis. There we find that Lewis tends to look at the final destination of one's path as much as (if not more) than any particular weight of deeds. Indeed, Screwtape notes that, "the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing." Without question then, this dwarf was headed towards Nothingness, but anyway achieved salvation. Would Lewis say previous deeds were enough to cancel the path the dwarf finally took? I don't think so... 

A second approach is to say that while the dwarf took part in the rebellion he did so out of peer-pressure and other external factors. His actions were not the truth of his personality and, more importantly, his general approach towards moral value and God. Aslan, as the true judge, saw through the current situation in which the dwarf found himself and saw that the dwarf's true self belonged to Aslan.

In this way perhaps this dwarf is comparable to Emeth. Interestingly, everyone wanted to know Emeth's story since he also was not an obvious choice for salvation. Emeth's business does matter to us. So why doesn't the dwarfs? 

Let's amplify the question a bit. There are, thank God, great sinners who shed their evil ways and return to God. We (Jews, Christian, and I'm sure people of other faiths as well) celebrate their stories, we listen to their story and for good reason. They have what to teach us about the outside world. They can provide a perspective that others lack. They inspire us to work on ourselves. 

But what about the sinner who never did anything spectacularly bad. They too often played cards (to use Screwtape's example), they quietly embezzled funds, under the cover of darkness they frequented prostitutes. On the outside they look as just and righteous as anyone else. And then they repent. On the surface nothing has changed socially, perhaps not economically. Such a repentance is hard as well, just as hard, perhaps, as the person who totally transformed their lives. Does anyone pay attention? Does anyone care? Is it anyone's business? 

I don't know. But, perhaps that was this dwarf. 

Final Judgement of Narnia (Part 2)

In our last post we quoted the mishna in Rosh HaShana as a parallel to Aslan's judgment of the creatures of the Narnian world by the stable door:

On Rosh HaShana (the Jewish New Year with a date of the first of the month of Tishrei), all creatures pass before Him like sheep [benei maron], as it is stated: “He Who fashions their hearts alike; Who considers all their deeds. (Psalms 33:15)”

As in Lewis' depiction, each creature passes individually and alone before God as He sits in judgment. 

Our open question was the prooftext from Psalms. What does it mean that, "God fashions their hearts alike"? Does that not contradict the individuality of the final judgment?

Perhaps one can answer that the prooftext is necessary to demonstrate that the judgment is fair in the first place. All humans are created on equal footing. No one is born good or bad and therefore all can be judged on the same scale. Those who hate God and violate his commands will be punished, while those who love Him and keep his laws will be rewarded. No one can excuse themselves because their heart leans towards evil - for God has fashioned their hearts alike. Together they are born, but because humans have the free will to act in ways that are good or evil, their paths will diverge as they live their lives. 

And so too in Narnia. The Talking Beasts are awakened as one and all can choose whether to adhere to Aslan's will or return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts. Thus, judgment is passed, individually, on them all. 

Following in this theme would then read the second part of the prooftext as follows: from that level starting point for all humans God considers their deeds and that is what determines (and makes fair) their final judgment. 

However, there is a Narnian (and realistic) challenge to this reading. Are deeds the only metric God uses to make His judgment? 

In the final chapter of Narnia, we find that one of those judged favorably by Aslan was one of those Dwarfs who had helped to shoot the Talking Horses. We remember what eventually happened to those dwarfs, they decided that the "dwarfs were for the dwarfs" and attacked the Calormen as well. Some (though perhaps not this one) were eventually thrown into the stable and were last seen there thinking it was a stable despite the kindness that Aslan himself attempted to bestow upon them. They had not realized that the door they were thrown through was the one to the Land of Eternal Life.

How was such a character found worthy? Aslan himself seemed to regard their cause as lost... 

Final Judgment of Narnia

They all looked straight in his face, I don't think they had any choice about that. 

We've spent a lot of time recently talking about Narnian Creation and major themes, the laws Aslan sets forth to the Talking Beasts, and the parallels to biblical creation. With the coming of the High Holidays perhaps it's flip to the end of Narnia see what can be gleaned and learned from Lewis' description of the Final Judgment. 

We'll remember, of course, that the last King of Narnia, Tirian, is defeated by the Calormenes with the help of the Shift the Ape and his followers. Despite fighting valiantly, Tirian, Eustace, and Jill are all eventually thrown into the Stable which the Calormenes called the shrine of Tash, but which Jewel the Unicorn had correctly predicted, it was for them the door to Aslan's country. 

The end of Narnia is quickly followed by the Final Judgment. Time is awakened and blows his great horn to call home the stars, terrible creatures are unleashed to destroy the world, and every living creature runs towards Alsan at the door of the Stable and are judged. 

How does this judgment take place? One-by-one they look up at Aslan. Those who express fear and hatred stay outside the door and are presumably devoured by the creatures now roaming the world, while those who express love for Aslan come through the door into Aslan's country.

The mishna in Rosh HaShana  asserts that the world is judged four times a year: 

On Rosh HaShana (the first of Tishrei), all creatures pass before Him like sheep [benei maron], as it is stated: “He Who fashions their hearts alike, Who considers all their deeds. (Psalms 33:15)”

The mishna (as translated) seems to be inline with Narnian's world End of Time judgment. All creatures pass before God. Indeed, the Talmud (see also Rashi) explains that we speak of a situation, for example when climbing a steep mountain, when the sheep must walk single file. In this way God judges each individually. 

However, if it that were it, what is the point of the prooftext brought by the mishna? The creatures are not alike, they are different and judged individually. Far from being a proof, the verse quoted by the mishna appears to contradict the very point the mishna is trying to prove!

Jokes and Justice (Part 2)

 Laugh and fear not, creatures. Now that you are no longer dumb and witless, you need not always be grave. For jokes as well as justice come in with speech.

(The Magician's Nephew)

In our last post we questioned why Aslan seemed to approve the laughter of the Talking Beasts at the Jackdaw. Though all the Talking Beasts assure Aslan that they would not return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts, it was only the Jackdaw who loudly proclaimed, "No fear!" much to the mirth of the others. The Jackdaw was embarrassed (though he later happily realizes that he will forever be remembered as the First Joke), so why is the laughter sanctioned? 

"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked."  (Thomas More). Lewis quotes this insightful line as a type of prelude to The Screwtape Letters thus casting this work as a fulfillment of More's words. For it is in Hell that there is strict concern for one's dignity and austerity (Screwtape Letters, Chapter 11), and it is Hell's inhabitants that cannot laugh at themselves (Screwtape Letters Chapter 22).

However, one should not think that it is the experiences of Hell that turns its inhabitants this way. No, those who dwell as one of the damned do so because their dignity and pride brought them there. Their worship was of themselves, and their rituals were for self-glorification. Who should be worshipped? To whom should glory appropriate? The One God! The Creator of All and the True Judge! But for those who replace God with themselves, the ultimate blasphemy is being mocked. 

Belief in God requires humility. Recognizing the presence of the All-Powerful, who has provided you with everything and upon whom you are completely reliant for success. How can one take themselves seriously in the face of God? Is not our whole existence a joke? Is our creation not absurd? 

The Jackdaw will be remembered as the First Joke, but he was not. The first joke was that God saw fit to create creatures of flesh and blood that He was to call His children. How can we not laugh in the face of such absurdity? 

The command to love our neighbors as ourselves requires that we care for the physical and emotional well-being of friends, neighbors, and even strangers. Yet, even this must be balanced by the truth, that humans are awkward creatures who (hopefully) try to do the right thing but often fail spectacularly and hilariously. God knows how much or how little we really try. But if we do try and still fail a little laughter (and even mocking) is perhaps just what we need to help us realize that taking God seriously is more important than taking ourselves seriously. 

Hence the need to laugh at the Jackdaw. He tried to do the right thing, tried to be in sync with the other creatures in a unifying response to Aslan. But he failed, hysterically. Well, if everyone took the Jackdaw's indiscretion seriously, there would be furtive glances between them, malicious whispers, the a real danger that the Jackdaw would feel ashamed, that he would feel apart from the others, different, separated from Alsan. Perhaps there is no reason to feel that way, but isn't that how we feel when we do something off, something singularly foolish? 

But there's a cure, laughter. The laughter shows that everyone understands it was just a mistake, something that we all do at one time or another and you should just shrug it off. 

And so Aslan not only urged the Talking Beasts to laugh, but took the joke a step further modelling for his creations how one should truly feel about their self-worth. 

Jokes and Justice (Part 1)

Laugh and fear not, creatures. Now that you are no longer dumb and witless, you need not always be grave. For jokes as well as justice come in with speech.
(The Magician's Nephew)

Too often the homo religiosus is assumed to live a life of seriousness and gravity. After all, what could be funny when standing before God knowing that any wrongdoing may condemn a person to eternal punishment? Lewis dismisses this perspective immediately upon the creation of Narnia. 

It is the dumb and witless who must always be grave, for they lack the capabilities of making (or understanding) jokes. Dignity and austerity must never be compromised in Hell (Screwtape Letters Chapter 11), but on the path to heaven laughter and jokes help pave the way.

The Talmud itself hammers home with point by recording the following story. Rabbi Beroka of Bei Hoza'i frequented the market of Bei Lefet. Many time he was joined by Elijah the Prophet. One day as they're walking through the market, R' Beroka asks Elijah if there is anyone in the market worthy of eternal life in the World-to-Come? Elijah looks around at all the people and points out an individual with whom R' Beroka is not familiar and does not dress in the garbs of a Jew, let alone a religious leader. Later, however, R' Beroka learns of all the heroic acts this man performs on behalf of the Jewish people. In the meantime, two brothers walk into the marketplace and Elijah points them out as well. R' Beroka goes over to them and they says they are jesters who cheer up people who are depressed. 

Of course, as Lewis explains in The Screwtape Letters, there are different types of jokes and laughter may be provoked from both positive and negative catalysts. In the beginning of Narnia the joke is the Jackdaw. In assuring Aslan that they will not return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts, the Talking Beasts assure, "No, Aslan, we won't, we won't." The Jackdaw alone continues (in a loud voice), "No fear!" 

Surely, all of us have been in similar situations and of course the Jackdaw is rather embarrassed and hides his head in shame as the other Talking Beasts attempt to stifle their laughter. Aslan, however, encourages them to let loose and thorough the mirth that follows, the Jackdaw happily realizes that he will forever be remembered as the First Joke. 

Now one might counter that this is somewhat cruel. It's one thing to laugh at a made-up story or a clever turn of phrase. It is quite another to laugh at someone else's embarrassment. Why did Aslan give his stamp of approval for this laughter and this type of joke?

I think the answer gets to the heart of why a religious person must laugh, while the minions of Hell cannot laugh. We'll get to it in our next post.