Trilogy and Bible? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum (2024)

Tolkien118

12-17-2000, 07:05 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 3</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Does anyone think that the Trilogy(Silmarilion, etc.) may be an allegorical representation of the Bible? If so which characters do you thing would represent whom and which events do you think would represent certain events in the Bible.

~just think

</p>

Inziladun

12-17-2000, 08:20 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 4</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Trilogy and Bible?

It is an interesting thought,and there appear some similarities to Biblical Creation in the story of the making
of Ea. However,Tolkien said of his work,&quot;It is not 'about'
anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions,general,particular,or topical,moral,religious,or
political.&quot; (p 220 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien)
That book,by the way,is available from Amazon.com and probably other sources,and sheds a great deal of light on
Tolkien's views of allegory,religion, and many other things.

</p>

the Lorien wanderer

12-18-2000, 03:02 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 40</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Trilogy and Bible?

Tolkien hated allegories didn't he? So I doubt if his books had any intentional representation of Biblical characters. Why, some chap here came up with the idea that elves represented communists. Interesting but unlikely.

Not all those who wander are lost.</p>

Saulotus

12-18-2000, 01:30 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 288</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Trilogy and Bible?

That would have been me, but it was the region of Dale and the battle there with Dain and Brand as the representation of the German incursion into russia (Germany = Dol Goldur).

In reminder...

LETTERS #45
<blockquote>Quote:<hr> J.R.R. Tolkien
{concerning Germany and Hitler}
&quot;Who are- under the curse of God- now led by a man inspired by a mad,
whirlwind, devil: a typhoon, a passion: that makes the poor old Kaiser
look like an old woman knitting... Anyway, I have in this War a
burning private grudge.&quot;

LETTERS #208
&quot;As for 'message': I have none really, if by that is meant the
conscious purpose in writing THE LORD OF THE RINGS... I was primarily
writing an exciting story in an atmosphere and background such as I
find personally attractive. But in such a process inevititably one's
own taste, ideas, and beliefs get taken up.&quot;
<hr></blockquote>

It undeniably revealed itself when I created the map I posted here earlier.

Apply this however you wish to the original query.

</p>

lindil

12-20-2000, 10:53 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 155</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
the Bible

I think the trilogy's main relationship to the Bible is that JRRT believed the Incarnation,Crucifixion and Ressurection of Jesus Christ to be the one Myth that was True on all levels and that whatever truth there was in any co-creation was due to it being in some way a reflection or illumination of the reality of our situation which is most clearlt set forth in the Bible. JRRT took great pains toexplain theTruth of Christianity to CC Lewis who after a long night walking w/ JRRT and another Inkling saw the Light as is said and went on to become the greatest Christian Apologist of the century.
For JRRT[who translated the Book of Job from french and hebrew into english for the Jerusalem Bible] the trilogy, while no allegory of the Old and New Testemants are contained [according to his own words] could only on it's deepest level point to the Truth contained in the teachings and Traditions of the Church.Not a popular or PC idea , but one which his own letters testify to plainly.

Lindil

</p>

onewhitetree

12-20-2000, 09:40 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 26</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

Although Tolkien claimed to hate allegory and deny its presence in his writings, I think a subconscious Christian vision of good vs. evil is there.

There is not an acual Christ-figure that comes into play, but I think the nine walkers can be viewed as 'disciples' somewhat, following the righteous path and their beliefs of duty.

Sell crazy someplace else...We're all stocked up here. <a href=http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul>Minas Morgul</a></p>

Saulotus

12-20-2000, 11:44 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 294</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

The 'Christ-figure' that DOES come into play is located in Athrabeth, as a logical extension of the story developed as the Old Hope [a conversion of the earlier Turin legend].

</p>

the Lorien wanderer

12-21-2000, 02:56 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 45</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

Actually, I'm not a Christian so I'm hardly qualified to say whether there is any reference-intended or not- to the Bible in the trilogy. I'm familiar with the Bible but I haven't lived it like most people here-going to Church on sundays and celebrating Christmas in a huge way and whatevr it is you do.

Not all those who wander are lost.</p>

onewhitetree

12-21-2000, 01:20 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 33</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

I am a Christian, but I don't really do any of those things.

I meant there wasn't an apparent Christ-figure in LotR. I haven't read all of his writings (shame on me, I know), but I agree on the fact that Tolkien's creation story drew on the Bible a LOT.

Sell crazy someplace else...We're all stocked up here. <a href=http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul>Minas Morgul</a></p>

Orald

12-22-2000, 01:17 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 93</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

I doubt it was meant to be looked at in that perspective, obviously it was. But even when you look at LotR like that, you can't say for sure that anything is taken from the bible.

From the non-biased non-Christian part of me I ask, why do you say bible? why not any other story in the history of the world. There are countless other good vs. evil stories that mirror JRRT's, the bible is a popular book and has several comparisons drawn to its many stories. But couldn't LotR also be compared to the Norse and Greek myth's or how about other legends, Anglo-Saxon and Celtic legends. Does it seem plausible that Tolkien took stories from the bible, changed them around, then said that his stories have nothing to do with anything?

Now from my very Christian standpoint I would have to say that there are many things similar between the Bible and JRRT's works. Yet I still cannot say that he took material from the Bible and used it as his own. For one, I have to much respect for Tolkien to believe that he would stoop to plagiarizing the Bible. And two, he said it himself that he drew no comparisons between the Bible and his works because he said that he completely made it all up, just like fiction writers are supposed to do.

In response to Lorien Wanderer's first post in this topic. Were you talking about Faramir's topic a few pages back, when you said that Elves have communistic tendencies?

</p>

Orald

12-22-2000, 01:27 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 94</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

My first post may seem a bit hard to understand(At least I thought when I went to read it again). So I thought I would sum up my response by saying that I do not think Tolkien was alluding to the Bible when he wrote his stories.

Sorry if my posts are hard to understand. I am a very poor essayist and probably always will be. I think this is do to my lack of general language skills, along with my bad organization skills, and along with my weird sentence structure. Thank you for putting up with me.

</p>

the Lorien wanderer

12-22-2000, 03:26 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 47</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

I was referring to Saulotus' post on some thread here where he likened elves to communists. Personally, I don't agree because I don't think Tolkien wanted to portray ideologies, or for that matter of fact religion. I think he just wanted to write a story.

Not all those who wander are lost.</p>

mwcfrodo

12-22-2000, 11:38 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 36</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Trilogy and Bible

One could make a reasonably good argument that Frodo was a very Messianic character (although not &quot;Jesus-like&quot; in the Sunday school, personal friend way). His central quest is to redeem the world from evil--to save the people. And, he pays with his own life because although he does not physically die, he is not able to go back to where he had been before. Indeed, he takes the step from mortality to (arguably) immortality by departing from Middle Earth.

I also think that given Tolkien's background there is considerable influence from the medieval &quot;Holy Grail&quot; literature. Frodo as he struggles through Mordor certainly bears some resemblence to the wounded Fisher King..an eerie, haunting story of loss and salvation.

And, as someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, it is perhaps too limiting to think Triology v. Bible. Tolkien is writing about the confrontation between good and evil...a common theme in every type of religion.

</p>

onewhitetree

12-23-2000, 02:04 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 34</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Only read this if you care

We recently had this conversation @ the Planet, so I'm all fresh on my opinions. <img src=smile.gif ALT=":)">

LotR was not a parable, or an allegory, or anything like that. It was just a story. However, JRR's devout Christianity leaks through as surely as any other characteristic. Perhaps he didn't realize it, or didn't consider it, but Middle Earth can be considered Christian in its portrayal because the essence of Christianity is the battle of good vs. evil, where love conquers all.

There is certainly not a Christ figure in the Trilogy, because every one of the characters loses self control at one point or another. Self-control is everything. It is unfair to say 'this guy is better than that guy' because, in truth, this guy just represses his inner human savagery better than that guy. The embrace of savage tendencies is what makes human nature, and every single member of the Nine Walkers, and every other minor character in the book, regresses into savagery at one time or another (except perhaps for Sam, but that's another page-long post). Therefore, there is not a Christ.

However, the Nine can be considered as disciples, or followers of Christ, because they display Christ-like attributes in their actions. Their job is to save the innocent and the ignorant from the evil corrupting the world, much like Christian doctrine preaches.

Whew. Sorry for the essay; I won't blame you a bit if you don't read it. <img src=smile.gif ALT=":)">

Sell crazy someplace else...We're all stocked up here. <a href=http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul>Minas Morgul</a></p>

Orald

12-24-2000, 12:10 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 107</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Only read this if you care

Oh really? Then who would you make Boromir out to be? Judas or Peter. Does Boromir completely betray the fellowship, or does he deny the fellowship and realize his error and try to correct it?

</p>

onewhitetree

12-24-2000, 01:47 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 40</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Only read this if you care

Well...I wouldn't go so far as to actually assign names connecting the 12 and the 9. I just meant disciples as in followers. If I had to choose, I would say probably Peter, but that is purely my opinion.

Sell crazy someplace else...We're all stocked up here. <a href=http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul>Minas Morgul</a></p>

Mister Underhill

12-24-2000, 03:16 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 223</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Only read this if you care

tree, no apology necessary for the essay. I like a post with some meat on its bones! But on the other hand, don't take it from me – if I’m not the most long-winded poster on the board, I'm at least in the running. But I digress.

Your post is well-reasoned, but I think I could make a case for Gandalf as a quasi-messianic figure. Consider:
·He was sent to Middle-earth by heavenly powers to save its people.
·He lived a life of relative poverty, had no home, owned only the possessions that he carried on his back, and traveled constantly in pursuit of his mission.
·He was a teacher and a leader.
·He could perform miraculous feats.
·He was a friend to the friendless (his mercy for Gollum) and a champion of the weak and lowly (of all the so-called Wise, he was the only one with an interest in Hobbits).
·His message was often met with scorn and contempt.
·He died and was reborn.

I can’t remember a time when Gandalf ever really faltered or lost his self-control. Sure he was tempted by the Ring, but Jesus was tempted, too. Gandalf didn’t give in to temptation. And okay, he was apt to lose his temper from time to time, but not in any serious way and only under circ*mstances that were justified. Jesus rebuked his disciples harshly from time to time, and he blew his stack (albeit righteously) on occasion – remember that table-tipping incident up to the temple? And Gandalf maintained his faith in a seemingly hopeless cause right up to the end.

But I’m really just playing devil’s advocate here (there’s a pun in there somewhere which I suppose is intended). I ultimately agree that LotR isn’t a parable or an allegory. I think you’ve hit the mark – Christian stories, morals, beliefs, and motifs were a part of who JRRT was and so inevitably turned up in his writing. What writer worth his salt would want to write stories that don’t in some way reflect his own beliefs and philosophies anyway?

Durelen, I don’t think you could mark Boromir as Judas. His “betrayal” of the Fellowship wasn’t deliberate and premeditated, and he died redeeming himself. One might say that he played the role allotted to him by fate to perfection. If not for him, would Frodo have found the courage to do what needed to be done? Certainly Pippin and Merry, at the least, would have insisted on accompanying him. Would things have worked out successfully if they had gone to Mordor too? I’ve always been curious about the Ring’s power – was it able to actually control Boromir in some way, or is it like one of those pure energy Star Trek aliens that merely lowers inhibitions or amplifies already existing urges and allows the true self to be exposed? Maybe Boromir best equates to Thomas. Always doubtful, that Boromir.

Whew. See what I mean?

</p>

Zoe

12-25-2000, 06:24 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 66</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
...

When it comes down to it, we could all spend hours making connections between LotR characters and biblical figures - but you can connect many characters from many stories with biblical figures, so really, it shows nothing.

Although the comparison between Gandalf and Jesus is interesting - the only difference I can think of is a minor one: unlike Jesus, Gandalf didn't have any other kind of trade (such as carpentry). Oh, and his teaching style was different - I don't think Gandalf was as much a teacher as a wise leader.

</p>

onewhitetree

12-26-2000, 11:16 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 44</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: ...

We could spend hours and come up with nothing. But in doing that, we develop our own opinions, etc., at least I do. And everyone should have opinions.

I see what you're saying, Mr. U., and I can't really contradict it in a meaningful way, but I just don't think Tolkien would have or did put a Christ-figure in the Trilogy.

Sell crazy someplace else...We're all stocked up here. <a href=http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul>Minas Morgul</a></p>

Luineeldaiel

01-12-2002, 02:45 PM

dernhelm

01-13-2002, 02:27 PM

Lostgaeriel

01-14-2002, 06:17 AM

Great discussion! I'm going to think it over for a while before making any serious comments.

In the meantime, in reply to Zoe:
unlike Jesus, Gandalf didn't have any other kind of trade (such as carpentry).

Gandalf had a trade - fireworks! smilies/wink.gif

But I do grant that he didn't use parables.

Turambar

01-14-2002, 08:30 AM

mark12_30

01-14-2002, 05:49 PM

Hi,
THere is a good article with some quotes from TOlkien himself on this topic. Check out: http://www.fotf.org/pplace/pi/lotr/A0018586.cfm

I was especially fascinated by the quote,
"The Lord of the Rings," he wrote in a letter to a friend, "is of course a fundamentally religious and Christian work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

So: when TOlkien started out, he was watching the story unfold; but when he revised it, I'm guessing that he realised he had Christian themes and concepts in there, and made them fuller.

--Mark12_30

the_master_of_puppets

01-21-2002, 01:09 PM

Aralaithiel

01-21-2002, 05:25 PM

River Jordan

01-22-2002, 12:34 AM

Just wanted to add my comments to the "Tolkien & the Bible" Discussion...here's a quote from "http://www.fotf.org/pplace/pi/lotr/A0018586.cfm" about Tokien's spirituality...

"The Lord of the Rings," (Tolkien) wrote in a letter to a friend, "is of course a fundamentally religious and Christian work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." Humphrey Carpenter, author of Tolkien's authorized biography, takes this claim seriously. Tolkien's writings, he says, are "the work of a profoundly religious man." According to Carpenter, God is essential to everything that happens in The Lord of the Rings. Without (The Lord God), Middle-earth couldn't exist.

Anyone have any comments to offer in response to this?

Your friendly neighbourhood youth pastor,
Chris Jordan (chrisjordan7@hotmail.com)

Luineeldaiel

01-22-2002, 07:02 PM

Kin-strife

01-23-2002, 04:40 AM

Lindolirian

01-23-2002, 07:45 PM

Marileangorifurnimaluim

01-23-2002, 08:50 PM

I'm not a Christian, my family's Buddhist, though I respect Christianity and my Christian friends. That said, there are some definate Christian themes in the LotR, as in all western literature, and still more in the background works such as the Sil. I always thought in the LotR it was unconcious, while the Sil. was conciously so.

The bible is one of, no, is the most influential force in western literature, and no educated person wishing to understand western-European-American literature should fail to study it, to recognize those subtle themes.

Poetry, and the poetry of powerful literature, plays our subconcious like a harp, evoking deep-seated imagery and emotional response, our ideals.

To understand Indian lit., you must read the Vedas, to understand Middle Eastern poetry, the Koran.

There is a common emotional language that is not just spoken.

I think Tolkien sought an epic universiality, not an allegory, not something that would only speak to erudite Christian scholars.

But the harp he played so-to-speak, was Christian in its roots. Certainly.

I think his point in rejecting allegory is that he didn't want to limit or make the LotR the sole property of those who call themselves Christian. Or anyone's sole property. He wasn't one who prostelytized, and he didn't want to narrow his audience.
There are those who don't read the Narnia Chronicles because they're labelled "Christian," who think they won't relate to them because of that. And that's a sad loss.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

Enkanowen

01-24-2002, 01:38 AM

Carannillion

01-24-2002, 09:28 AM

Let's not forget that Tolkien did in fact start out with creating a language , 'simply for the delight of creation itself' (not sure if that is an accurate quote), and then he decided to make the LotR (and Sil and Hobbit etc.) as a way of binding the language to something. Thus making the language even more complete.

Of course Tolkien's works has some Christian/religious aspects. Everything you write contains a reflection of yourself (except if you concentrate VERY hard on not doing it). Also, everything you read , you will interpret and memorize according to your own personality. It's nothing more or less than being human.

bryniana

01-24-2002, 04:37 PM

IMO when I read LOTR I do not see so much paralles to the Bible, but the archtypes that Joseph Campbell worked with in so much of his writing. If LOTR was written after Campbell was done with all of his studies would we be trying to find the hero, villan, and patsy instead of Jesus, Paul, and Jedus?

Were there ever actuall quotes from Tolkien that specifically said that he was trying to draw parallels...or was it just by accident of design that they happened?

In general (and this goes back to freshman year of high school and studing the Scarlett Letter). IMO it takes away from the literature itself to continualy focus on parallels that really aren't there. We have to reach and reach to find any and as soon as we think we are on the right track we come up with something else that works...for the moment.

But at the same time it does make good discussion.

Marileangorifurnimaluim

01-24-2002, 08:54 PM

The purpose of allegory is to teach (one reason I avoid it as fervently as Bilbo dodged the Sackville-Bagginses, and I get the impression Tolkien felt the same). It's a hollow mechanism, a candy coating on medicine. Bleah!

The purpose of the LotR is to entertain. And it does just that.

But themes common in Christianity are in there, good and evil, redemption, sacrifice, which give the LotR moral dimension and depth. That doesn't mean that Christianity has a lock on good/evil/redemption, or anything else.

For some it's difficult to erase some negative associations with the word 'Christian.' I'm speaking of course of Christian Theology, not politics.

Theology embraces and is open for discussion. Politics divides, classifies, and creates 'positions.' Theology puts the spirit before the law. Politics puts the law before the spirit.

This thread seems to be geared for looking for common Christian themes. You could just as easily search for Buddhist or Hindu themes (and probably find some of the same ones).

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

River Jordan

01-24-2002, 11:07 PM

As a professor of Hermeneutics at Pacific Life Bible College, one of the things I stress to my students is the importance, specifically in Bible interpretation, in finding out what the author's intended meaning is. There is an object truth in the Bible, regardless of our subjective thoughts and ideas about it. The same can be said about any work of literature, contrary to what many modern thinkers would say today. To find out the true meaning of any piece of literature, you must look at the author (or creator, if you will) and discover what he intended by his writing of the work. You and I may interpret it in different ways, but there is still only one true meaning, and that is what the author intended. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that when it comes to Lord of the Rings, we must allow Tolkien to speak for himself. He himself has stated that the work is not a planned allegory, therefore it is not. However, having said that, there is still the truth that Tolkien, as a devout Christian, was writing from his particular worldview, which comes through in his writings. There is a Ultimate Good, and an Ultimate Evil, and the servants of the Ultimate Good must fight to defeat the Ultimate Evil, or darkness must reign. How different from the modern new age thought of 'there is no good or evil, we are all one with the cosmic universe!".

In conclusion, I am a big fan of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings - I enjoyed the books, I also enjoyed the movie, and I am also a devout Christian.

Your friendly neighbourhood youth pastor,
Chris *River* Jordan http://www.angelfire.com/bc/YMF

Enkanowen

01-25-2002, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by River Jordan:
[QB]There is a Ultimate Good, and an Ultimate Evil, and the servants of the Ultimate Good must fight to defeat the Ultimate Evil, or darkness must reign. How different from the modern new age thought of 'there is no good or evil, we are all one with the cosmic universe!".

perhaps you might want to rephrase that sentence, because I belive you must have misunderstood something wrong about so called 'new age' beliefs.

The Mirrorball Man

01-25-2002, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by River Jordan:
To find out the true meaning of any piece of literature, you must look at the author (or creator, if you will) and discover what he intended by his writing of the work. You and I may interpret it in different ways, but there is still only one true meaning, and that is what the author intended.

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more.

A good piece of fiction is not simply a glorified diary entry or newspaper article. Ideally, good literature must offer the reader room for different - and sometimes divergent - interpretations, even beyond what the original author had intended or imagined. It's this quality that makes it possible for some novels or plays to cross the boundaries of time and space, and still be relevant centuries after they've been written, even if all the values of society have changed. Furthermore, a good piece of writing should stand on its own two feet. If you need to study the life of its author in order to properly understand it, it can only mean that the work is incomplete or has become obsolete.

Besides, using the Bible to illustrate your point of view is not very convincing. Even if there's only "one true meaning" in the Bible, it's obvious that scholars can't agree on what it is, otherwise there would probably be less churches and splinter groups of Christians. I think that in that respect, the Bible is not different from any other great book, since it obviously is open to different interpretations.

Carannillion

01-25-2002, 09:40 AM

Like my Religion teacher said:

When we read, all that which we read, we interpret, and that's just the way it is. You have an ego (not being egoistic, the 'self'-thing psychologists talk about), and therefore you have subjective opinions. You cannot read and not interpret. You can try, but you will always interpret it. And different people will interpret the same text differently. No matter what. (and the same thing goes for writing)

This may be one of the reasons for why a supposedly all-knowing, ultimate-purpoused book (e.g. the Bible, the Koran) can create so many different factions of people, sometimes even making war on one another over some issue (no disrespect intended).

River Jordan

01-25-2002, 06:00 PM

YOU SAID:
Besides, using the Bible to illustrate your point of view is not very convincing. Even if there's only "one true meaning" in the Bible, it's obvious that scholars can't agree on what it is, otherwise there would probably be less churches and splinter groups of Christians. I think that in that respect, the Bible is not different from any other great book, since it obviously is open to different interpretations.

Here's the point I was trying to make. Truth is truth, regardless of what people may think of it. For example, you are sitting in your room, typing at your computer, and if you were to look at your wall, you would find it to be a certain colour (for the sake of argument, let's say white). You may have someone else in the room with you who might say the white wall is green, and another friend who sees it as black, but the ABSOLUTE TRUTH is that this particular wall is white. The same is true with the Bible. Even though many different people may fail to understand its truth, and they may interpret it differently, it is still a deposit of truth. The trick is to discover what that truth means to us here and now, and that's where Hermeneutics - the Science of Bible Interpretation - comes in.

Anyway, this is an interesting discussion topic, nonetheless! As mentioned in a previous post, I am a big fan of Tolkien's writings, (primarily Rings & Hobbit) and also enjoyed the latest movie adaptation. Looking forward to continued dialogue with you all!

Your friendly neighbourhood youth pastor,
Chris Jordan http://www.angelfire.com/bc/YMF

Marileangorifurnimaluim

01-26-2002, 01:36 AM

What we're referring to here is ultimate and relative truth. They are co-emergent, so one does not negate the other. One person is tall only in relation to another who is shorter. That tall person will be short standing next to a basketball team. Even white is not an ultimate truth to any human, because white is also relative: to someone from China it represents death, to a European, purity. In an ultimate, non-referential, non-egoistic sense, short and tall are nonsense; the gradations of meaning of "white" are nonsense: without referencing self and other, this and that, they have no meaning. But the ultimate truth does not negate relative truth, because that would be taking ultimate as a reference point - making it relative to something. And no longer ultimate.

To relate this to the topic at hand, to really be speaking from the point of an ultimate truth, the relative interpretation has to be given due consideration. With awareness of its proper context.

As someone once said: Trust in God, but tie up your camel.

Tolkien said: "To please readers was my main object." And that covers his ultimate purpose, and incorporates relative latitude.
To say there was one ultimate preeminent meaning goes against both.

Oh, that was fun! Welcome aboard, River Jordan! I really appreciate your philosophical bent.

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

Bombadil

01-26-2002, 12:17 PM

I've posted these thoughts elsewhere, so pardon me if you're reading them again.

If you want Christian/Biblical allegory couched in fantasy, turn to C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. Those have a creation, an obvious Christ figure, an obvious Satan figure, personal salvation stories, a character who turns her back on salvation, and a big Revelation-like finale.

Lord of the Rings has none of these. There are no references to God, period. None. While I certainly salute those who find religious meaning in LOTR, I suspect they carried those religious beliefs in with them in the first place.

As many others have pointed out, the heroic good-vs.-evil struggle can be seen as representing all sorts of ancient stories, not just Biblical ones. I grant that Tolkien's devout Christianity makes it probable that he was greatly influenced by the heroic good-vs.-evil struggles of the Bible; but going from there to the notion that LOTR is somehow a Biblical allegory is an enormous leap not supported by evidence. By that same logic, we would have to look for Biblical and Christian parallels in every work ever produced by any western writer. So, every time someone writes about good triumphing over evil, they're really writing about Christ's resurrection? C'mon.

The quote about LOTR being "fundamentally religious and Catholic" has been taken out of context many times. I am a church-going Christian who also happens to be a professional singer and songwriter. Every time I write a song it is a religious experience for me. But I have yet to write a song with Christian themes.

Again, I have no argument with those who say that they find religious meaning in LOTR. That's wonderful for you. But to say that the work is, by the author's intention, full of Christian and Biblical symbolism is quite another thing. And it is not an opinion shared by professional scholars who've spent their entire lives studying Tolkien and his writings. When I get my car repaired or want advice on a Medieval composer whose music I will be performing, I go to a professional. I think we can trust the professionals on this one too.

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: bombadil ]

River Jordan

01-26-2002, 01:50 PM

YOU SAID:
Again, I have no argument with those who say that they find religious meaning in LOTR. That's wonderful for you. But to say that the work is, by the author's intention, full of Christian and Biblical symbolism is quite another thing. And it is not an opinion shared by professional scholars who've spent their entire lives studying Tolkien and his writings.
[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: bombadil ]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. As Tolkien himself has said, the work was not written with allegory in mind. Tolkien was a Christian, but LotR is not a Christian or Biblical allegory. The only point I was trying to make is that LotR has rich themes in it that agree with the Bible's teachings about good and evil. To help illustrate my point, let me compare Tolkien (if you will forgive me!) to (dare I mention it in this forum?) Harry Potter. I like Tolkien because in his works you have good that is distinctly good, and evil that is clearly evil. In Harry Potter, you find the so-called heroes who use all manner of evil (lying, rebelling against authority, etc. etc. etc.) to achieve their "good" ends. As Kurt Bruner says, "Tolkien's fantasy world, like our world, is one in which good protects and preserves while evil seeks to dominate and destroy...The ring, designed for evil, cannot be used for good, though well-meaning characters try. The more they surrender to its power, the weaker they become, and the more it becomes their master...The Lord of the Rings is a tale of redemption in which the main characters overcome cowardly self-preservation to model heroic self-sacrifice."

Anyway, all this "philosophizing" aside, I think the purpose of the Lord of the Rings is to be entertained by incredible literature, a wonderful story with fun and fantastic characters. We can discuss and debate all the inner-workings of the LotR novel, but I think Tolkien would be most pleased if we simply read - and enjoyed - the work! Just a thought...

Your friendly neighbourhood youth pastor,
Chris Jordan http://www.angelfire.com/bc/YMF

Bombadil

01-27-2002, 01:53 PM

Luineeldaiel

01-27-2002, 07:15 PM

Much food for thot here. My only observation, whether we are speaking of reality or fantasy is that all are flawed whether good or evil. It is our choice or the choice of the author which determine our ultimate destiny and the destiny of any given character. How far down the divergent paths of good or evil any would go is a matter of choice. Many believe a predestined one by the Author of Life, Himself.

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: Luineeldaiel ]

River Jordan

01-27-2002, 10:32 PM

ho bombadil!
YOU SAID: "General agreement here, RJ. But I'm sure you didn't mean that the good guys in LOTR are purely good! Farmer Maggot wouldn't agree about Frodo, anyway "

Of course not. I quoted Kurt Bruner earlier as having said: "The Lord of the Rings is a tale of redemption in which the main characters overcome cowardly self-preservation to model heroic self-sacrifice."

I was contrasting the good versus evil in Lord of the Rings with that of the modern Harry Potter where the "good guys" aren't really good. See what I mean here:

Harry disobeys teachers (SS, 148-150) lies (COS 128, 164, 209; POA 155, 246, 283-285) disobeys school rules (SS, 153-158, 209-213; COS, 164-165) steals (COS, 165-166) breaks wizard laws (SS, 237-241; COS, 69) cheats (GOF, 329, 341
Ron disobeys school rules (SS, 153-158, 209-213; COS, 164-165) lies (POA, 289) steals (COS, 165-166) break wizard laws (SS, 237-241; COS, 69) uses profanity/swears/off-color slang (COS, 259)
Hermione disobeys school rules (COS, 164-165) steals (COS, 165-166) cheats (GOF, 338-339)
Hagrid disobeys conditions of his employment (SS, 59, 64) breaks wizard laws (SS, 230-233, 237-241; GOF, 438) encourages children to break rules (SS 64, 237) cheats (GOF 329)
Mr. Weasley breaks wizard laws (COS, 31; GOF, 45, 61) lies to wife (COS, 66) uses profanity/swears/off-color slang (GOF, 43)
Fred & George disobeys school rules (POA, 192) disobeys parents (COS, 30; GOF, 88-89, 117, 367) breaks wizard laws (COS, 30) lies to parents (COS, 32)
Dumbledore lies (POA, 353)

In Lord of the Rings, there are consequences for our heroes when the good guys do the wrong things or give into temptation (i.e. every time Frodo uses the ring). In Harry Potter, the "good guys" do the wrong things / bad things but with no consequences. I like the ethics of LotR better than "Potter-ethics"!

Your friendly neighbourhood elf,
*River* Jordan

Carannillion

01-28-2002, 03:15 AM

In my opinion, the Potter-books are actually a bit simpler - more childish, if you like - than LotR (and the rest of Tolkien's works). The Potter-books aims for children (although older people can certainly also enjoy them), while Hobbit, LotR, Sil, UT, etc. are more 'advanced' books (which can of course also be enjoyed by younger people, although I don't think an eight years old child would be able to enjoy Sil).

I do agree with you, River Jordan; I like 'LotR-ethics' better than 'Potter-ethics', but then again, I simply like Tolkien than Rowling.

Marileangorifurnimaluim

01-29-2002, 11:37 PM

I find Potter to be a relief from the cloying saccharine Disney "good McKids."

I've noticed a number of Christian Tolkien fans putting a distance between the LotR and HP to keep it from being painted with the same brush (for those who don't know, there is concern HP would lead kids to develop interest in witchcraft). I'm all for that. Anything that keeps the picket lines full of people who haven't read the books from blocking my fifth viewing!

As a kid I was always insulted by the insistance TV, books, etc., could write my personality like I was a blank slate. I knew what was real and what wasn't, and had my own ethics (noticably higher than some).
Looking back, I'd say it was my family and friends, and the occassional live role model that had an impact on my life. Primarily my family. Even reading the LotR 14 times in jr. high & high school didn't have a bazillionth of the impact my mother had. The energy expended over HP would be better channelled into Big Brother/Big Sister programs for kids who don't have good role models in their family.

-Maril

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

River Jordan

01-30-2002, 12:14 AM

YOU SAID:

I've noticed a number of Christian Tolkien fans putting a distance between the LotR and HP to keep it from being painted with the same brush (for those who don't know, there is concern HP would lead kids to develop interest in witchcraft). I'm all for that. Anything that keeps the picket lines full of people who haven't read the books from blocking my fifth viewing!

One of the reasons why I - as an Early Childhood Educator in my church - don't recommend the Harry Potter books to our children is of course for that very reason, that it can cause the children to become interested in real-world witchcraft and occultism. There is that very real danger, which the school boards in England had noticed, and for that very reason, are discussing and debating whether or not to ban the books from school libraries...
I already mentioned above another one of the reasons why I don't like Rowlings "Potter-ethics", and that's because the good are not really good, they are rather small and self-serving. (By the way, this comes from someone who is knowledgeable about the subject, having read all four of the Harry Potter books myself...)

I also agree with your comment, Marileangorifurnimaluim, that parents and people have (at least they should have, and thankfully in most cases do) the greatest influence on the values of our children. However, I also believe that people are influenced (note I said influenced, not controlled) by the music they listen to and the movies they watch, etc. The old adage, "Garbage in, garbage out."

A final thought about the Harry Potter books, they simply pale beside the great authors of fantasy literature like Tolkien and Lewis! It's amazing that they have become so popular, and it is notable that the primary reading audience is children, and not literary critics...

Anyway, having said all that, I thoroughly enjoy and support the Lord of the Rings, both as fantastic literature, and also as an enjoyable movie. (Working primarily with teens in my church, I find more of them have seen the movie than those who have read the books). Well, cheers!

your friendly neighbourhood *River*

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-02-2002, 04:16 PM

I like both for different reasons.

The fact Harry Potter isn't all good is what I find refreshing, and I enjoy the humor.

I enjoy the Lord of the Rings for it's depth and idealism. And I enjoy Tolkien's humor.

As far as witchcraft is concerned, I don't believe it exists. So a non-existent doesn't worry me. The two groups that believe in it, one opposes an imaginary concept, the other is a group of posers who visit scented candle shops and cultivate a mystique. The later is the more absurd.

I'll add: The real evil is hatred, greed, what different religions describe in various ways (the three poisons, the seven deadly sins, the ten non-virtues) but are pretty similar. Hatred for example, is a motive, as is greed. Someone who collects a bunch of religious material just to have something can be in principal just as greedy and accumulative as an investment banker. A kid who buys a rose-scented candle to help their friend's headache - well, it's not going to work, but the underlying motivation is positive. It's a mistake to condemn, say, Murphy Brown (if you remember Dan Quayle), and expect to have the sinners see the light and flock to the side of righteousness. In fact, this results in being laughed at by all but those who already agree.

Any action has multiple levels: the good/bad/neutral nature of the action, the motive driving it, and the attitude following it. Then there's the myriad causes that provoked it, and the effects it produces - the intended effects, and the unintended effects. The intended effects can be good or bad, as can the unintended effects (a bad intention can even accidentally cause something good - that's in fact how good can be produced in a negative environment, an oppressor can unintentionally be a cause of another's noble act; or someone intending harm can accidentally shove them out of the path of a speeding car).

Of these we have control over our motive, our choice of action, and our own attitude after. The internal causes. The effects we have no control over, no more than we can control the weather, because that would mean controlling others responses.
Garbage in, garbage out refers to computers, which mercifully we are not. Mandating good is as effective as Prohibition was in the 1920s.

What one can do however is teach, especially through example, the kind of positive self-discipline of action/motive/reflection. It's the mirror image of "give a man a fish.." in this case "Take away the poison, and they will desire it more. Give them something better, and they will never want anything less."

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

giakulasa

02-04-2002, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Tolkien118:
<STRONG><font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 3</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Does anyone think that the Trilogy(Silmarilion, etc.) may be an allegorical representation of the Bible? If so which characters do you thing would represent whom and which events do you think would represent certain events in the Bible.

~just think

</p></STRONG>

my philosophy professor narrated that Tolkien and C.S. Lewis (of the Narnia Chronicles) are buddies who one day decided to tell the world of the Salvation History (the Exodus) through literature. hence you see themes of hope in humanity (Gandalf standing up to Elrond for Aragorn; and when he tells Frodo that even the littlest people can change the course of the world), trust in the Almighty's plans (Gandalf's famous lines to Frodo that goes something like "We do not choose what comes to us. WE must know how to use it when it does. or something), and other things.
hope that helped smilies/smile.gif

Lostgaeriel

02-04-2002, 02:32 PM

I've been thinking about this topic a lot for the past couple or 3 weeks. In fact my subconcious won't leave it alone!

Besides the obvious similarity in the healing powers of Aragorn and Christ (and thus their identification as King and Messiah respectively), I've found about 15 or 20 other similarities. I'm trying to write it up in some kind of readable essay, but typing up the dozens of quotes alone is very time consuming.

Anyway, my theorem about the reason there appears to be no definitive "Christ figure" in tLotR" is because it takes 3 characters to represent Christ: Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn. A trinity if you will! (Ugghhh!) Read again the passage about the crowning of Aragorn to see how closely intertwined these characters are for achievng "The Return of the King".

Frodo bears the burden and "dies" to save the world. (He cannot return to a normal hobbit life.) Gandalf sacrifices himself for his friends and is reborn. He also is the flame or "Holy Spirit" that encourages the Fellowship to act. (Pentecost is discussed in Acts 2.) Aragorn lives a fully human life as did Jesus.

I've got 10+ pages on how Aragorn's story is similar to Jesus'. Here's a partial list.
* detailed genealogy to legitimize claim
* similar childhoods - naming of the child, foster/adoptive father, hiding child from enemy
* mothers' feelings when confronted with prophecies about their sons (not exactly the same, but both mentioned)
* coming of age stories (at 20 and 12 years respectively)
* temptation by the Devil or the Ring - offer of earthly power
* both predict the end of the Age - which relates to the next...
* the reforging of the Sword and the separation of Arwen & Elrond by Aragorn remind me of Matthew 10:34-38
* the various names, titles, descriptors of both - some are similar if you stretch it
* healing powers - already discussed
* entering and then leaving "the City" on the day they are hailed as King and Messiah
* "communion" or drinking from a common cup occurs many times in tLotR, but Aragorn's farewell to Éowyn before he takes the Paths of the Dead brings to mind the Last Supper
* the many Transfigurations of Aragorn (a BIG one) - I count 10 instances at least.
* Aragorn's decision to find and save Merry and Pippin rather than follow Frodo reminds me of the Parable of the Lost Sheep.
* Aragorn hears Boromir's deathbed confession. He never tells anyone what Boromir did. Only he and Frodo know. (Priest?)
* their roles as Judge at the end of the War or at the end of time
* Frodo and Sam sit on the right and left sides of Aragorn's throne - much debate among disciples as to who was going to get this honour in Jesus' kingdom. (See also Rev 5:13 - is Frodo the Lamb and Aragorn the one who "sits on the throne"?)
* Aragorn has his apostles or followers - male and female - as did Jesus - Sons of Elrond, Halbarad, Éowyn, Éomer, Imrahil, Gimli and Legolas.
* the preparation of the wedding of Aragorn and Arwen has a hint of the Wedding Feast of Canaan (water into wine - saving the best 'til last)

Want more detail? Quotes? Let me know. Like I said it's VERY LONG. And I'm sure it's not original. (I see in another thread Movies: LOTR fanatics.. read on.. help? that I should probably read "Finding God in 'The Lord of the Rings'" – author?)

Post Script:
I was interested in this topic as a literary exercise only. For fun. I don't believe the idea that there is any Christ figure in LOTR. It's not an allegory. I just thought it would be interesting to explore imagery and story elements common to both these pieces of literature (and others). For example, why are "coming of age" stories so important to people? (Frodo's is also told in LOTR.)

After reading some of the messages here, I've concluded that I don't have the stomach or the thick skin needed to write up this piece of fluff. Not to mention the time.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Lostgaeriel ]

Mister Underhill

02-04-2002, 02:52 PM

Lostgaeriel

02-04-2002, 03:13 PM

Oh my God! smilies/wink.gif What have I done? smilies/eek.gif

Well, Mister Underhill, I'll keep plugging away. Thanks for the encouragement. But when will I have time to do some more comics? smilies/biggrin.gif

Luineeldaiel

02-04-2002, 04:57 PM

Joy

02-04-2002, 08:13 PM

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-04-2002, 10:12 PM

I'm sympathic to spiritual perspectives, for obvious reasons, and not surprised at all that so many Tolkien fans are deeply spiritual. Not surprised one bit.

But given Tolkien so openly disliked allegory, and made it undeniably clear that such was not his intent, we are then extrapolating what we wish to see in his books. Fair enough.

But opening that particular door is opening
Pandora's box.

We are obliged then to allow other prevarications that have only a tenuous, tangental, purely theoretical interpretive relationship to the Lord of the Rings. In a word: we'd need to bring back Eve. And not complain about it. At least with hom*oerotic subtext there is no direct quotes from Tolkien emphatically denying it. Although I'm sure there would be, if someone had thought to ask. If we're gonna 'blue-sky' here, and have some spiritual fun (face it, you guys are having a blast picking out the quotes from Matthew) we'll just have to respect other unsupportable blue-sky theories. Including implausible ring-representing-marriage theories, WWII theories (which Tolkien has also emphatically denied), race theories, you name it.

Mister Underhill

02-05-2002, 01:07 AM

...implausible ring-representing-marriage theories...Implausible?! How dare you! smilies/wink.gif

The board is open to theories of all shapes and sizes, subject to the ability of our membership to maintain a reasonable level of self-control and to keep the discussion within hailing distance of Tolkien. Even your hom*oerotic inquiry that foreshadowed the later, more explosive thread to which you allude was conducted at a reasonably intelligent level. In the case of Eve, the moderators bent over backwards to protect the integrity of the board’s policy of freedom of expression; the aforementioned thread was eventually closed not because of the ideas expressed, but rather because of the discussion styles employed and because the thread eventually wandered hopelessly off-topic. WWII threads have arisen in the past, but since the parallels quickly break down (and since WWII isn’t exactly a controversial hot-button topic), they’ve never picked up much steam. Other theories (I’m thinking in particular of a certain complex of Ring-symbolism analysis here) are perhaps ahead of their time, and are met with scorn, confusion, misunderstanding, or just plain old apathy – cases of pearls before swine and all that, you know, which nevertheless create relatively little fuss.

Religion is a notorious hot-button topic, yet we’ve had surprisingly little ruckus over it here, for a variety of reasons. One is that it’s difficult to assert that there’s no Christian content in LotR. Even if we take the prof at his word, the simple fact is that Tolkien was as outspoken about his religion as he was in his denials of allegorical content. It would be rather amazing if certain symbols and motifs from his belief system weren’t found within his magnum opus, even if the prof consciously intended a completely religion-free work. Probing for these parallels isn’t necessarily the same as claiming allegorical intent or content.

Another reason that religious discussion has never gotten far out of hand is that the prof was successful after all – his references to Christianity are so abstract and his anti-allegorical intentions so pure that he’s made no controversial claims which might give rise to doctrinal battles. You can see shades of Christianity (and other religions and cultural mythos, perhaps, if you like), but you ultimately have to accept Middle-earth for what it is – a “sub-creation” and not an allegory.

Luineeldaiel

02-05-2002, 02:28 PM

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-05-2002, 03:47 PM

Welcome to the Downs, Luin. Suddenly there seem to be a lot of us (some former) MI people about...

Touche Mr. U. Actually, I was very careful to refer specifically to the allegorical intentions of Tolkien. Otherwise I contradict myself from my post earlier in this thread. smilies/wink.gif

So long as we ignore Tolkien's intentions, the Christian influence, the influence of WWII, of being an orphan, male bonding during war (and whatever subtext you may derive), all are there whether he willed them or no.

But I feel Tolkien sought to strike a more universal chord, or why deny the immediate embrace of Christian allegorists? I believe he mentioned his dream to create a truly English epic, more suitable than Mallory's. I also I believe he succeeded. Perhaps several colonies beyond his intentions.

Why deny the Christian theorists their fun? Or the political commentators on WWII?
He wanted everyone to enjoy his books.
To avoid the ownership of his epic by an exclusive club, (Christian or otherwise).
Whereupon it would be further exclusively owned by a particular view. (Protestant? Catholic?)
And thereupon, further removed from his intended audience, to a more specific corner of that spirallingly ever smaller world.

Those who territorially claim the LotR as a solely Christian work *vision of dog at fencepost* over Tolkien's own protests, is to miss the juxtapoint between his Christian views, those protests, and vision for his epic.

But blue-sky theories, that don't attempt to be exclusionary, don't violate the spirit of his works at all.

Carannillion

02-07-2002, 04:38 PM

I sort of stepped out of this discussion (I soon realized that it went to a higher league than the one I'm playing in) and just lurked at it from time to time, and I have to say: this is probably one of the best I have seen. You guys are simply amazing!

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Carannillion ]

Mithadan

02-07-2002, 07:43 PM

I usually stay out of discussions of this sort, but as this thread has accumulated so many posts I decided to take a peek. In my opinion, one tends to interpret what one reads according to one's world-view. It is thus not surprising that Christians seek religious references in Tolkien's works. Oddly enough, some early criticisms of LoTR included arguments that it was anti-Christian or even pagan in nature. One does not have to look very hard to find such criticisms (even contemporary ones - a church website recently warned parents against letting their children read Tolkien). Clearly, LoTR lacks any overt references to religon. In Letters, Tolkien frankly admits this. There are no churches or temples. Yet if one goes beyond LoTR to the Silmarillion, there is an odd combination of monotheism (Eru) and paganism (the Valar, called the Gods in early drafts). However, by LoTR Eru and the Valar "only peep through" and while there is a form of recognition of both Eru and the Valar in the Men of the West and the Elves, they are remote... "there would be no temple of the True God while Numenorean influence lasted." (Letters, No.156).

Tolkien's quotes, repeated often in other posts, about lack of allegory and no conscious injection of Christianity, need not be repeated and should be taken at face value. To do otherwise is to call Tolkien a liar, and I do not believe he was. So what is the source of inspiration found in Tolkien's writings which is so often interpreted as religious allegory?

As he said, he wanted to write a good yarn. Interpret this as he wanted to write a story he himself would like to read. And what did Tolkien enjoy? Northern, Norse and Icelandic Mythology... fairy stories as he states in an essay. Many scholarly works are dedicated to Tolkien's writing with most attributing his inspiration, if not his sources, as the Icelandic Eddas. It is suggested that Turin is a direct rip-off of Kullervo from those tales (gotta read those Eddas someday).

But JRRT did not just rewrite old myths. He wrote his own tales, perhaps in a style or genre that he himself enjoyed. But as he wrote them, he inserted his own world-view via the ethics, logic and morals of Middle Earth. Thus no bad deed ultimately goes unpunished; good triumphs over evil; loyalty, steadfastness, determination in the face of adversity, honor and duty are virtues. Tolkien's Judeo-Christian world-view seeps into his writing unavoidably and does so over and over again. But Middle Earth and its characters are not based upon the Bible, purposefully (he expressly denies this over and again) or otherwise. What can be found in Middle Earth, the Men of the West, Hobbits and more or less the Elves and Dwarves are the values, ethics and morals which JRRT cherished (which happen to be Judeo-Christian as was he, but not exclusively so -- most religons espouse the same principles) as well as a ripping good series of stories in the style he loved. As such, his work, in a way, transcends and is loved by Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, etc. Yet none can (or should) claim it as their own -- this was not what he intended. He wanted to write a good yarn and he did. And if people find inspiration in his writing, all the better.

Elenhin

02-08-2002, 11:57 AM

Letter 142:
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision.
...[No 'cults' or practiced religions in LotR]...
For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.[/i]

Letter 165:
[LotR] is not 'about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular, or topical, moral, religious, or political. The only criticism that annoyed me was one that it 'contained no religion'. ... It is a monotheistic world of 'natural theology'. ... I am in any case myself a Christian; but the 'Third Age' was not a Christian world.

Tolkien didn't write LotR with preaching in mind, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a Christian book. Tolkien himself says so, but I think that he doesn't mean the same kind of a "Christian book" as many of you seem to think of "Christian books". To me, a Christian book might not be more than a book in accord with the Christian moral teachings - the LotR certainly is - and if a book is "Christian" it isn't necessarily intended to be Christian and Christian alone. A Christian book can be enjoyed by anyone, and its moral import can be valuable for anyone (like it has been said, most major world religions believe in the same kind of ideals).

I, as a Christian, did not (at the first reading) notice any particular religious symbolism in LotR. After I had read the Silmarillion and other posthumously published works it became clear to me how religious Tolkien actually was. On my later rereadings of LotR I have noticed the similarities between the morals taught by Christ and the morality of the good characters in LotR. That doesn't mean that LotR is allegorical, just that it shares the same basic beliefs of human nature as the Bible - and therefore I think that it's accurate and proper to call it a Christian book, especially as the author confirmed that it was written with Christian ideals in mind.

Mithadan, where did you find a quote saying that Tolkien didn't consciously inject Christianity to LotR? There are quotes where he says that it isn't about religion, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any religious ideas there... they're embedded to the story and its symbolism.

PS. The story of Kullervo is not in the Norse Eddas, but in the Finnish Kalevala. Also, I think that it's quite far-fetched to say that Tolkien 'directly ripped off' the story of Kullervo, but there are definitely similarities and even 'directly ripped off' (if you want to use such a phrase) elements.

Elenhin

02-08-2002, 11:58 AM

(A double post)

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Elenhin ]

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-08-2002, 04:58 PM

In my opinion, one tends to interpret what one reads according to one's world-view.

Absolutely, Mithadan. And I also agree that Tolkien's own Christian sensibilities seep into the work throughout. How could they not?

It's an interesting point about Tolkien's goal of a "ripping good yarn" that he himself would enjoy reading. Excellent point, and I think that's the bottom line.

Elenhin, the religious philosophy of the LotR was not apparent to me, either. I think it's because it really is a ripping good yarn not intended to be spiritual in any specific way. The Silmarillion is utterly different, it's a very mystical work. Christian.. that's a hard case to make.

Religions almost universally agree on ethics. Ethics are remarkably similar from one religion to the next. The differences tend to be in the explanation as to why, the philosophy.

To demonstrate that the LotR is specifically Christian then requires not a listing of Christian ethics, which are common to most if not all religions, but a demonstration that the LotR's religous philosophy is definitively Christian in the ways that Christianity differs from other religions.

Tough to do, since it really doesn't refer to Christ (which is the main difference between Christianity and Judaism), and straddles the line between Mono- and Polytheism as Mithadan mentions. It can be done, but usually by referring to the LotR as an allegory. Which Tolkien staunchly refuted, not because he wasn't religious, but because that wasn't what he wrote it for.

With a narrow monocle, a keyhole point of view, a Hindu or Buddhist can point to the reincarnation of the Elves as demonstrating the LotR is Eastern in it's philosophy, as reincarnation is stoutly refuted by the Catholic Church (I can't speak for the various Protestant views). With a similar keyhole point of view, we can point to specific similarities to Christianity. But it has to hit all the main buttons to call it Christian.

Even if we could find all those key points, for either Christianity or Eastern religions, that would still misdirect away from the intent of Tolkien's work. (Though it might be a fun blue-sky theories to toy about.)

One does not have to look very hard to find such criticisms (even contemporary ones - a church website recently warned parents against letting their children read Tolkien).

This is one reason in most places I've stayed out of the discussion. It's similar to the situation between some Hindu sects and Buddhists. Some Hindus feel the Buddha was a manifestation of Krishna. The Buddhists don't agree, but this conclusion causes such a convenient spirit of cooperation that it's best left alone.

Generally, I appreciate the common ground that we all like the Lord of the Rings, for all our various reasons. But I couldn't resist such an intelligent thoughtful (and polite) spiritual discussion.

-Maril

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

goldwine

02-08-2002, 10:33 PM

Bombadil

02-09-2002, 05:42 PM

So we ALL agree that one can interpret Tolkien as one wishes, Christian or non-Christian. Let's get that straight and stop bringing up that particular angle.

What we disagree on is Tolkien's intent. And it's clear from his writings that he had no intention of writing a Christian allegory.

We can argue for centuries about how his Christianity affected his writing, and of course it did. But that doesn't make LOTR an allegory. So Gandalf, Frodo and Aragorn could together represent a Jesus figure? That's a real stretch and not at all typical of allegory. By that same logic, I could pick almost any book off of my shelf and find three characters who could represent parts of Jesus. I can think of episodes of Star Trek that would meet the criteria. Kirk (the leader), Spock (the philosopher who dies and returns to life) and McCoy (the healer) are the first to come to mind, but there are many other possibilities. Does that make Star Trek a Christian allegory? Gimme a break.

As I've said before, Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia is Christian allegory. LOTR is not. It's a simple definition -- look it up in your dictionary. If you want to go through LOTR and other books finding religious meaning, that's wonderful for you and I wish you well in your spiritual journey. But we shouldn't put intentions in Tolkien's pen that were never there in the first place. That's dangerous for the book, dishonorable to the writer, and dishonest for the reader.

Angus Og

02-09-2002, 06:03 PM

Hi! Ok, I'm new and haven't had time to read through all of this, but...

I want to say:
a) that since Tolkien himself said that he hates allegory and it's not allegorical, we may as well accept that.
b) Tolkien himself also said that it's a profoundly religious work, and it's obvious that his Christian worldview plays out in the books... we may as well accept that too.

All that said...
I find it very interesting that Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn do not recognize Gandalf when he first returns in The Two Towers... that made me immediately think of Jesus and the way in which those who encountered him after his resurrection didn't recognize him... the parallel would seem a bit too strong to be coincidental... if it weren't for the fact that Tolkien explicitly says it wasn't an intended paralel...

But I find that interesting and thought I'd mention it...

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-10-2002, 09:27 PM

Welcome to the Downs, Angus Og. Meaty topic for your first post. smilies/wink.gif

I think yours and Goldwine's post brings us back to Mithadan's point. We interpret according to our own mindset. A non-Christian wouldn't even notice a parallel.

It's just natural. Once you think someone is dead, you don't expect them to come walking up to you in Fangorn forest. Haven't you ever bumped into someone you didn't expect to see, and not recognized them at first?

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

Elendur

02-11-2002, 01:08 AM

I do not have time to read everything written here, so I am sorry if someone already said this. But I think it is odd that the person people associate with Jesus (Gandalf) seems to go around performing witchcraft and such that is prohibited in The Bible. smilies/smile.gif

Im sorry. I had to say it.

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-11-2002, 08:30 PM

mark12_30

02-11-2002, 10:33 PM

Hi all,

I think what pops up in the Trilogy are a series of types-and-shadows rather than a streamlined allegory. Gandalf exhibits a few Christlike qualities; so does Aragorn; so does Frodo; so does Sam, and even Merry and Pippin. Lots of folks exhibit differing qualities we can compare to Christ. In that way, the trilogy could be compared to the Old Testament; there is no one figure foreshadowing Jesus, but there are lots of folks who display a quality or two.

The question that i wish I could ask Tokien is, 'So you say that "The trilogy is of course a fundamentally Christian work, unconsciously so at first, and consciously so in the revision." Dear Professor, exactly what did you consciously revise to make it more Christian?' I've often wondered.

goldwine

02-11-2002, 10:44 PM

Bruce MacCulloch

02-11-2002, 11:04 PM

Witchcraft involves dark incantations evoking evil. I have a serious problem with that remark, as a practicing wiccan (witch). I have yet to use any dark incantations or any evoking of evil.
Excuse my interruption - I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Bruce MacCulloch ]

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-11-2002, 11:55 PM

Androndo the Thoughtfull

02-12-2002, 09:53 AM

I'm sure that Tolkien got inspiration from the Bible - many places! - But it's not a 'translation' of the Bible in any way...

Did you know the place Abraham did not (he nearly did..)kill Isac was called Moria?
And there is an unknown place/mountain in Israel called Moria - And some believe the other Moria is where Christ was crucified? (And some believe the two places are the same place...)

But, i don't believe Gandalf (who died for the others and resurrected again in Moria)
is a symbol for Christ all the way through the story - but some times you can think you have heard the story before in a way - and think of the Bible - and the next scene they act very 'non-biblish'...

Engwawathiel

02-12-2002, 03:27 PM

Engwawathiel

02-12-2002, 06:31 PM

Elendur

02-12-2002, 09:55 PM

goldwine

02-15-2002, 12:25 AM

Bruce MacCulloch

02-15-2002, 01:04 AM

Bombadil

02-15-2002, 10:25 AM

Actually, Androndo, the place where Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac was called Moriah, not Moria. (Both my KJV and NIV Bibles confirm this.) Tiny little ticky detail, but the pronunciation is what's completely different -- second syllable stressed in the Middle Eastern locale, first syllable stressed in the Dwarven hall. And, Abraham renamed the place after his experience with God -- called it Jehovahjireh or some such. Not much parallel to Khazad-dum in that.

I hope my posts don't make me sound like a party-pooper. I'm not anti-Christian at all -- in fact, I've been a Christian for 23 of my 38 years on this planet. I just don't feel the need to stretch the bounds of logic to find parallels to the Bible in a fine piece of secular literature. God is God and that's good enough for me. As I've said before, by using such criteria as I've seen here, I could find Biblical parallels in everything from Star Trek to Gone With The Wind. I could even find parallels that would, um, "prove," that Tolkien was influenced by Margaret Mitchell. That doesn't make it true.

It's like that fellow a few years back who wrote a best-seller on how there was some sort of code hidden in the text of the Bible that predicted every event in history. Some university mathematicians said that was because, in any book the size of the Bible, statistics dictated that such phrases would pop out everywhere. They proved it by doing PRECISELY the same thing with Melville's Moby **** . Such comparisons neither devalue the Bible nor show parallels between it and Melville's work. But they do show that someone has gotten a bit overzealous with his desire to prove the value of the Bible. The Bible has value, period; I don't need some bogus mathematical hijinx to make me consider it more valuable. The same can be said about Lord of the Rings. And, pardon the broken record, but I'm not criticizing those who say they find personal religious fulfillment in LOTR. More power to ya! What I criticize is the belief that Tolkien intentionally inserted some sort of Biblical religious message in LOTR that should be obvious to all.

Okay, I digressed! But it felt good.

Bombadil

02-15-2002, 10:30 AM

Bombadil

02-15-2002, 10:32 AM

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-15-2002, 09:57 PM

Elendur

02-15-2002, 10:55 PM

I guess Barrow Wight didn't want any cursing or innapropriate language on the forum. Taking out the word di-ck was done with good intentions, but it can have bad effects as well. smilies/smile.gif Moby Di-ck

And I agree with you Bombadil.

Luineeldaiel

02-16-2002, 09:36 AM

Aralaithiel

02-16-2002, 10:29 AM

Joy

02-16-2002, 02:46 PM

Joy

02-16-2002, 02:46 PM

the_master_of_puppets

02-16-2002, 04:20 PM

Kalessin

02-19-2002, 11:28 PM

An Unholy Trinity?

1. There are posts on this thread that attempt to identify absolute links between the writings of Tolkien and parts or all of the Bible - citing characters, dialogue or scenes that apparently mirror Bible text.

2. There are also arguments that whilst Tolkien's books were not directly allegorical in intention, his Christian beliefs somehow suffuse the works with an explicitly Biblical morality.

3. There are also the hand-in-hand assertions that the Harry Potter books ARE allegorical (intentionally or otherwise) in their legitimising of immoral behaviour - including specifically the practicing of witchcraft - and that they represent a form of 'moral relativism' antithetical to Biblical truths.

I hope that I have summarised these various arguments reasonably. And let me add my respect for all those engaged in the search for spiritual truths.

However, with apologies for my diplomatic insensibility, all three of these arguments are just plain wrong. A number of eloquent counter-arguments have already been made, to which I add my own, as follows : -

1. To think an "invented mythology" such as Middle Earth deliberately mirrors an episodic 'true' history like the Old Testament or the Gospels is nonsensical. If you think Tolkien's Gandalf IS a Jesus-figure (or any similar allusion) then either the Bible is entirely fictional and we are talking plagiarism, or the stories of Middle Earth are simply a re-writing that actually mystifies the tenets of the Bible. After reading Tolkien have any of us felt like praying to Gandalf? Or somehow that Jesus' life can be given more meaning to us because he is embodied in the exciting (and not at all turn-the-other-cheek) personality of Aragorn? That's a NO on both counts, by the way. And if you think the Bible is itself allegory and metaphor, then any mirroring in LoTR becomes a sort of third-generation pastiche that does no justice to the original.

2. The 'essential Christianity' of Tolkien argument is no different to the 'essential Blackness' of any Black writer, or the 'essential Feminism' of any Female writer. Anything by Maya Angelou therefore becomes a piece of Black Women's writing first - and poetry second. This is a spurious, postmodern, cultural studies-style approach that deconstructs every artistic object into political and cultural reference points. And as far as Tolkien's Christianity itself goes, Anglican sensibility in pre- and post-war England was very - I mean VERY - different from any current American church movement. You can't have the Christian overlay on LoTR (intentional or otherwise) without all the other cultural aspects. In the end you may as well not bother reading the book.

3. Hmm, the evil Harry Potter ... well, let's see. There is Gandalf who wields the Secret Fire in his wooden staff, or directs the river to become a torrent with foaming horse-shapes that drives away ringwraiths, and the Galadriel who speaks inside people's minds and sees the future in a magic mirror - the distinction between these characters and the levitating wizards of Harry Potter seems minimal in terms of 'promoting witchcraft'. But there is certainly a modernity in Harry Potter in its interpretation of childhood as a time of insecurities and difficult choices. And yes, there is a "soft landing" in that perhaps no-one is all bad ... but again, Gollum for example is also an explicitly ambiguous figure in LoTR (as is Boromir), so the absolute good vs. evil analysis is selective and arbitrary. The fact is that in Biblical terms human beings are not qualified to make absolute judgements of right or wrong. Only God can do that. There is therefore plenty of moral relativism in every 'moral' artifice (literary or otherwise) including LoTR. Aragorn tricks Sauron to distract him from discovering Frodo ; Boromir and Frodo succumb to temptation ... and so on. I reckon the only real problem with Harry Potter is that it's so banal.

The end (for me, anyway). But compliments to all who have contributed to this lively, stimulating and impassioned debate.

goldwine

02-20-2002, 01:22 AM

QUOTE 2. There are also arguments that whilst Tolkien's books were not directly allegorical in intention, his Christian beliefs somehow suffuse the works with an explicitly Biblical morality.

I guess that as LOTR in particular contains evident themes and truths which are obvious also in scripture it is easy to relate the two. Add to this the fact that Tolkien (by our understanding of a Christian) had a relationship with the living God and the two flow together! God's truths are going to be in LOTR - not in totality of course, but a reflection of them. They may not be obvious to everyone, but the inspiration for Tolkien's work would have been not only the language and historical texts he researched and loved, but the bible that he loved also. I find it an unavoidable conclusion!

Luineeldaiel

02-20-2002, 07:34 AM

Mister Underhill

02-20-2002, 12:48 PM

Greetings Kalessin! Excellent first post.

The only place where I disagree substantially with you is in your second point, and even then I agree with the substance of your objection, just not the particulars in this case.

Here the author’s own words contradict you. We can’t trumpet his statements about his violent dislike of allegory and then selectively neglect his claim that LotR “is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision.”

I personally don't have much interest in finding parallels between LotR and the Bible, but that’s a fairly plain-spoken statement that is tough to deny. Numerous other references in Letters show a clear connection between Tolkien’s works and his beliefs.

As a general observation, I have noticed that many of our members have trouble making the distinction between allegory and mere symbolism or influence. Discuss a striking parallel between a certain myth and LotR, or note an interesting similarity between an historical incident and an incident in Middle-earth, and the knee-jerk reaction is the hue-and-cry of “Tolkien despised allegory!” Okay. We all agree that Tolkien had no overt intention to retell a particular story or to teach or preach in his work. LotR is first and foremost a rousing adventure tale. Good. But that doesn’t obviate inquiries into Tolkien’s mythological, philosophical, spiritual, historical, and literary influences. Based on the author’s own declaration, looking for biblical parallels is a more legitimate inquiry than many others that we’ve entertained here.

Therefore, I say – bring on the biblical parallels! Heap up the interesting influence of Nordic myths! Discuss the effects that Tolkien’s war experiences had on his writing! Speculate about the geographic parallels between Middle-earth and planet Earth! Plumb the depths of the Ring’s symbolic meaning! Why not? It’s all good!

Kalessin

02-20-2002, 04:11 PM

Thanks Mr Underhill (and others for taking up my points) ...

However, I would add that elves and talking (and walking) trees are just two examples of traditional, gently pagan (but pagan nonetheless) English folklore - that illustrate cultural influences in Tolkien's writing as quintessential as his Christian faith.

I am not arguing that as a (small c) conservative Christian, Tolkien would not basically have applied a moral sensibility in his storytelling. But I believe that the moral sensibility apparent in LoTR is not simply an explicit replication of Biblical tenets. For one thing, there are the other aspects of his personality and background that suffuse the work (as above); and in addition, as an academic with an interest in mythologies you can clearly see in LoTR an attempt to evoke the essence of other epic myths - Beowulf is one example, and in his construction of language and concepts such as the Grey Havens, there is what seems like an explicit acknowledgement of the Irish myth cycles of Cuchulain, the Tuatha de Danaan and so on.

And I come back to my original point. To say that his exploration of a cataclysmic struggle is - by virtue of its themes and a basic moral code in which honour, loyalty, truth and justice are the highest values - a kind of "baby" Bible, is reductio ad absurdam. And it kind of defeats the object of the book itself, or of literature in general.

Now I also have to raise a slightly more contentious issue. Is this attempt to establish an explicit Biblical connection in some way related to the popularity of LoTR - or that in recent years it has been devoured by generations of western readers who have found the mystic iconography and epic morality MORE appealing and accessible than the Bible itself?

I just throw this up speculatively ...

I hate to say it, but LoTR is not considered the pinnacle of artistic achievement. It is not Nabokov, Joyce, Orwell, it is not Gabriel Garcia Marquez, not Dylan Thomas, DH Lawrence or Steinbeck. I'm sure if you understand my point you can think of many others. Or, more prosaically, the film adaptation is wonderful but it is not The Shawshank Redemption, Casablanca or The Seventh Seal.

I would say that it is in a line of epic storytelling that is generally more populist, nostalgic and artistically cautious. It is not the sort of book that changes the world. Unlike the Bible.

So, in conclusion, I don't feel obliged to weigh my reading and re-reading of this entertaining book down with such responsibilities and subtexts, and again I come back to this point that the more you turn LoTR into some artifice or literal essence of the Bible, the less you need to read it. "Oh it's by Tolkien, he was a Christian, it's kinda like the Bible, 'cos he was a Christian you see, and it's about good and evil and it's kinda Biblical ..." Okay. Got it. No need to read it, then, because the Bible itself is brimming with such conviction, immediacy and spiritual force that it doesn't need or deserve to be soft-sold. It stands on its own, as it should.

Anyway, I've gone on at inordinate length, so I'll end with this ... I could, of course, be quite wrong smilies/smile.gif

Kalessin

02-20-2002, 04:17 PM

er ... but I agree, there is NOTHING wrong with the ongoing debate, or any others. The respectful and free exchange of ideas, passionate disagreements, mutual adoration and so on - bring it on, it's wonderful! I am really very pleased to have discovered this site.

Peace

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-20-2002, 09:53 PM

Thank you, Kelessin, oh Wizard of Earthsea. Welcome to the Downs.

That is an excellent question. I find many automatically recast the LotR into their own background. Mithadan earlier brought up the point that this is the real cause of the seeming 'biblical themes' in the Lord of the Rings. The context for the LotR has faded in many respects, and younger readers in particular have trouble grasping for example the master/manservant relationship between Frodo/Sam.

I think all of us at the Downs are guilty of artifically inflating the importance of Tolkien's work to a scale of its importance to us. I think it's a vain attempt to explain our own fascination with the story.

On the other hand, what is the measure of literary impact? In the short term it's the uniqueness and quality of the work. But over the long term I've noticed many of those Greats turn out to simply be markers of a new or 'the best of' a current fashion, and they fade, while the real cultural impact is made by 'lesser artists.' We assume we know what the Greats of our era will be, when we don't even know what they will be measured by. Who of Elizabethan times could have predicted that Shakespeare's plays, blatant commercialism held in as little esteem as sitcoms, would be heralded today?

Mr. Underhill, my respected friend, the free exchange of ideas includes room for disagreement, and if one is proven wrong (as I have been on occasion) then that's that. But that doesn't preclude enjoying ones theory for its own sake. smilies/wink.gif Go right ahead. Of course, the last time I tried to do that, some Christian extremists trampled the thread, wouldn't leave well enough alone, and didn't seem to comprehend the word "subtext." So I doubt you're going to find much more consideration (or intelligence).

-Maril

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

Kalessin

02-20-2002, 10:54 PM

Maril, what a stimulating reply, I really appreciate that.

I hadn't considered the rather archaic manservant aspect you rightly mentioned (perhaps I'm just rather archaic too), that's another excellent example of cultural assumptions that don't fit the Biblical artifice.

Anyway, if we are going to take it all a bit too seriously, I guess a Tolkien website forum is the place to do it ... likewise, as a general rule I would encourage trainspotting near a railway line ... so count me in (not for the trainspotting).

Your comments about what makes Great Literature illustrate the ongoing debate about whether the idea of objective aesthetic criteria is at all valid. But whilst I agree that novelty, ingenuity or fashionability are often hyped up as 'artistic triumph', I reckon that, as far as Tolkien's era goes, writers like Orwell, Steinbeck and Dylan Thomas will retain critical credibility - whilst being outsold many times by LoTR for many years to come - and that books like Wright's Invisible Man, Lolita, Catcher In The Rye etc., will continue to have seminal significance beyond LoTR. Shakespeare is a different kettle of fish, having had such a profound effect on the English language that his critical position is pretty unassailable (just as some of the plays are pretty unreadable).

Why were you 'trampled' before? I'm intrigued, do tell. You gotta watch out for extremists of any hue, and as I said before Tolkien's conservatism and essentially nostalgic, even chivalric moral code might be well be subject to misappropriation.

Thanks for the warning anyway, hopefully I'm battle-hardened by philosophy chatrooms and regular visits by Jehovah's Witnesses smilies/smile.gif

Peace

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-21-2002, 03:48 PM

Ah, it's all kind of comic when you think about it. Not to worry, from what I've seen the reaction to that thread is not common for the Barrow-Downs.

I did not start the notorious thread, but was trampled by a teeming mob when I leapt to the defense of the one who did. She fled, leaving others to uphold her end of the heated debate, threw rocks at her attackers from a different thread, and then at the Barrow-Downs in general from another Forum. I tried to perhaps change the subject (some interesting points had come up, and the subject of the 'notorious' thread was going in fast, furious circles) but that was not a good idea. After the reaction I got from some, I retired from the Barrow-Downs for a week to keep from firing my own artillery rounds.

The whole subject was eventually shut down for lack of politeness on all sides, while Mithadan and others had to write to complaining Hobbit moms that yes, others had a right to their opinions.

The blame for the ferocity was laid on the one who started the thread, but I think the thread name caused most of the trouble. It was too blatant, and didn't invite either the subtlety or humor the subject needed. Out of consideration for the biblical subject of the current thread (see, Mr. Underhill, there is some in this world) I'll not mention the actual subject many (absurdly) found so offensive. smilies/wink.gif

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

Mithadan

02-21-2002, 04:00 PM

Kalessin

02-21-2002, 07:45 PM

I agree that what I am sure are areas of profound disagreement on this thread have been discussed in a restrained and amicable manner, which helps to stimulate further debate and indeed stops people from becoming entrenched by the atmosphere of confrontation.

So, in that spirit, I am going to say that my stance has changed slightly. I am willing to accept that the underlying morality of LoTR is a reflection of Tolkien's Christian beliefs. And that, whilst Tolkien avoided allegory, he consciously established a conceptual framework of good and evil behind the story that is entirely consistent with traditional Christianity.

However, I maintain that is a very different thing to drawing explicit Biblical parallels. This exercise seems futile to me, as world mythos contain endless repetitions and variations of magical or heroic episodes, echoes or apparent re-workings of which can be found throughout LoTR. There is nothing 'uniquely' Biblical about his narrative or characters. And I also believe this reading of LoTR does the author a disservice, casting him as a subtle plagiarist or spin doctor, rather than the tremendously attentive creator of an alternate mythology that I believe him to be.

It is also necessary to see Tolkien's application of moral concepts as rooted in his own time and culture, and NOT as timeless propaganda for today's range of evangelical interpretations. I believe the moral tenets are, if they are anything, explicitly chivalric - romantic, nostalgic and idealist - in the vein of Mallory's Arthurian saga. There is plenty of that Arthurian 'courtly love' between squires and kings (Pippin and Theoden), or brothers in arms (Eomer and Aragorn), for one thing. And the sacrifices and risks undertaken by the heroes of LoTR are not 'insured' by their faith in everlasting life, nor do they act with the knowledge that their good deeds have the 'backing' or approval of an omnipotent power. There is a right and wrong, that is all, an essential standard of honourable conduct to which all should aspire.

The story is fairy tale, not moral fable. It is Christian in its underlying tenets but eclectic in its sources and inspirations, and not bound by fundamentalist orthodoxy (hence the rural English pagan elements, the Irish and Norse, the use of magic). In addition, it is elitist in a somewhat English way - everyone knows and has their place, Kings and Princes take their crowns by heredity - and hugely ambitious in its scale.

It is epic narrative, wonderfully executed, yet no more than that. And as such it is probably not Great Literature. But it is a Great Book! I have been reading and re-reading it along with watching the movie over the last couple of months, and have enjoyed it more than anything I've read for years.

But as narrative it is consciously and deliberately archaic and conservative in style (as all epic stories should be). Whilst there is clearly an ingenious cosmology in place, the book does not challenge or broaden the way in which we perceive the world (the real world). If you read Wright's Native Son, for example, from that point on you may have the tools - the words themselves, or the ability to identify situations - with which to empathise and experience what it is to be dispossessed, regardless of your own advantages. And perhaps your future actions may change with that new perception.

Tolkien does not give us any greater insight than we had before reading the book (I'm not talking about axioms like "even the smallest person can change the world" which is basically unarguable). Nor did he intend to do so.

What he intended, he achieved spectacularly. And probably much more. And has given me and countless others great pleasure.

By the way, I'd still love to know what this earlier contentious thread was about. Could you message me in Elvish? I promise not to tell smilies/smile.gif

Peace

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

non_conformist13

02-21-2002, 09:01 PM

Kalessin

02-21-2002, 10:12 PM

Non-conformist? Hm ...

If you think the nature of any relationship between Lord of The Rings and The Bible is an interesting subject, please read all the posts on this thread. There are a range of well-reasoned arguments (and well-mannered disagreements), and direct references to Tolkien's expressed intentions, his religious ethic, the other influences in his writing, the nature of morality by inference or allegory, to which I have added my own critique of his work in this context.

There are some really stimulating and well-written entries from all sides of the debate.

I would be really interested in your thoughts about the issue, as I have concerns about 'appropriation' ... which basically means taking works of art, or actions, or people, out of their time and framing them in a new context, in order to give validity or appeal to a particular agenda. For example, in this way the Nazis appropriated the philosophy of Neitzche and the music of Wagner to shopfront their ideology. Equally, some new age groups have appropriated (cherry-picked and blended) ancient belief systems and rituals (such as Native American) into a fuzzy lifestyle choice. Or again, poststructural feminists have appropriated cultural or religious rituals and edicts as explicit parables of oppression. And there are many more examples.

Now, there is some merit in the disciplined analysis of any cultural artefacts, and a role for postmodernism. But there is also the danger of propaganda, which is my concern - that is to say, where the primary purpose is establishing and legitimising an intolerant paradigm. Sadly, art and religion have been notorious bedfellows throughout history in this regard.

I'm not making any particular accusations in this case, only saying that the more absolute, explicit and inflexible the linkage and the interpretation, the more I worry. The end result is normally "ownership" and exclusive authority, whilst I believe that Lord of the Rings is a wonderful gift, and should be allowed to maintain it's gentle universality. Buying and liking the book should NOT mean that you are (or should be) signed up to a particular worldview.

By the way, if you do read the thread you'll notice I can't say anything in less than 3 million words. Bit like JRRT maybe (that's my excuse) smilies/smile.gif

Lush

02-21-2002, 10:34 PM

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-22-2002, 03:54 AM

Hi Lush! How's the writer's block? (I had a thought later - write the opposite of what's you immediately think, just to rattle your mind loose.)

What is it that draws me to the heaviest topics around, like being sucked down a black hole?

Kelissen, I sent you a private message. As far as long posts, why make things simple and direct when they can be complex and wooooonnnnnderfulll?

-Maril

goldwine

02-22-2002, 04:43 AM

LightningSword

02-22-2002, 07:46 AM

LightningSword

02-22-2002, 07:47 AM

goldwine

02-27-2002, 01:19 AM

Airetauriel

02-27-2002, 07:37 AM

Well, it was a serious point, and is my belief. I didn't want to offend anyone and apologise if it was thoughtless. I have read a good deal of this thread and believe everyone has a valid point, but everyone is writing from their own point of view, whether they be Christian, non Christian, a strict atheist or merely worship Tolkien! I respect everyone's beliefs, if they find it helpful to be Christian or any other religion, then nothing but good luck to them - I myself ask only two things. That they don't try to impose their religion onto me, and that they don't consider themselves morally superior to me because I have no religious denomination. Nor do I believe in God. But that it my belief, and I would certainly never try to persuade someone that does believe to change their minds. However, it has been my experience so far in life that I am constantly pulled back and forth with pressure to believe one thing or another, and if I refuse, instantly become some kind of non-human heathen person with no morals because I don't happen to believe in God. So, to that end, I would much rather believe in Tolkien. I'm sorry if I caused any offense!

Airetauriel smilies/confused.gif

Bombadil

02-27-2002, 05:37 PM

This thread has really taken a magnificent turn. After my previous posts I've been content to just read and thoroughly enjoy myself.

Noncon, I'll say again what I've said a couple of times already. If to you the Ring represents sin, or evil, or badness, or green popsicles or whatever, I salute you for your interpretation and think it's wonderful that you find that meaning in LOTR. But, as I and others have said, it's important to recognize the difference between your personal interpretation and Tolkien's conscious intent. I believe Tolkien encoded no religious message in LOTR, and many here have echoed those sentiments. I further maintain that the evidence in the book itself and in Tolkien's writings overwhelmingly support my position.

But whatever meaning you personally might find is your business. And, I thank you for sharing it with me! I might never find such meaning in LOTR, but it's fun to hear other perspectives.

non_conformist13

02-27-2002, 06:56 PM

actually, the Bible is what i base everything in my life on. it is God's direct word to us, and tells us eveything we'll ever need to know. so actually, the Bible is the book that has the main effect on my life. other books certainly can offer many different things, but the Bible is always first on my list.

okay, i have actually had a chance to read through all of your posts, and can i just say, wow! this is the most amazing debate i have read through in a long time. it’s great! i had reapeated alot, and there really isn’t anything else i could say other than a few side notes. going back to the wizzards using witchcraft. i strongly disagree here, because of two reasons. first, God says that witchcraft is not only spells and the ocult, but relying on any power other than Him to control your life. Gandalf using his “magic” to hold back evil and encourage others, is not witchcraft, because he is not RELYING on it. he doesn’t just wisper magic words for everything. he often pulls out his sword to get the job done. also, magic in this mystical world may have different standards, no? it seems almost everything in Middle Earth has some sort of “magic” second, witchcraft is usually used to try to control circ*mstances and changing them to fit the users OWN wishes. i don’t see any similarities with Gandalf’s power and furthering his own personal interests. there’s no break for tea and a nice, relaxing chair for him. if i were him and were using witchcraft, i think that would be the first thing on my list. <stress> Using his power to confront evil, or just to chastise the foolish is not witchcraft. God tells us that we are supposed to be using His power and strength for those things ourselves! <relying solely on Him, of course> It is He who gives us the strangth to go on, not ourselves, which is the very root of Withcraft, self. I know what i just typed is going to upset alot of people, but it had to be said. go ahead and feel free to tell me what you think. <non_conformist13@gmail.net>
also, since evil vs. good is such a common theme, it would be hard to compare it to the Bible, by itself, but since the Bible is the First Authority on everything anyway (i believe that!) you could say that evil vs. good in any story is based on the Bible.
But what you are comes out in what you make, no matter how hard you try otherwise, what you believe will come out in your writing. as you can see in mine! (lol) sorry for rambling on for so long...

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-27-2002, 09:21 PM

Oh dear... Khalil Gabran is a good example of Khalil Gabran. Dudjom Rinpoche is an example of Buddhism. Alas, he passed away in January, 1987.

Dudjom Rinpoche (http://www.shambhala.org/heart/hart12.html)

Kalessin

02-27-2002, 10:27 PM

Is that me? I didn't say Khalil Gibran was an example of buddhism, I don't think he really represents any established faith (I think he was a 'lapsed' Muslim).

I was really making the point about literature providing spiritual guidance, explicit or otherwise, and perhaps putting LotR into perspective in this regard. Whether you go for 'Zen and the art of ...' or 'Women Who Run With The Wolves', or my earlier examples, the purpose and nature of such work is different to LotR.

I don't know why there is a need to imbue the book or its author with messianic or torchbearing properties, perhaps I'm missing something here ... I've been wrong before smilies/smile.gif

(and in a case of what must be Divine Intervention, all my hard work on page 3 of this thread seems to have disappeared ... sob)

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-27-2002, 10:46 PM

I know. I just wince at all-too-common misrepresentations of Buddhism, what I call Disney Dharma.

I put a note in to the administrators about the tech problem in this thread. The pages are clearly still there (there, there, Kali), you just can't access them once you've selected the thread.

Kalessin

02-27-2002, 11:08 PM

Misrepresentation is a whole different issue!

I did a performance last year at Taplow Court, one of the primary Buddhist centres in the UK, and had the opportunity to meet and work with a number of practising buddhists. It was a very fulfilling and loving experience, and something I will always remember.

I think that among those buddhists, as among Christians or those of any faith, I have found such a range of interpretations, and a diversity of explanations, for their act of faith, that I acknowledge the uniquely personal nature of spiritual commitment. Perhaps that's a comment on the times we live in as well.

Khalil Gibran's work is 'spiritual' in the broad sense of the word. I don't think it diminishes any existing faiths, or attempts to supplant them with a new worldview ... but it is quite haunting, and lonely, and in some ways in tune with modernity (or the modernity of its time). I would say there is arguably a kind of attempted distillation of the major world religions at work, which was my original point.

The world of rational science has its own acts of faith too, with which I have some serious problems. We all acknowledge an unseen light in our different ways.

I am currently wading through The Silmarillion, which I am finding hard going. The Biblical parallels, or perhaps style, are very much to the fore, and there is something more distant and "stony" about it. I'm told it picks up later on.

But in the introduction in my print there is a letter from Tolkien to Milton Walden, which seems to me to answer with clarity and some humility most of the assertions in this thread, and I stick with my incursions on Page 3 (now losssst, the preciousss writingses). Evangelical? - No! Traditional Christian essence of morality? - Yes. Specific Biblical allegory? - NO! Mythmaking in the ancient (non-Christian) tradition? - Yes.

Peace

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

goldwine

02-28-2002, 04:02 PM

Luineeldaiel

02-28-2002, 06:41 PM

non_conformist13

02-28-2002, 09:42 PM

Marileangorifurnimaluim

02-28-2002, 09:55 PM

Oh wizard of earthsea, first, I don't wish to take your words out of their original context and good intent. Although the posts from page 3 & 4 have lost themselves in the vacuum, you were right on in suggesting non-traditional sources of spiritual inspiration to someone who clearly didn't enjoy the traditional.

With all due respect to both yourself and Khalil Gibran, as far as distilling Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam into one, it isn't philosophically possible. That is what I meant by "misrespresenting" Buddhism (probably too strong a word), though it can be fairly said all four are misconstrued in your original statement.

This is not be sectarian and a spiritual elitist, there can be distinction between religions without dispute.

The only way the condense these religions is to ignore their core philosophies. The only way that can be done is to superficially skim the froth, assemble their similarities (the external aspects such as generousity or good conduct) and forget the meaning, the depth and purpose of the religions.

In a previous post in this thread I pointed out that religions are similar on the surface, in ethics and conduct, but radically different in their philosophy, the reasons why.

Case in point, while Buddhism and Hinduism came from the same continent, many Hindu schools believe the Atman, or individual's soul, is permanent. Buddhism asserts nothing is permanent, if it had a beginning, it must have an end. While both Hindus and Buddhists may practice generousity, the goals are very different, so also the intent, and therefore the spiritual methods for practicing generousity must be different as well.

Does this sound like splitting hairs? It isn't. A religion that believes in multiple dieties is very different from one that believes in only One omnipotent God. A religion that believes there is no permanence, therefore believes that there is no permanent heaven or hell. Radically different from one that makes its entire purpose the attainment of heaven.

Does this make any one right, and the others wrong? No.

One must engage in spiritual practice according to ones disposition, so you will be attracted to what is appropriate for you.

Ah, you may say, then distilling the essence of these religions may be appropriate for someone!

Yes, but then it's not any of those religions anymore, is it? And it's misrepresenting them to say so.

- Maril

This by the way, is why most serious religious students have abandoned college programs which have unfortunately veered to a populist "comparative religions" approach. Too superficial. It takes a lifetime to understand even one religion well.

* A side note, if you're interested: the various sects of Buddhism fit together, one within another like a set of Russian dolls. They all reference the same original teachings of the Buddha. The philosophy is the same, but there is just a different course of study.

Theravada reference only the Sutras, the Buddha's actual literal words.
(within that there are schools that draw distinctions based on the nature of the universe, whether its made up of atomic particles and how).

Mahayanists reference both the Sutras and the teachings of the Prajnaparamita (and most the third major cycle of teachings on all having intrinsic Buddhanature, the Uttaratantra).
(within that there are schools that draw distinctions based on the nature of the emptiness of atomic particles and mind).

Vajrayanists reference the Sutras, the Prajnaparamita, the Uttaratantra (teachings on Buddhanature) and other Tantric texts many of which came from the Mahasiddhas in India.
(within that are schools or families that follow specific tantric texts handed down throughout generations; the main texts are the Guyagarbhatantra, the Guhyasamajatantra, the Hevajratantra and the Naro-cho-drug).

Zen references the Sutras, the Prajnaparamita, I believe Uttaratantra, and other teachings of later accomplished Buddhist masters, Bodhidharma. There are some who claim Bodhidharma was really the Mahasiddha Saraha, who was known by different names in different countries. I don't see how anyone can prove at this point.

Pureland Buddhism is part of Vajrayana, though it focuses primarily on the tantric practice of Amitabha.

Kalessin

02-28-2002, 11:16 PM

Maril, I very much appreciate your post. In fact I think you are right in your analysis of 'distillation' as a contradictory and ultimately superficial exercise, if the sources are complex belief systems (with the similarites in tone but fundamental differences in base philosophy that you correctly identified).

I did say words to the effect that Gibran was part of a fin-de-siecle modernity in expression. Perhaps the distillation was more of the nature of spiritual experience and mysticism in that context - nostalgic, fragmented, non-authoritarian, self-indulgent. That is arguably why it retains a certain 'new age' modernity and appeal in our times. Perhaps it's my own somewhat misty worldview, but I would still recommend The Prophet as a gentle and non-committal doorway to exploration, above the appropriated and cherry-picked fusions of Native American, Druidic, Fluffy-Christian and so on that lead us into scented-candle land (I'm remembering one of your earlier posts). Not that I have anything against scented candles, they have their place.

I also said that, as witnessed first-hand, the individual expression and experience of faith or belief were as diverse and sometimes contradictory within adherents of one established religion as between those of different or competing religions. And I will indulgently include 'Big Bang', 'Selfish Gene' and 'Evolution by Coincidental Mutation' theories as a collective honorary religion here, to illustrate the point about the arguably inherent contradictions between the way in which individual human beings conceive their spiritual reality, and the attempt at - or assumption of - universality in the artifices of all religions.

And yet self-contradiction is what we are all about, on a daily basis we are perfectly able to function whilst laden down with irreconcilable dualities, from the Cartesian to the far more banal.

Still, I agree with you that it doesn't normally extend to being monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time. I am humbled.

Back to the role of scented candles within LotR ...
smilies/wink.gif

Peace

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

goldwine

02-28-2002, 11:30 PM

Kalessin

03-01-2002, 04:25 AM

Goldwine, it's not only our choice of whether to believe, but how to believe.

In the Gospels Jesus uses the parable of seeds - some that are nourished and prosper in good soil, some that that take a fragile root in shallow earth, and some that are blown away on stony ground. This is what you seem to be saying, and it ties in to some extent with NC's assertion that God's word (as ultimate truth) can be found at the root of all things.

I understand this point, and respect your experience of faith. But I guess in some ways that means that we actually agree about the way (and degree) in which LotR is a reflection of the Bible, ie. not explicit, not intended, and very much 'in the eye of the beholder'. I'm echoing Bombadil's most recent point here. I've acknowledged the underlying chivalric Christian sensibility, but even this is very subtle, and, as we all seem to be saying, the book has a depth and appeal that all readers can enjoy, regardless of their spiritual beliefs (if any).

Auretauriel, the world is full of cliques and the pressure to conform. There is something of human nature in that. That's why I've expressed concern about appropriation and exclusivity, although thankfully most of the posts on this thread have been reasoned and tolerant. And there ARE many 'true believers' who are also respectful and tolerant, so it's impossible to generalise. Understanding Tolkien's religion and it's relation to the book is a worthy subject but shouldn't stop you, or anyone else, enjoying the narrative in your own way. In his letters and notes, Tolkien expressly wished for and appreciated that.

Non-conformist, I'm not sure about your distinction between magic and witchcraft in LotR. Regardless of dictionary definitions, I don't think that line of argument impacts on the relation between LotR and Christianity. For example, many myths have the kind of magic you refer to, as distinct from necromancy - Irish, Greek, Indian and so on. None of these myths are in any way Christian, yet in this way (the nature of magic) they are the same as LotR (in fact "faerie" was part of Tolkien's inspiration). As you said in an earlier post, perhaps we all try and mould experience to our own perspectives. This is fine, but you have to be careful - sometimes what you want to be 'true', just won't fit (I'm not talking about ultimate spiritual truths). Close relationships can teach you that - expect the unexpected!

It's a shame this thread has got technical problems. I think anyone who was able to read through all four pages in order would see many articulate and well-argued perspectives, and a fluid and often insightful exploration of a wide range of related issues. It could easily form the basis of a successful academic dissertation or thesis (for which I would expect at least a namecheck). My compliments to all.

My views have changed a little (see Page 3, if you can!) since the start, but in the end I would really recommend that people read Tolkien's letter to Walden (it's in my print of The Silmarillion). It does seem to me to be the final word, however we choose to interpret it.

Maril (and others), maybe we should go off-topic to continue any in-depth exploration of buddhism / truth / religion etc., as the link to Tolkien is getting rather tenuous. I DON'T want to stop, so I don't mind either way. Just a thought.

Save This Thread! Recover the missing pages! Well done everybody smilies/smile.gif

Peace

goldwine

03-01-2002, 05:37 PM

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Kalessin. I am enjoying reading your posts.

I see faith as more than a planted seed, more of a flourishing plant! In the gospel you quoted, Is Jesus is saying that the withered plants are no longer believers?

In terms of a scriptural reflection in LOTR, I have learned much in this thread that other beliefs can be reflected in the story, too. It does get back to the ultimate truth question - and I guess the ultimate truth for Christians is that Jesus is Eternal King! So we may not all agree on what ultimate truth is! Perhaps we are agreeing on elements of temporal truth - realities in our world both spiritual and physical.

I guess, too, that reading other Tolkien writings about his faith I feel that they are reflected in LOTR! (Back to square one!) But, of course, it is just a story - one which has obviously moved our hearts and made us a community - but still a work of fiction!

I hope the thread doesn't get stopped - I don't feel that there is any prosetylizing (?) or nastiness - just people genuinely appreciating each others opinions, and learning a lot. There seem to be lots of other almost off topics that don't get closed.

Keep posting guys!

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: goldwine ]

Gilthalion

03-07-2002, 08:21 PM

At the risk of seeming to advertise, I thought that this might be a good thread to post a URL for a forum that I started about a year or so ago.

TAR OST-IN-ERUHIR http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhir

Not much action there, but it might provide a place for serious discussion about Tolkien's Biblical parallels (intentional and otherwise). We might actually develop a book from the project one of these years.

Gilthalion

03-07-2002, 08:27 PM

At the risk of seeming to advertise, I thought that this might be a good thread to post a URL for a forum that I started about a year or so ago.

TAR OST-IN-ERUHIR http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhir

Not much action there, but it might provide a place for serious discussion about Tolkien's Biblical parallels (intentional and otherwise). We might actually develop a book from the project one of these years.

Fiona

03-11-2002, 11:12 PM

Estel the Descender

03-15-2002, 02:20 AM

There are many Christians who do not see parts of the Bible as one big allegory, if by allegory one means using symbols to convey some truth, usually spiritual truth. Rather, these Christians see great portions of the Bible as actual history which happens to have some relevance to anyone who wishes to apply the lessons found there. Thus, to many Christians (and Jews), God is not a symbol of good (an allegory) while Satan is the symbol of bad. God is THE GOOD, THE TRUTH, THE WAY (the Tao[?]), THE LIFE. God exists and the Bible is the record of that existence. The Bible is a snapshot of God.

The Silmarillon, the Hobbit, and the LotR are snapshots of Middle-Earth. The books were not supposed to symbolize anything: they are not allegories. Yes, they have relevance (the "Power corrupts. . ." thing) but they are not symbols of some cosmic truth. I think that Professor Tolkien wanted his history to be taken "literally". Not that hobbits actually exist in our world, but hobbits must be understood to exist in "Tolkien's" world. They do not represent any virtue or vice.

In this, the Bible and the LotR are similar: they are not allegories. If the LotR says that Elves go to Valinor (meaning: "Fairies return to Faerie), then not only do they do so but that fairies exist. . . in Valinor. If "The Two Towers" imply that Gandalf resurrected from death, Gandalf is not meant to symbolise Jesus Christ. It must be taken that Gandalf DID resurrect. . . in Middle-Earth. And if the Gospels say that Jesus Christ was crucified, was buried, and then resurrected on the third day, the entire story is not supposed to symbolise a conceptual victory over the oblivion of death. We must assume that the historical Yeshua Bar-Yoseph BenDavid actually was killed and came back to life literally in ancient Palestine. Tolkien believed this to have been actually true, a myth that became reality and therefore NOT AN ALLEGORY.

Kalessin

03-15-2002, 11:03 AM

Estel, although this topic has been discussed at length in this thread and the 'Beginning and End' thread, amongst others, and I and other contributors have expended thousands of words on the issue, you have come up with a new angle which I find very interesting.

I agree with you - and have argued repeatedly - that LotR is not some intentionally allegorical fable, nor designed to act as propoganda or evangelism under an acceptably fantastical smokescreen of eclectic mythical archetypes. I'm also going to quote myself on the Bible -

"As literature, the traditional English translation of the Bible - particularly the Gospels - is a work of profound conviction and complexity ; it is challenging, revelatory, joyful, transcendent and volcanic in its intensity. No allegory, however disguised with eclectic archetypes from world myths, could do it justice, and such an act is not necessary.

The LotR and other works were an act of creativity and attentiveness by Tolkien, suffused with his cultural and spiritual sensibilities, and with conscious and unconscious references to the pantheon of heroic and magical storytelling he loved so much. Let it speak and stand for itself. And let the Bible stand and speak for itself too."

Now this is not necessarily agreeing with you in terms of whether or not the Bible itself is allegory. That opens up a separate discussion which includes the issues of selective translation, oral history, local politics and so on, which I suggest is best kept separate.

However, your point DOES correctly illustrate that in general terms marking something as 'allegory' tends to be a reductive or diminishing judgement, and I believe it reduces and diminishes LotR to try and turn its narrative and characters into mechanistic devices intended merely to propagate a particular evangelical reading of Christianity (which is remote both from Tolkien's devout Catholicism and from all his expressed aims and ideas about art and literature).

Estel, your post has also made me reflect a little on my own 'emotional' relationship with various Biblical episodes. For this and for offering a new slant here, I appreciate your comments. But I don't expect anything we say will stop people saying - "hey, Gandalf IS Jesus, I wanna pray to Gandalf".

Personally, even if I wanted to find an allegory, the presence of Old Toby or the talking trees present insurmountable contradictions smilies/wink.gif And the disappearance of two whole pages from this thread seems to be hinting at a need to draw a line under this topic!

Arwen Imladris

03-15-2002, 01:29 PM

I'm not sure, there are certainly some similarities. The Silmarilion is certainly like the old testement, starting with a creation story and then the adventures of "God's" creation. There is a bad guy who was once good.

Tolkien was also a friend with C.S. Lewis, who wrote stories that were definatly related to the bible, so it might make sence that Tolkien also wrote alegories.

Mister Underhill

03-19-2002, 01:03 PM

Kalessin

03-19-2002, 02:11 PM

Mister Underhill, I really appreciate this. I think that, taken as a whole, this thread contains a truly thorough exploration of this interesting and challenging subject area. It is full of intelligent comment, eloquence, conviction and good humour (and stuff from me as well), and I am really pleased that all the voices can now be heard again. I really recommend a thorough and careful reading through from start to finish for anyone interested in this issue.

Well done smilies/smile.gif

Elronda

03-20-2002, 02:44 PM

Marileangorifurnimaluim

03-20-2002, 10:19 PM

I there is no possible way for this subject to be exhausted. The scope is vast.

Mr. Underhill, it's a shame some of your earlier posts are gone, I scanned through and I seem to recall there was a lot more on how the LotR doesn't have to be allegorical to be influenced by and reference the bible.

This thread is well-worth the effort in saving. Self-effacing as the wizard Kelessin is, those posts alone bring a new dynamic to the discussion. Hats off to all.

Bruce MacCulloch

03-20-2002, 10:57 PM

Marileangorifurnimaluim

03-20-2002, 11:02 PM

Bruce MacCulloch

03-20-2002, 11:04 PM

Marileangorifurnimaluim

03-20-2002, 11:09 PM

Bruce MacCulloch

03-20-2002, 11:30 PM

Estel the Descender

03-22-2002, 07:04 AM

Dear Pastor Jordan,

I am with thee, Pastor Jordan! There IS objective truth. Should a person say that red is dull green, it does not mean that he/she has a different (a) culture, (b) semantics, (c) viewpoint, or (d) existential interpretation. It just simply means that that person is color-blind and if that person does not believe it to be true, well. . . red is red, green is green.

Dear Arwen Imladris,

It is true that there are similarities between the Silmarillion and the OT, but I don't think that the former was intended as a copy or allegory of the latter, given Tolkien's statement. Of course, there is the influences of both Biblical (which is good) and extra-biblical (also good) sources. Numenor, for instance, is similar to both the tales of Atlantis and Lyonesse, hence the names, 'Atalante' and 'Westernesse'. Also, there is the obvious autobiographical element (Tolkien did call himself Beren and his wife Luthien, although the circ*mstances of their meeting might have probably been just made up). Tolkien may have used these sources as bases for his work so that there can be an element of believability. It is like a person who uses history as a basis for a historical novel. But unless the author said that he intended his work as an allegory then we should not think that the work as symbolical or allegorical.

I am glad that JRR Tolkien was a friend of CS Lewis or else the Christian world would have been deprived of a most able apologist.
The Chronicles of Narnia was intended by Lewis as a sort of an allegory, but it his "Pilgrim's Regress" that counts as the true allegory, just as the 'Faerie Queene' and the 'Pilgrim's Progress'. In that sense, both the Chronicles and the LotR are actually either (a) parables, or (b) examples. Jesus' parables, although they contain a portrayal of truth, can happen in reality (the Prodigal Son happens all the time nowadays). As for the term 'example', St. Paul uses the history of the Israelites' rebellion in the Sinai desert as an 'example' to show some truth to the new Christians (I Cor 10). In the strictest sense, a parable or example is not an allegory. An allegory uses symbolism a lot, like Plato's 'Allegory of the Cave'. Jesus used allegory when he referred to himself as 'the Gate', or 'the Living Water'. Symbolism is the essence of allegory.

I do not see the Bible or the LotR as allegories. Parables, maybe, or more probably examples. In this they are similar even though they use different symbolisms.

However, if someone begins to appreciate the Bible because of 'The Silmarillion', 'The Hobbit', and/or 'The LotR', I would really think that would be very nice.
smilies/smile.gif

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]

Marileangorifurnimaluim

03-22-2002, 11:15 AM

Welcome to the Downs, Descender. While I have little time this morning, I feel compelled to briefly point out (others will tell you brevity is not my wont) that objective truth is not necessarily ultimate truth. That's why it's called objective. A table is a table, objectively. But ultimate truth is what we're discussing here, and a table from the perspective of say, a scientist, is ultimately a conglomeration of atomic particles. And the color red itself is not red, but rather a distortion of all other colors so that only red appears.

Objective truth is by nature superficial. And few religions claim this kind of superficiality to be ultimate truth. Usually they refer to the unseen or sublime, such as in the case of Christianity, God.

Turambar

03-22-2002, 02:24 PM

Irrelevant comment:

A Scots boy came home from school and told his mother he had been given a part in the school play. "Wonderful," says the mother, "What part is it?" The boy says "I play the part of the Scottish husband!" The mother scowls and says: "Go back and tell your teacher you want a speaking part.

Kalessin

03-22-2002, 02:30 PM

I think Maril has a subtle but important point here. The term 'objective truth' does not really deconstruct into anything that we can or should link to spiritual tenets, unless we return to a Platonic concept of 'things-in-themselves' having some essential and definitive quality that "exists" outside our perception - and we then assert that God, or gaia, or any divine phenomenon is part of that same unseeable reality (although we may find manifestations, which we may infer as evidential, within our ability to perceive).

Like Maril (I think), I would say that 'red' is not some kind of ultimate reality. Not all animals see the range of colours that the human eye does ; and between people also you will find variances in perceptive classification. Accepting 'red' is in fact more of a consensus that arises because of the particular calibration of our vision allied to the development of language and our predisposition to cognitive rationality.

Logic and philosophical enquiry have taken us further and further away from the notion of 'objectivity' in any kind of perception ... yet it is only through empiricism that we actually survive. Such strange beings we are smilies/smile.gif

By the way, this not an anti-religious or anti-spiritual argument. I actually think that by accepting 'unknowability' and adopting a certain humility in our assertions, we can allow spirituality the room to breathe and to suffuse our day to day lives.

Now Estel, you say that Tolkien avoided allegory, but instead created both a 'parable' and an 'example' (or many) in LotR. And further, that parables and examples can happen (in real life) ... presumably "as well" as fulfilling their moral function, or coincidentally. You posit that LotR and The Bible are therefore alike in their use of particular narrative device/s. Now whether you use the term "apologist", "propagandist", or even "preacher", it still seems to me that you are reducing or diminishing Tolkien's work by defining it as a prescriptive and instructive object. Tolkien himself appears anxious to avoid this, and I am not aware of him describing LotR as either parable or example. There is no reason for a parable or an example to exist except as a means of communicating (also advocating and justifying) specific moral tenets.

You yourself said "I think that Professor Tolkien wanted his history to be taken "literally". Not that hobbits actually exist in our world, but hobbits must be understood to exist in "Tolkien's" world. They do not represent any virtue or vice."

There is arguably a differentiation between representation of vice and virtue via symbolism (in the form of allegory) and representation of vice and virtue by example or parable. But either way, you end up with a "do things this way ... here's why". Maybe an artist cannot help but imbue his/her work with some essence of moral belief and value judgement, and certainly Tolkien accepted that in respect of LotR. But the issue is one of intention and design - can you arrive at a parable by chance? Surely not - again, it merely diminishes the conscious creativity of the artist to suggest that. And I still do NOT believe the intention or design of LotR was to provide moral instruction ... and worse, that it therefore becomes the property of a particular interest group.

I haven't read all of Tolkien's letters, so I could be wrong about his intentions and designs. But if I am, I would be disappointed. And distanced from the wonder and pleasure that LotR gives me now.

(... I'm trundling off now to re-read Hume's refutation of cause and effect, just to restore my faith in the impossibility of everything smilies/smile.gif )

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

Estel the Descender

03-24-2002, 05:23 AM

Dear Kalessin,

Quote: 'And I still do NOT believe the intention or design of LotR was to provide moral instruction ... and worse, that it therefore becomes the property of a particular interest group.'

I agree. I think that the LotR was meant to provide a believable world where Tolkien's created languages can develop. Whatever moral 'things' is found in the LotR in my opinion are just plot devices. If Tolkien's books become 'parables' or 'examples', they are so by. . . 'accident'.

That is the difference with CS Lewis. Jack, being a Protestant, believed that his work should be somewhat evangelical. Lewis intended his books 'to provide moral instruction'. But Lewis (I think) never tried to proselytise through his books.

If Tolkien had a 'Gospel' to preach, I think that it would be the gospel of philology. Tolkien wisely does not try to 'proselytise' by overdoing his treatment of languages. It is there: if anybody is interested in the languages, read the books. But the books were not intended also to provide linguistic instruction.

The Bible, however, was intended as an empirical record of God by the writers (who of course believed that they were inspired by God). Just as Tolkien's work is permeated with numerous references to the languages of Arda, the Bible is filled with references to God (with the exception of the book of Esther). This is one of the ways the Bible and the LotR are similar.

Kalessin

03-31-2002, 11:38 PM

I'm moving this back up as the topic has re-appeared twice recently, and this thread contains so much that is relevant, and of interest to anyone new to the issues.

In addition, I am sure that those who contributed so many thousands of words in this thread (self included) probably feel somewhat weary at the prospect of doing it all again smilies/smile.gif

Peace

Aosama, the Wandering Star

04-01-2002, 06:31 PM

Aosama, the Wandering Star

04-01-2002, 06:54 PM

Estel the Descender

04-02-2002, 06:58 AM

Mellon Luinhir (Aosama),

I cannot help but agree with you except for one issue: Melkor/Morgoth is not analogous to Adam. While the Silmarillion Creation story deals with the marring of Arda, the book of Genesis delas with the fall of Mankind. If anything, Morgoth is the serpent/Satan. There are sufficient differences between the two Creation stories to show that both are dissimilar. The symbolism of trees is not confined to Christianity (note the sacred trees of Japan).

To be truthful, I have felt like you once upon a time. I was reluctant to read books that were not 'Christian'. That all changed after I was introduced to the Chronicles of Narnia and later to the Lord of the Rings. now I can enjoy books not written by Christians. Not that I don't have reservations about Harry Potter (I miss the 'Power corrupts. . .' thing). Like, how can an abused kid like Harry have all that power and not be in the least tempted like Feanor. Even Galadriel was most tempted. The difference between Tolkien/Lewis and the other fantasy books is that the former is in a sense 'realistic', i.e., not allegory. I know this is getting realy tiresome for those of you others, but that is what makes Tolkien special: his effort to make a world 'believable' and not 'fantastic', which is pretty strange given the genre of hyis work being classified as 'fantasy'.

. . . Well, you guys know what I mean (the relationship with the Bible, yada-yada. . .)
Anyway. . . I go. . .

The Descender

greyhavener

04-05-2002, 12:18 AM

Tolkien was a Christian and a devout Catholic. While he states that he did not intend to write an allegory nor a deliberately Christian work, I think his passion for his faith is reflected in his work. He loved myth and really intended to create a new mythology. His Christianity was so much a part of him that he infused the world he created with the basic spiritual realities that were present in his own life. Even though the rules and characters do not fit with the Bible, the principles and processes of Christianity seem to operate in the setting of Middle Earth.

There is the conflict between good and evil. There is clear delineation between the two forces. The power of good in Middle Earth as it is in a Christain perspective is greater than evil. Good seems to be less influenced by the activities of those on the earth than is the power of evil which grows as beings join in the evil.

I think the ring as a sort of symbol for sin or temptation. In "The Hobbit" it seemed harmless enough, even rather useful. Later it is revealed that it is a vehicle of evil and those who try to harness its power will be consumed and used for evil purposes. Those we use it eventually become mesmerized by evil, consumed, yet comforted by the habit of it. In Biblical Christianity sin is certainly like that. The Old Testment is full of accounts of individuals similarly consumed. Gollum is what becomes of those who cannot check themselves and have no companions who are willing to direct them away from evil. Christianity expresses the need to be delivered and Christ as the vehicle of deliverance. There is a principle of surrendering oneself to Christ of repenting and turning away from sin. There is a theological position that mankind does not have the power within himself to even turn away from sin, but only through the power of Christ is this repentanc itself even possible. Just as Frodo must throw the ring into the cracks of doom, he cannot do it alone, and loses part of himself in doing so. In several of the epistles, Paul describes this agonizing struggle between the desire to sin and the desire to renounce it. In Middle Earth, as in Biblical Christianity, how one deals with the ring, or with temptation and evil, defines one's position in respect to good and evil.

In Middle Earth, just as in Christianity, evil originate with a distinct person who co-ops the selfish, the mean, the ambitious, and the unwary to his own purposes. Sauron, like Satan desires control and delights in suffering. Both have limited but intense power.

Another parallel I see is in the transformation that takes place in the various characters like Bilbo, Frodo, and Gimli who through their association with the elves are invited to go into the West. In Christianity, association with Christ allows the faithful to attain Heaven.

I do think this question must be considered in the context of Tolkien's own beliefs. Tolkien accomplished what he intended: to write a new mythology and create a new world. The way I see it, Tolkien did what any creator would do, consciously or unconsciously, he made his world operate within the principles of what he understood to be the Truth.

Ancalime

04-05-2002, 06:18 PM

Kalessin

04-05-2002, 07:29 PM

Greyhavener, interesting post. You say -

"he infused the world he created with the basic spiritual realities that were present in his own life"

Thanks for expressing it so precisely. But this is really as far as I think it goes. The Christian sensibility at work is, in effect, a traditional morality with particular emphasis on self-sacrifice, loyalty, humility, resistance to temptation and so on ... all very Catholic in essence. And this is fully consistent with Tolkien's own writings about the works.

However, the assertion that there is allegory, or rather simplistic symbolism, at work in LotR and Tolkien's other works, is far from clear, and has been analysed rigourously earlier in this thread. Tolkien's own contextual writings (in which he explicitly denies and deconstructs the 'allegory/symbolism' approach), the clear and indeed respectful references to other mythologies (and by inference other religions), the inconsistencies and contradictions that arise if you examine LotR as allegory or assign characters or objects as symbols of particular Biblical archetypes - all of these factors add up to a pretty strong counter to the reading his works as allegory/symbolism. Can I just add that the 'similarities' argument has come and gone. There are similarities in characters, symbols, episodes, and narrative structure between LotR (and other works) and ALL the major mythos (which Tolkien was aware of and had great affection for) - this includes Finnish and Norse (eg. Beowulf), the Irish, ancient English paganism, the Neibelung and so on. And in fact there are 'similarities' also with the Ramayana and other non-Western mythos. It is really not good enough simply to find parallels or similarities to the Bible and ignore all the others - nor does it follow that the clear similarities or parallels between any of these major mythos implies an act of allegory or homage. The idea of an eternal struggle between Good and Evil (and all the narrative in that context) exists beyond Christianity and the Bible.

And as I have said before, this reading of Tolkien's works seems to me also to diminish their value and resonance. From it one would infer lack of originality (instead, simply the ingenuity to cleverly disguise his sources), and a rather pompous and obsessive attempt to proselytise. And I do not think that does justice to the tremendous epic narratives Tolkien gave to us, nor to his attentive and imaginative vision.

The other problem is one of appropriation, which I have addressed in detail during previous posts in this thread. But in summary, there seems to be an attempt by some to associate Tolkien explicitly with modern American evangelical Christianity. The suggestion is that LotR is therefore a kind of advertisem*nt for the One True Faith, and that in fact the works have no real meaning or merit outside of reflecting one specific (and, I would argue, culturally weighted) reading of Christianity.

The Bible itself is a complex and profound work with a number of narrative tensions (ie. contradictions), and in addition the phrases and tenets that are cited are in fact translations (or re-translations) of selected elements only. And surely the Bible can stand for itself - it does for me, and I neither want nor need imitations or allegories when I have access to the Real Thing.

I respect all the arguments and posters who have appeared on this thread, and I am truly impressed by the quality of argument and the eloquence therein. I really wish that before posting to this topic people would actually read and reflect on all 4 pages, as it seems to me that most if not all of the key issues have all been addressed from many viewpoints.

Well done to all (again) for keeping this lively and intelligent conversation alive smilies/smile.gif

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

Estel the Descender

04-08-2002, 08:15 AM

Suilaid Mellyn,

It is true that Tolkin infused into his books his concepts of what is good, what is evil, and what he believed was truth. And his concepts were influenced by by his brand of Christianity. His use of the Vala, for instance, is very much like the heirarchy of saints in the R.C. And Sam's prayer was a type of glossolalia, 'speaking in tongues', which was directed at Varda (Elbereth Gilthoniel) who seems to be Arda's version of the Virgin Mary. And yet there are so many dissimilarities that the comparison has to be really stretched. The Vala can marry with each other and the inhabitants of Endor while R.C. saints and angels do not. And the Varda is similar to Mary only in comparable position and the devotion they both receive.

As for the ring representing sin, well, I do not know about that. All I know is that Tolkien, in keeping with Aquinas-style Catholicism which kind of disdained allegories. The ring is evil, yes, but not the symbol of sin. But if it should represent something (probably unintended) it might have represented the 'white magic' that Tolkien and Lewis encountered in Oxford. They were repeatedly told that magic can be used for good although both Lewis and Tolkien believed otherwise. 'But we will use our magic for good, right, so how can God frown on such a good intention?' I am not suggesting that Tolkien wrote about the ring to answer the magicians in Oxford whose favorite victim was Lewis anyway. But suppose. . . you have something that can help you defeat an ancient evil, why not use it? To use the One Ring against Sauron and Morgoth is like using 'white magic' against Satan. The Ring answers to Sauron alone just as any magic answers to Satan alone. 'But with the magic we were able to do a lot of good!' Indeed, so did the Three Elven Rings of power. Should the One Ring be destroyed all the good works of the Three would be undone and the Three themselves would lose all power. But such a loss would be worth it just to deprive Sauron of power. If Tolkien did use the Ring as a symbol of the 'white magic' of the Oxford magicians (BUT HE DIDN"T), then it might make sense.

But Tolkien said explicitly that his books were NOT symbols of something. He did borrow from Christianity the concept of evil, other religions having different beliefs about the struggle between good and evil (the Taoist belief, for instance believes that evil balances good: to eradicate evil is to eradicate good [Yin-Yang theory]; the Western concept of evil that has to be defeated is Judeo-Christian). Just as he patterned Quenya after Finnish, Latin and Greek (like Numenor-Atalante, Greek Atlantis, go figure), Sindarin after Welsh, Tolkien patterned the morality of his books on Judeo-Christian, Germanic and Nordic morality. But just as Quenya is NOT Latin or a symbol of Finnish (the Noldor definitely are not Finnish) nor is Sindarin Welsh, Tolkien's mythology is in a sense NOT Christian. Compatible, yes, but unlike CS Lewis who intended his fairy tales to introduce new readers to Christianity Tolkien made the stories to provide his created languages with a history. Now, if there are similarities at all, this should not be taken as 'plagiarism' or a lack of originality at all. If we are to believe the same way as Tolkien, we would believe that only the Judeo-Christian God is capable of true originality.

Meneg Suilaid!
Estel Authorion (the Descender)

'There is nothing new in the world. . . some will say, "Look, here is something new", but it has been from the very beginning.' (paraphrased from the 'Qoheleth' by Shalomah Ben David)

greyhavener

04-08-2002, 10:27 PM

Luineeldaiel

04-09-2002, 06:45 AM

Aiwendil

04-09-2002, 11:34 AM

And surely the Bible can stand for itself - it does for me, and I neither want nor need imitations or allegories when I have access to the Real Thing.

I do think that there is something to be said for allegorical treatments of Biblical stories - and I'm not even Christian. For example, Steinbeck's East of Eden, which is basically a repetition of the story of Cain and Abel in each generation of a particular family. But then, this is not a simple retelling; it is an interpretation as well.

Of course, I don't mean to imply that there is any allegory in Tolkien. There simply is not.

Nar

04-09-2002, 08:44 PM

This is a marvelous thread. I'd like to throw in some quotes from Tolkien's Letters, which I have been reading with great pleasure-- particularly the second half of the book. (Sometimes it's almost like having more Gandalf to read.) Tolkien seems to display a violent reaction not just to allegory but to any reductive analysis-- he constants argues for viewing the book as a complete, living, indivisible thing. Letters, #329
when they have read it, some readers will (I suppose) wish to 'criticize' it, and even to analyze it, and if that is their mentality they are, of course, at liberty to do these things -- so long as they have first read it with attention throughout. Not that this attitude of mind has my sympathy: as should be clearly perceived in Vo. I p. 272: Gandalf: 'He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.' ... Affixing 'labels' to writers, living or dead, is an inept procedure ... a childish amusem*nt of small minds: and very 'deadening', since at best it overemphasizes what is common .. and distracts attention from what is individual (and not classifiable) in each of them, and is the element that gives them life (if they have any).
He hated any attempt to extract elements from the book and equate them with something else-- the story was a living thing to him, and must not be 'dismembered.' However, I see consistently warm reactions to anyone who asks or speaks of influences and sources, or share a personal reaction to the book.

My favorite of his various glosses on the influence of Christianity in his book is the visit from 'Gandalf.' Even though it is lamentably long, I've got to quote it, I can't resist. Letters, # 328
It was written slowly and with great care for detail, & finally emerged as ... a searchlight ... on a small part of our Middle-earth, surrounded by the glimmer of limitless extensions in time and space. Very well: that may explain to some extent why it 'feels' like history; why it was accepted for putlication; and why it has proved readable for a large number of very different kinds of people. But it does not fully explain what has actually happened. Looking back ... I feel as if an ever darkening sky over our present world had been suddenly pierced, the clouds rolled back, and an almost forgotten sunlight had poured down again. As if indeed the horns of Hope had been hear again, as Pippin heard them suddenly at the absolute nadir of the fortunes of the west. but How? and Why?

I think I can now guess what Gandalf would reply. A few years ago I was visited in Oxford by a man whose name I have forgotten ... He had been much struck by the curious way in which many old pictures seemed to him to have been designed to illustrate The Lord of the Rings long before its time. ... I think he wanted at first simply to discover whether my imagination had fed on pictures, as it clearly had been by certain kinds of literature and languages. When it became obvious that, unless I was a liar, I had never seen the pictures before ... he fell silent. I became aware that he was looking fixedly at me. Sudddenly he said: 'Of course you don't suppose, do you, that you wrote all that book yourself?'

Pure Gandalf! I was too well acquainted with G. to expose myself rashly, or to ask what he meant. I think I said: 'No, I don't suppose so any longer.' I have never since been able to suppose so. An alarming conclusion for an old philologist to draw concerning his private amusem*nt. But not one that should puff any one up who considers the imperfections of 'chosen instruments', and indeed what sometimes seems their lamentable unfitness for the purpose.

Luineeldaiel

04-10-2002, 09:53 AM

Man of Westernesse

04-14-2002, 07:44 PM

Estel the Descender

04-15-2002, 07:20 AM

Tolkien wrote something about morality in 'fairy tales' in his now famous essay On Fairy Stories, 'The stories of Beatrix Potter lie near the borders of Faerie, but outside it, I [Tolkien] think, for the most part. Their nearness is due largely to their strong moral element: by which I mean their inherent morality, not any allegorical significatio'. So, according to Tolkien himself, it is possible to have a certain morality in a story without moralising (which is the purpose of allegory anyway). smilies/smile.gif

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]

Kalessin

04-15-2002, 12:56 PM

Thanks Estel (and also Nar for a typically eloquent contribution).

To my mind the allegory argument has been fairly clearly refuted. However, it seems as though people will continue to assert that 'similarities' or 'subconscious manifestations' are either the evidence or the symptom of a link to Biblical narrative. Although I and others have tried pretty hard to at least offer some ambiguity in this line of reasoning, and counsel the dangers of appropriation, I think there is an agenda here that will run and run smilies/smile.gif

Perhaps there is a subtle link between this and the 'Are there any valid criticisms' thread, in that the nature of LotR as a act of modern myth-making (as distinct from the fantasy genre as a whole) gives it that sense of spiritual conviction, and a certain 'timeless' quality ...

Again, my compliments to all contributors - whether I agree or disagree, I continue to be stimulated and impressed by the erudite and articulate responses herein smilies/smile.gif

Peace

Man of Westernesse

04-15-2002, 09:27 PM

Kalessin

04-23-2002, 08:39 PM

I am pushing this back up because a couple of new threads on similar lines have appeared and I believe newer members will find the many insights here both relevant and rewarding.

I also cannot face either repeating my lengthy contributions herein elsewhere (or cutting and pasting ... self-plagiarism smilies/rolleyes.gif ). Please forgive me!

Peace smilies/smile.gif

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

JenFramp

05-05-2002, 04:49 PM

Halfir

05-06-2002, 12:38 AM

I come very late to this debate,and apologise if some of the comments I make have previously been said more elegantly by others.

In looking through this very extensive and well-argued thread one point comes to my mind that some of the professed Christian posters, not all, appear to miss. It is this: ' 'What added value does seeing analogies between Tolkien's works and the Bible, bring to our understanding of the stories.?

In my view, none whatsoever.

That is not to decry those who hold to such parallelism ,it's simply to say that it doesn't matter. Tolkien's writings work whatever religious faith you believe him to have held.

Marileangorifurnimaluim: (your posts are great but your name is as bad as some of those I have to deal with in Thailand- can't we call you something shorter?) I very much appreciated two of your many seminal comments:

"There is a common emotional language that is not just spoken"and "Tolkien sought an epic universality, not an allegory".

He not just sought one, he achieved one of the greatest, which is why LOTR will live for ever while the Chronicles of Nania will wither and fade. These two points are just some of many that you make so tellingly.

River Jordan: I respect your openness about your Christian faith, but like C.S.Lewis, it tramels your viewpoint. Your comment about God as central to Tolkien's literary work, and the added comment of Carpenter's view of a 'deeply religious man' omits the point that it is the concept of the fall that is central, and that has many pre-Christian antecedents. Moreover, religious does not simply equate with Christian anymore than does, Jew, Hindu, Muslim et. al.

What I find concerning in the posts of many Chrisitians like yourself is either an ignorance of or a wilful attempt to avoid admitting that much of the Christian myth is pre-Christian in origin.

Luineeldaiel for example, seems unaware of the fact that the concept of the king as healer has a lengthy pre-Christian existence.(If I am doing her an injustice in stating this, I apologise, but she does not qualify her point.)

You have already been taken to task by others more qualified than I regarding your contention about the author's true meaning, which appears to show a complete lack of knowledge of Tolkien's theory of applicability in which the freedom of the reader is positively contrasted with the purposed domination of the author - the main difference between Tolkien and Lewis as writers.

I find your Harry Potter arguments meretricious - you are not comparing like with like, and I won't waste time on commenting on the absurd arguments put forward by Christian fundamentalists that HP is a back-door to the occult!

Bryniana: I loved your comment that :"It takes away from the literature itself to continually focus on parallel's that aren't there."

Which brings me back to my earlier point, what value added is gained by trying to find parallels between Tolkien's writings and the Bible?

Nothing wrong in doing so if it suits your picture of the world, but please don't be arrogant enough to believe that we all think in the same way, that good and evil don't have relevance outside a Christian consciousness, and don't forget that some of us believe Christianity itself is only part of a cycle of myths that man seems to see as a necessity by which to explain the world to himself.

To friends of mine who bang the "Tolkien is this, that, and the other drum" I simply say - read the books. Do they stand or fall by their own grace? They certainly do. Do we have to see parallels in them in order to fully comprehend them? Certainly not.

When Frodo, at the Council of Elrond, offers to take the Ring, Elrond says:" But if you take it freely, I will say that your choice is right; and though all the mighty elf-freinds of old, Hador, and Hurin, and Turin, and Beren himself were asembled together, your seat would be among them."

Tolkien is one of the greatest Bardic storytellers of all time, and if Taliesien, and Ovid, and Homer were assembeld together, his seat would be among them. Without any need to draw Biblical parallels!

Ancalime

05-06-2002, 08:19 PM

greyhavener

05-06-2002, 08:33 PM

quote:
"What I find concerning in the posts of many Chrisitians like yourself is either an ignorance of or a wilful attempt to avoid admitting that much of the Christian myth is pre-Christian in origin."

What is to you, myth, is to me truth. I believe the truth did not awaken with Christ, it culminated in Him. If God interacted with people as Creator throughout culture and those cultures recognized Him as such, then it is not surprising that they responded to Him with truth. His nature would inevitably be expressed in the myths and legends they created. Because He wanted His Son to be recognized when He came it seems reasonable that He would reveals hints about Him not only to the prophets of Israel, but to truthbearers in every culture. I'm intersted in finding the truth, not avoiding it, but this is where my quest has taken me.

Halfir

05-07-2002, 12:50 AM

Greyhavener: this is not the forum for a theological or philosophbical religious debate. I respect your point of view. However, to me, and many others, it is a particular arrogance of Christianity that it assumes that it is the 'ultimate' revelation of the word of God, and that with the coming of Christ the 'Word' is fulfilled, all other preceding religions having simply been precursors. I live in the East and take a totally different view of the development of the human religious experience.

Moreover, irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the Christian or indeed any other faith, attempts by its more extreme fundamentalist proponents to highjack great literature as part of propagandist activity
infuriates me. (I do not allege this of you I might add).

Estel the Descender

05-07-2002, 03:31 AM

(Advanced warning! This is one loooooong essay. Advanced apologies for taking this much space. Furthermore I had intended this work for a thread that has now closed. Anyone interested could try to look it up 'Tolkien and Christianity'. Reading the posts here, it seems that my lengthy post maybe applicable ).

Is it possible to understand Tolkien's writings in an emotional sense without participating in his own particular set of assumptions about history, redemption, and providence?

I believe that it is indeed possible to understand Tolkien’s work even if one were not a Christian. To say that only Christians can understand and appreciate fully the LotR and the Silmarillion is like saying that only children and not adults can understand and appreciate fairytales. Tolkien wrote:

If fairy-story [sic] as a kind is worth reading at all it is worthy to be written for and read by adults. They will, of course, put more in and get more out than children can.

It is this putting more in and getting more out that seems to be an issue: do Jews and Christians get more and put more in the LotR than non-Jews and non-Christians in the same way that adults put more in and get more out than children? Let us consider another influence first other than the religious element, say, the language element.

It has been said that Quenya was influenced by Finnish (although in truth Finnish was the inspiration for early ‘Qenya’ the real influences of mature Quenya were Latin and Greek). The Grey-elven tongue, however, was heavily influenced by Welsh. For instance, the change from primitive Celtic kw to Welsh p is mirrored directly in the transition from primitive Elvish kw (qu) to Sindarin p. (For example: primitive Elvish ‘alkwa’ [swan] becomes ‘alph’ in Sindarin). Tolkien does not mention in the LotR appendices that he based Sindarin phonology on Welsh, but anyone who is familiar with Welsh or is a native Welsh speaker would have ‘gotten more out’ than someone who is unaware of the relationship of Welsh and Sindarin. Now this does NOT imply that philologists or native Welsh-guys are more intelligent, are more emphatic, have more emotional depth, or are more imaginative in their reading of the LotR than anyone else: a knowledge of Welsh or Finnish is not a prerequisite for reading the book. But they do have the advantage of recognition, that of familiarity. This allows them to get more out of their reading. Now Sindarin is definitely NOT an analogical representation of Welsh, but the influence is there. We do not begrudge the language-guys who do their best to study the Elvish languages: we do not have to be philologists nor should we be aware of the association of Finnish and Welsh to Quenya and Sindarin respectively in order to have a really satisfactory emotional experience with LotR. But neither do we try to stop or discourage these language-lovers from their added pleasure of studying the etymologies of not only the main Elvish languages (Quenya, Sindarin) but also the other languages of Middle-earth and their external histories, where Telerin sounds like Italian and Khuzdul (Dwarven) like Hebrew. They experience far more than anyone because of their specialty.

Now, supposing someone came up to a Welsh Tolkien linguist and said, ‘Sindarin is like Celtic’. The Tolkien linguist would recognise this as a half-truth, but still true, and s/he might let this comment pass. Should that someone follow-up and say, ‘Sindarin is like Irish’, the Tolkien linguist can protest and say to that someone, ‘You are mistaken.’ This does not mean, however, that the Tolkien linguist from Wales is necessarily trying to appropriate the work of Tolkien to support his/her own language and culture. But what’s the difference? Aren’t both Irish and Welsh Celtic languages? Yes there are similarities, but there are big differences too. Of course, non-native speakers can’t tell the difference between Irish and Welsh, or British English and New Zealand English. It takes one who knows Irish to know that Sindarin does not sound like Irish but like Welsh. And it takes an Englishman to know that when a New Zealander speaks in English the latter is using a different accent. But good grief! is all of this wrangling with language really necessary in order to enjoy the sound of Sindarin? Nope. One does not have to know Welsh to acknowledge that Sindarin sounds like it. And nobody has to study Quenya or Sindarin in order to have a satisfying emotional response to the LotR, but those who somehow know a little bit more about the Elvish languages will always ‘get more out and put more in’ than those who don’t. They can recite the poetry out loud, for instance. And as for those lucky souls who happen to know the melody which Tolkien composed for the Namarie, they can sing the entire passage (providing that they can carry a tune!). Learning how to say ‘I love you’ in Sindarin may not give one a greater understanding of the LotR but the comparative appreciation should be deeper.

It is possible for us, as humans, to put ourselves in the shoes of others, so to speak. In understanding any individual and his or her work, this is requisite. The Orthodox Jew will find Tolkien far more understandable than the Secular Humanist, who will understand him still better than the Atheist.

I believe that the proper word should not only be ‘understanding’ but also ‘recognition’. It is, in my opinion, not a matter of having the same appreciation or understanding that influences the emotional response but the familiarity of the theme. But Christians and Jews are not the only ones who can recognise the theme, especially in the Western world where Judeo-Christian morality is a prime foundation. It is no longer a requisite for Westerners, religious or non-religious, to be Christian or Jewish so that the recognition would be possible. A Western-influenced atheist will recognise the themes of the struggle between good and evil better than an Eastern-influenced atheist. This does not mean a difference in ‘intelligence, emotional depth, empathic ability, imagination and so on’ but a difference in culture. And this cultural difference does not imply any sense of ‘superiority’ at all but of nearness and of familiarity.

But then, is there a significant difference between Judeo-Christian morality and other ethical philosophies? There is the assertion:

Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, these are things that all people understand, hence the resonance of this work even in the hearts of those who tell others (and themselves) that they do not believe in such things.

Yes, good and evil are recognizable in every culture; the Bible (the Judeo-Christian Bible) says so too:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God showed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20

However, there are very different treatments and shades of understanding given to the subject of good and evil. Judeo-Christian (Biblical) morality is about the final triumph of good versus evil. Let us take the modern polytheist (a Hindu or Shinto-jin): their contrast of good and evil is comparable to their contrast between man and woman (Krishna and Kali; Izanagi and Izanami). To Taoists, good and evil are symbiotic, comparable to the positive and negative polarities in electricity and magnetism, the right and left. Destroy one and you destroy the other. Eastern Buddhism (like Zen) believes that everything is ‘virtual reality’, everything is just a ‘holo-deck program’ with the safety protocols permanently engaged: the sooner you realise that good does not really benefit you nor does evil actually harm you or anyone the better. Greco-Roman mythology like Eastern pantheism does not convey a ‘good triumphs over evil. . .’ message, what with Zeus and his various infidelities and all the gods’ petty bickerings. And in Nordic mythology, we find the eventual triumph of evil over good in the so-called ‘Twilight of the Gods’ and the fall of Asgard.

The concept that it is imperative that good should triumph over evil first started with the Jews. And good is definitely good and evil is definitely baaaaaaad.

In my perfectly honest opinion, there isn't really a value, especially since he did not intend for parallels to be drawn. It seems that many people spend a lot of time trying to 'read' a meaning into what an author says without realizing that perhaps the author had no 'hidden meaning' that can only be arrived at by tenuous jumps from what is said to what that person thinks the author meant. Many people miss the fact that most stories are written to be just that: stories. No ulterior motive, no hidden meanings, no allegory.

This is true. But there is a world of difference between the ends and the means [the foundation, the ingredients]. Christians do not even pretend to say that the LotR was intended to give a hidden, Christian meaning. What they are merely asserting is that the morality of the work is patterned after the Judeo-Christian ethic. There is a big difference in treatment between Judeo-Christian morality and other Western and Eastern morality.

To illustrate the difference in treatment, let us compare Western fantasy with some modern Eastern fantasy: the Final Fantasy series. In Final Fantasy VII, we have the ‘villain’ Sephiroth. Early on he murders one of the main characters in the story. But later it is revealed that he was not really evil in the Judeo-Christian sense but was actually a ‘hero’ who kinda lost it. Well, kinda like Feanor but Sephiroth was undone not by his pride but by his being, well, ‘too pure’. In Final Fantasy VIII, we have the ‘villains’ Seifer Almasy and Edea the Sorceress. They both seriously injure and torture the main character, Squall. But later it is revealed that Edea was actually the one who took care of Squall as a child and was not really evil. Seifer was actually a good and noble knight wannabe who got ‘twisted’. He never gets any real punishment in the end while Edea is reconciled with Squall. I doubt if Feanor would have gotten a similarly lenient (by Western moral standards) treatment. In Final Fantasy IX, Kuja was the ‘villain’ but in the end as he is dying it is revealed that he had some good in him after all and was instrumental in the survival of the ‘heroes’. The early ‘villains’ (or what are called ‘bosses’: Steiner, Beatrix and Amarant end up becoming ‘heroes’ themselves.

In another modern Japanese fantasy, Sakura Wars, the main villain used to be one of the heroes. He did not fall because of some Vader-esque attraction to the Dark Side. No, he became the villain precisely because he was ‘too pure’, too ‘Light Side’, a hero who saw the world divided into the forces of good and evil and imbued with the idealism that good should triumph over evil. Because of this ‘imbalance’ (according to Taoist philosophy), he finally snapped and became ‘Aoi-Satan’, ‘Blue Satan’. In another modern Japanese fantasy based on an actual event in Japanese history, known in the West as ‘Ninja Resurrection’ the saintly, noble and unbelievably pure Christian samurai lord, Amakusa Shiro Tokisada becomes the villain not through any fault of his own but because of the treachery of one of his followers. He not only becomes really bad but also absolutely frightening [and I mean reallllly terrifying]. His change (both in history and in fantasy) is not Vader-esque in the sense of being seduced by the Dark Side, nor even like Ebenezer Scrooge and David Copperfield. Initially the unfortunate victims, both Aoi-Satan and Amakusa become malevolent creatures.

Now, contrast that with how Tolkien treated Feanor, Saruman, Sauron, and, most especially, Gollum. Were they ever presented as necessary counterparts to good? Did they have to exist to make good ‘OK’? Yes, Gollum had a part to play, but it was made very clear that his fate, though instrumental and important, was the result of his malice and his betrayal. Even in Gollum’s death, there was no justification nor rationalization from Tolkien.

In Japanese legend, we find a hero named Yo****sune who during the 14th century learned swordplay from a ‘tengu’, which translates as ‘goblin.’ The Japanese, both medieval and modern, do not have a problem with their hero being taught by an orc. Finally, Yo****sune receives the Secret Scroll of Inner Strategy (Heiho Mokuroku Hiden) from the ‘King Goblin’ himself. Compare this with the attitude in the LotR on not using the weapons nor the methods of the ‘enemy’. The Japanese legend does not believe that anything could be evil by itself, but the legends of the Judeo-Christian West, from King Arthur to LotR, show that you could not use an ‘evil’ weapon without being corrupted by it. Incidentally, Yo****sune the hero doesn’t win at all in the end. He is hunted down by his own brother whom he had helped because the older brother grew jealous. Unlike the tragedies of the West where such tragic endings happen because of a ‘fatal flaw’ (Hamlet’s indecision, Othello’s jealousy), Yo****sune’s downfall came about in spite of his virtues. The glorification of defeat is alien to cultures influenced by Judeo-Christianity with its theology of history, redemption, and providence. Even in Japanese recorded history, it was the mass suicide of the 47 ronin (masterless samurai) that evokes the most emotion in the Japanese audience rather than their brilliant campaign of vengeance upon the ‘evil’ Yoshinaka Kira (who it seems was not really evil at all by the Western definition). Most Westerners could not comprehend their actions (let alone appreciate it).

In the Judeo-Christian scheme, good has to finally triumph over evil, even though evil was (and is) allowed to succeed temporarily. Star Wars, for instance, is by nature Judeo-Christian in morality because of its ‘Light Side overcomes the Dark Side’ theme.

It is one thing for Darth Vader to acknowledge his basic evilness, it is another thing when an ‘evil’ Amakusa claims that he is acting out of devotion to the Christian God. Anakin became Vader because he was arrogant, his fear led to anger, his anger led to hate, and his anger led to suffering. Amakusa became the devil because the Tokugawa government was intolerant of the new religion Christianity and thought it best to massacre helpless women and children, whether they were Christian or not. In the West, Amakusa could have become a Batman or a Green Lantern, but in the East he had to become Satan.

True, one does not have to be Japanese, or Asian, or Buddhist in order to enjoy the Final Fantasy series, Chushingura or Sakura Wars. Nor does one have to be a Jew in order to worship the Jewish Jesus. Nor does one have to be a Christian in order to love, enjoy and have a really satisfactory emotional thrill when reading the LotR or the Bible. But a knowledge and awareness of the underlying religious themes can open the player or the reader to a deeper appreciation of the literature just as much as learning Sindarin or Nihongo can help a reader gain a deeper appreciation of ‘A Elbereth Gilthoniel’ or ‘Go Rin no Sho’.

But we do not even have to go outside Western culture to see the difference between a Judeo-Christian inspired morality found in LotR and the truly pagan Dungeons and Dragons (D&D): let us talk about magic! Let us

address Maril's point that some Christians consider Tolkien immoral because of the element of 'magic'.

In D&D, there are three classifications of good and evil: lawful, neutral, and chaotic. Let us say the classifications of good: lawful good – Galahad; neutral good – Morpheus (Sandman); and chaotic good – Wolverine. That of evil: lawful evil – Silver Age Lex Luthor; neutral evil – Jaws; chaotic evil – Freddie Kruger. The main point in every gaming session is a quest for treasure, experience, and action. In the D&D universe, and its derivatives, the quest ant the side quests are just as important, if not more so, than the plot. In Warcraft III, orcs are not the evil race they are in LotR but a race of shamans. But if we look at LotR, there is only lawful good and chaotic evil, there is no neutral ground. This is Judeo-Christian worldview. (Anyone wonder where George Bush got the ‘You are either with us or you are with the terrorists’ talk? He is an Evangelical Christian [a United Methodist]).

(Note: to those of you who cannot follow my examples because you may not be acquainted with Sandman or Wolverine, or Warcraft III, if Gilthoniel is correct, I would have to apologise; but if he isn’t, I shouldn’t, because anybody should appreciate anything even if they are not familiar with it as well as those who are, right?)

Now what does the above got to do with magic? A lot. Magic, as you will observe in the Tolkien mythos, is peculiar only to the Valar, the Maiar (including the Istari), Elves and Dwarves. Humans do not have any magic at all and the hobbits have ‘little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly’. Modern Western fantasy has copied this concept a little, but the consequences of having what is not meant to be is not stressed in these fantasies. Why not use a tool formerly evil for good? In the modern quests, unless the game-master is either acquainted with Tolkien or is a Christian, the concept of using the enemy’s weapon against him is acceptable. But not so in the Tolkien mythos.

Furthermore, the story of the One Ring is that of the corruption of so-called ‘good magic’. The three greatest rings of the elves were used for healing and protection. And yet the intrinsically evil Master Ring could control them. The solution: destroy the One even though its destruction would also mean the eventual death of Lothlorien and Rivendell. In other words, better that good magic is destroyed forever rather than allow evil magic to survive. This ideal runs counter to, well, the ‘Harry Potter magic’ where the existence of the evil (by Judeo-Christian standards) House of Slytherin is allowed in Hogwarts. That Dumbledore retains such an unsavory character as Snape, keeps such potentially dangerous stuff (the screaming mandrakes for instance) and the Mirror of Erised, did it ever enter the mind of Dumbledore to destroy it rather than hide it deep somewhere? That the Council of Elrond thought it best that they would rather have the fading and eventual extinction of all good magic including Lorien than allow the Enemy to obtain the One Ring.

You must realise that Tolkien’s treatment of magic is not unheard of. There is Merlin who is a wizard and yet supports the Christian King Arthur. There are countless astrologers and such who were commissioned by 14th to 16th century European monarchs, the most famous of which was Nostradamus. These ‘magicians’ were able to escape persecution by subscribing to official Roman Catholic doctrine: the heretics were those who suffered more than witches under the Roman Catholic Church. Witches were primarily persecuted by the various Protestant churches, the most infamous of which were the Salem Witch trials. All those "Christians [who] consider Tolkien immoral because of the element of 'magic'" are primarily Protestant, Fundamental Protestant. The use of magic by Tolkien reflects the ‘traditional’ Roman Catholic view of magic as briefly described above as opposed to ‘official’ dogma which condemns it. Protestants treat the subject differently, as can be observed by reading [i]The Magician’s Nephew and That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis. Nevertheless, both Tolkien and Lewis were against the ‘magicians’ they encountered in Oxford. For them, the desire for mortals in our world to learn magic is comparable to the desire of the Numenoreans to reach the Undying Lands. Again, this is NOT to say that those Numenoreans are allegories or symbols of those Oxford magicians. In Lewis’ novel, That Hideous Strength, there is the character based on Tolkien named Ransom who persuades the revived Merlin to renounce his magic and ‘save his soul’. The concept of the destruction of the One Ring is similar to this (NOT SYMBOLIC NOR ALLEGORICAL).

Furthermore, there is a greater cultural sympathy for magic in Great Britain than in the United States (this is not to say that there are no Britishers who are against the magic element or that there are no Americans who like magic). The Americans have no equivalent of Merlin in their legends, and have sometimes been openly hostile to the concept of magic (note Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court [not the watered down, Disneyfied versions]). It is no wonder that most of the condemnation of magic in books come from Christian denominations based in the U.S. which are more or less Protestant.

So both authors, Lewis and Tolkien, do use magic in their books, but they never leave out the message ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ when they do. The idea is that it is better to be a non-magical person and able to resist evil (like Samwise) than a Gandalf who could not even hazard to touch the One Ring. As Tolkien stated, ]‘The magic of Faerie is not an end in itself. . .’ The majority of those ‘fantasy literature’ nowadays make magic not only the means but also the ends: everything revolves around magic. From Quidditch to Magical chess, the emphasis on magic could go overboard: doesn’t anyone in Hogwarts play normal, non-magical volleyball, basketball, baseball, or even cricket? But NOOOOO, all their games have to be magical, all their food has to be magical, everything has to be magical. Anything Muggle is not allowed, like cars. There’s just too much magic. Heck! Even Gandalf and Saruman enjoyed some normal, down-to-Middle-Earth pipeweed and ate normal non-magical food prepared by normal, non-magical means.

The Orthodox Jew will find Tolkien far more understandable than the Secular Humanist, who will understand him still better than the Atheist .

As I said, I think the word should not only be ‘understandable’ but also more recognizable. But even then, I am not so sure that the baldfaced pantheism in the LotR would appeal to an Orthodox Jew as much as the Chronicles of Narnia or even New Testament would. But let’s face it, the LotR can help lead one to theism just as George Macdonald’s fairy tale Phantastes, A Faerie Romance helped lead C.S. Lewis to theism, even if the fairy tale in question had nothing to do with Christianity. But just what kind of theism: monotheism (Judeo-Christianity) or polytheism (Hinduism, Shintoism)? Even Lewis was faced with those choices in the beginning:

There was no temptation to confuse the scenes of the tale [Phantastes] with the light that rested upon them, or to suppose that they were put forward as realities, or even to dream that if they had been realities and I could reach the woods where Anodos journeyed I should thereby come a step nearer to my desire. Yet, at the same time, never had the wind of Joy blowing through any story been less separable from the story itself. . . I had not the faintest notion what I had let myself in for buying Phantastes. . . . A. . . man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. . . . Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. . . . There were really only two answers possible: either in Hinduism or in Christianity. . . (Surprised by Joy by C.S. Lewis)

Note: ‘There was no temptation to confuse the scenes of the tale with the light that rested upon them, or to suppose that they were put forward as realities,’ the tale was not an allegory nor a symbolism of anything. And yet ‘at the same time, never had the wind of Joy blowing through any story been less separable from the story itself’. As Tolkien himself said in his essay On Fairy-Stories regarding morality in ‘fairy-stories’:

The Stories of Beatrix Potter lie near the borders of Faerie, but outside it, I [Tolkien] think, for the most part. Their nearness is due largely to their strong moral element: by which I mean their inherent morality, not any allegorical significatio. [emphasis mine]

The moral foundations of an author or artist is significant in any work of art. Of course, Tolkien tells us in the same essay

Of course, I do not deny, for I feel strongly, the fascination of the desire to unravel the intricately knotted and ramified history of the branches on the Tree of Tales. It is closely connected with the philologists’ study of the tangled skein of Language, of which I know some some small pieces. . . In Dasent’s words I would say: "We must be satisfied with the soup that is set before us, and not desire to see the bones of the ox out of which it has been boiled." . . . By "the soup" I mean the story as it is served up by its author or teller, and by "the bones" its sources and material---even when (by rare luck) those can be with certainty discovered. But I do not, of course, forbid criticism of the soup as soup. . . Most debates depend on an attempt (by one or both sides) at over-simplification; I do not suppose that this debate is an exception. The history of fairy-stories is probably more complex than the physical history of the human race, and as complex as the history of human language.

Have I then wasted my time by trying to identify the ingredients of the soup cooked up by Tolkien? It is true, one does not have to be a cook in order to distinguish good food from food that isn’t good. Nor does one have to be a linguist to study French, Welsh, Telerin or Doriathrin: one does not have to learn Elvish to appreciate the beauty of the words in Namarie or A Elbereth Gilthoniel. One does not have to be a lover of maps, an archer, or a swordsman to like Bilbo, Legolas, or Eowyn. But a cook will find more significance in another cook’s soup. A person who knows how to read (and speak) Elvish will find more significance in the Gate Inscriptions, the Title page inscriptions of the Silmarillion and the LotR. A map reader like Karen Wynn Fonstad will get more out of the books, any archer will be amazed at the skill of Bard and Legolas, and a swordsman will marvel at Aragorn’s ability to take on numerous opponents and not get hurt and still know that what he did is entirely possible in real life.

Tolkien continues in the same essay:

But if we speak of a Cauldron, we must not wholly forget the Cooks. There are many things in the Cauldron, but the cooks do not dip in the ladle quite blindly. Their selection is important. . . Small wonder that spell means both a story told, and a formula of power over living men. [emphasis mine]

The ingredients are essential. As I have said earlier, there are many things in the LotR that is simply ‘not kosher’ to Jews and Protestants (like me). For instance, I don’t like ketchup or mayonnaise, but should I get a cheeseburger at MacDonalds and, lo and behold, it has those ingredients. I do not make a fuss: I just eat it, I do not think of the unwanted ingredients, and then I enjoy my meal. A person who does love ketchup and mayonnaise will enjoy a Big Mac better than me, but does not mean that I cannot enjoy the sandwich unless I love all the ingredients. It just means that I do not appreciate the taste of mayonnaise the same way as other people do. I do not want to learn to like mayonnaise nor do I begrudge a mayonnaise-lover who says that I am missing out a lot.

If an Orthodox Jew reads the part about Bilbo dreaming about bacon and eggs, if he has never tasted bacon before, then the one who has tasted bacon can more fully participate in the narrative. (I cannot tell you how many times I stopped reading The Hobbit just to fry a pair of eggs and several strips of bacon). I however cannot comprehend why anyone would want to eat a rabbit. For crying out loud, a rabbit’s a rodent! Tolkien might as well wrote about how Sam cooked a dog or a rat or a monkey. I, who never has tasted a rabbit before, miss out to someone who has indeed tasted (and liked) stewed rabbit. But do I let that bother me? No. How about all that drinking and smoking? To many American Protestants, drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco is near sin (teetotalism after all was for a time legislated during the Prohibition era in the U.S.). To many European Christians, e.g., Tolkien, Lewis, Casper Ten Boom, it is no big deal. If I was not aware that it is okay for many Christians in Europe to smoke and drink, I would have been surprised to find out that Lewis was Protestant, let alone being Christian.

The same goes with fairy-tales, i.e, fantasy, I may be uncomfortable with magic in LotR as I am uncomfortable with okra in my soup, but I do not fuss and refuse the LotR or the soup. I understand that the ‘soup’ calls for that ingredient in the recipe. To remove the magic in LotR is like removing the Fairy Godmother in Ever After. To remove the Christian element in LotR is like changing the ending in Andersen’s Little Mermaid. [The mermaid after all is NOT a symbol or allegory of anything]. Disneyfication and demythologizing should be avoided. The Judeo-Christian moral ethic is just as important an ingredient as the language element: it [the morality] is the seasoning that flavors the soup. I doubt it if an Orthodox Jew would be tempted to eat bacon because of LotR. I am definitely not tempted to smoke tobacco and am in no danger of wanting to eat a rabbit (it’s a rodent)! Neither should all that magic tempt anyone who knows that magic is not good for him/her, and still enjoy the story.

LOTR will live for ever while the Chronicles of Nania [sic] will wither and fade. These two points are just some of many that you make so tellingly.

River Jordan: I respect your openness about your Christian faith, but like C.S.Lewis, it tramels your viewpoint. Your comment about God as central to Tolkien's literary work, and the added comment of Carpenter's view of a 'deeply religious man' omits the point that it is the concept of the fall that is central, and that has many pre-Christian antecedents. Moreover, religious does not simply equate with Christian anymore than does, Jew, Hindu, Muslim et. al.

What I find concerning in the posts of many Chrisitians like yourself is either an ignorance of or a wilful attempt to avoid admitting that much of the Christian myth is pre-Christian in origin.

Luineeldaiel for example, seems unaware of the fact that the concept of the king as healer has a lengthy pre-Christian existence.(If I am doing her an injustice in stating this, I apologise, but she does not qualify her point.)

You have already been taken to task by others more qualified than I regarding your contention about the author's true meaning, which appears to show a complete lack of knowledge of Tolkien's theory of applicability in which the freedom of the reader is positively contrasted with the purposed domination of the author - the main difference between Tolkien and Lewis as writers.

"It takes away from the literature itself to continually focus on parallel's that aren't there."

Which brings me back to my earlier point, what value added is gained by trying to find parallels between Tolkien's writings and the Bible?

The Christians I know never tried to find parallels: all they want is that someone acknowledge the Christian background, the Christian foundation of LotR as I have discussed above. And the contention that 'much of the Christian myth is pre-Christian in origin'. We Christians never denied that: Jesus when he was an infant was visited by non-Jews, pagans, because their myths, not that of the Jews, spoke of his coming. And 'the Chronicles of Nania [sic] will wither and fade'. I don't know about the place from where you come from, but up until the LotR movie people from where I come from preferred the Chronicles over the long LotR. Heck! only me and my twin used to read the LotR. What puzzles me is that people here say that BOTH the Chronicles and the LotR are inferior to Harry Potter and will in time 'wither and fade'.

At any rate, non-Christians (note to the reader: please take this in the broadest sense, that is, all those who don’t worship Jesus Christ as God) and those who are disillusioned by Christianity must not be taken aback when Christians rejoice that a fellow Christian writes successful secular (non-allegorical) prose fantasy. I mean, gays and lesbians can rejoice when one of their own becomes that well read (like they were really happy to find out that Oscar Wilde and Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky were gay and famous, and woe to the Christian who gets offended that their favorite author or composer is being ‘appropriated’ by the gay community), so can Buddhists and Muslims. Why does everyone become touchy when it is the Christian’s turn to rejoice in the accomplishments of one of their own? Nor should we deny gays their satisfaction that many really good authors and composers are one of them. What? Are we to be all closet gays, closet blacks, closet philologists, closet Christians?

They shouldn’t be offended if Jews or Christians will ‘get more out of’ the LoTR the same way that Buddhists ‘get more out of’ the Buddhist Sutras, the way Japanese Zen Martial Artists ‘get more out of’ the Go Rin no Sho, the way Japanese affecionados ‘get more out of’ Final Fantasy, or even the way American blacks would ‘get more out of’ the TV program Roots. Why all the fuss in the first place? Why try so hard to show that Gilthalion was wrong when he said that a seeing person will appreciate the sunset more than a blind person? It is interesting to note that a seeing person can be taught to appreciate the other qualities of sunset that the blind appreciates, while a blind person, unless he or she should see, is limited only to those other qualities; the blind will never learn to ‘see’ color unless he or she stops being blind. But then again, maybe Gilthalion, as he himself admits, ‘shouldn't have used the blind man analogy’.

What is to you, myth, is to me truth. I believe the truth did not awaken with Christ, it culminated in Him.

Tolkien said pretty much the same thing:

The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe [meaning: happy ending] of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the "inner consistency of reality." . . . To reject it leads either to sadness or to wrath. . .

. . . The Christian joy, the Gloria, is of the same kind; but it is pre-eminently (infinitely, if our capacity were not so finite) high and joyous. But this story is supreme; and it is true. Art has been verified. God is the Lord, of angels, and of men---and of elves. Legend and History have met and fused.

[i]Epilogue: On Fairy-Stories by J.R.R. Tolkien

Gloriait is true

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]

Gilthalion

05-07-2002, 11:05 AM

Wow! smilies/biggrin.gif

It had been a long time since I had checked into the thread, and at that time found that I had nothing to add to what had been said.

Now I REALLY have nothing to add!

The late and lamentable TOLKIEN & CHRISTIANITY thread did address a somewhat different subtopic, beauty in the eye of the beholder, if I may be forgiven that distillation. But "of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body!"

Now I am weary indeed! (But it's a good tired...) Estel has written a heroic post that I really enjoyed, in response to many other posts that I also enjoyed. (Unfortunately, it has taken me the better part of the morning to review this thread, and I've not gotten to the RPGs!)

This has been a great thread. Thanks everyone for the effort!

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Gilthalion ]

Luineeldaiel

05-07-2002, 03:49 PM

Kalessin

05-07-2002, 06:04 PM

Hi Estel

Thanks for a detailed and thought-provoking contribution smilies/smile.gif I can see that much of your argument was geared towards the issues raised in the now closed Tolkien and Christianity thread (Gilthalion, I think lamented might be better than 'lamentable' smilies/wink.gif ). However, many of the points have relevance across the discussion.

To say that only Christians can understand and appreciate fully the LotR and the Silmarillion is like saying that only children and not adults can understand and appreciate fairytales

This was, in effect, the thrust of my argument in the other thread. Whilst one can acknowledge both Tolkien's faith and the morality evident in his works, the reader's chosen faith (or tradition by birth/culture) are not the only (or inevitable) factors that will allow him/her to fully and deeply appreciate and identify with the narrative and themes. A whole range of 'personal and cultural resonances' should be considered, as illustrated in your later example of different levels of appreciation for linguistic subtleties.

What they are merely asserting is that the morality of the work is patterned after the Judeo-Christian ethic. There is a big difference in treatment between Judeo-Christian morality and other Western and Eastern morality

This is clearly the case, and not at all controversial or threatening. To deny the nature of the moral sensibility in Tolkien is unhelpful, but it must be placed in the perspective of Tolkien's intentions and the actuality of the text. As you say, the conceptual framework is utterly familiar to Western society regardless of any individual's explicit level of adherence to one particular denomination or other.

... better that good magic is destroyed forever rather than allow evil magic to survive. This ideal runs counter to, well, the ‘Harry Potter magic’ where the existence of the evil (by Judeo-Christian standards) House of Slytherin is allowed in Hogwarts.

This, along with your accompanying narrative, is an excellent analysis. It is, I guess, understandable that the term 'magic should be "used, abused and confused", and cover a multitude of sins, but Tolkien had a very clear and specific idea of what magic was in Middle Earth, and articulated this in his contextual writing.

When you consider the cultural differences in 'acceptance' of magic (in whatever form) between America and Britain, one should also consider the long tradition of Christian Spiritualism in England (dating back hundreds of years), where (for example) clairvoyancy and psychic healing were intertwined with a somewhat eccentric interpretation of Christianity. Freemasonry and the continued existence (and recent resurgence) of Spiritualist Churches in Britain are related and evidential.

An interesting side issue occurred to me when you mentioned Merlin. Tolkien wrote (in the letter to Milton Waldman that prefaces my copy of The Silmarillion) that he disliked Malory's Arthurian saga - one of the primary reasons being that it was explicitly linked to the Christian faith. This was a reflection of his aspiration for an English 'fairy tale' or epic narrative in the great tradition that he so admired - that it should be 'true' and consistent, not with our wordly religions or history, but within itself. Estel, I think you've made this point before as part of your argument against the various 'Biblical allegory' theories.

The moral foundations of an author or artist is significant in any work of art

Well, I agree with you, but as you will see from the end of my Are There Any Valid Criticisms? rant, there are some who do not. If you have the time, please visit this other thread and help me out! smilies/smile.gif

Why does everyone become touchy when it is the Christian’s turn to rejoice in the accomplishments of one of their own? Nor should we deny gays their satisfaction that many really good authors and composers are one of them. What? Are we to be all closet gays, closet blacks, closet philologists, closet Christians?

They shouldn’t be offended if Jews or Christians will ‘get more out of’ the LoTR the same way that Buddhists ‘get more out of’ the Buddhist Sutras, the way Japanese Zen Martial Artists ‘get more out of’ the Go Rin no Sho, the way Japanese affecionados ‘get more out of’ Final Fantasy, or even the way American blacks would ‘get more out of’ the TV program Roots. Why all the fuss in the first place? Why try so hard to show that Gilthalion was wrong when he said that a seeing person will appreciate the sunset more than a blind person? It is interesting to note that a seeing person can be taught to appreciate the other qualities of sunset that the blind appreciates ...

Wow - good rant! There's a lot there, and I think most of it relates to me smilies/tongue.gif (am I being vain?) ...

I DON'T feel offended that Tolkien was a devout Catholic whose faith is present within his writing. I don't think anything I've said, at any rate, could be construed in that way. I celebrate his creative triumph, his gift to us all. It has enriched mine and countless lives in many small and large ways. I would describe Oscar Wilde, Charlie Parker, Shakespeare, Turner and many others with the same admiration, enthusiasm and celebration.

Neither am I offended if a Christian happens to get more of LotR than a non-Christian. I just don't think that is always, or necessarily, the case. To suggest that a practising Christian WILL AUTOMATICALLY get more out of Tolkien than any other individual, regardless of any other factors, strikes me as a statement of appropriation. Importantly, I would say exactly the same if someone says a black reader WILL AUTOMATICALLY get more out of Maya Angelou. My argument with Gilthalion was NOT about being offended, or denying Tolkien's faith or the moral sensibility in his books. It was about an axiomatic statement which does imply a kind of superiority or at least elitism. As I said in the other thread, even if it is 'often' the case, I would challenge this assertion if it is framed as an axiom, regardless of the religious or cultural context. There are (small-p) philistines in all faiths and walks of life and it seems nonsensical to assert they will somehow 'get more out of' Tolkien than people with imagination, intelligence and an open mind, simply because they have a clearly labelled kind of personal spiritual experience. And if the church-going philistines or Jimmy Swaggarts of this world are not "real" Christians, I want to know who is the judge, how can we judge the hearts and minds of others, and why we should feel the need to make such assertions.

Finally, the 'effort' in addressing Gilthalion's "blind man at sunset" was no more than an uncontroversial piece of philosophical reasoning in support of the above argument. I'm not convinced that a seeing person can be taught to hear or experience with other senses in the way a blind person can, and in the end I suppose it's unprovable. I simply felt that the analogy suggested by inference that non-practising Christians were somehow "the blind" when it came to appreciating Tolkien (or possibly anything). Whilst any individual is free to believe that they, individually or as part of a grouping of any sort, are more insightful, blessed or perceptive than anyone else, if they assert it in a public discussion forum by means of a flawed axiom or analogy I don't see anything wrong with challenging that. We should all challenge our own assumptions (particularly those that makes us feel superior), and continually test ourselves against the aspirations or axioms we hold dear, rather than boldly commenting on the supposed failings of others - perhaps there is an echo of Christian teaching in that approach too ...

What puzzles me is that people here say that BOTH the Chronicles and the LotR are inferior to Harry Potter and will in time 'wither and fade'

Unbelievable! I am tempted to break my own rules and comment on the failings of others, but instead I can only say that I see Harry Potter as a decently written lark with some very accessible elements, a very modern, eclectic approach to our inherited culture of myth and archetype, and a rather bland and sanitised reflection of humanity. It's fine, it's OK, but I would consider LotR among the great works of the 20th century (no, not the greatest). It reminds of the famous Presidential debate, which I will paraphrase - "Senator, I know Tolkien ... and Rawling is no Tolkien" smilies/rolleyes.gif

Compliments again on a very interesting and well-articulated piece - keep 'em coming smilies/wink.gif

Peace

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

Man of Westernesse

05-07-2002, 09:10 PM

Mithadan

05-08-2002, 07:49 AM

Having early on weighed in on my views concerning the questions of allegory and appropriation, I will refrain from further addressing these issues. It seems some form of loose consensus has arisen which is consonant with my views at any rate.

I will, however, offer for your enjoyment (or more likely outrage) a couple of links to pages which vocalize the other extreme in this discussion, one which has only been raised in counterarguments - no one here is advocating these positions:Criticism of LoTR (http://logosresourcepages.org/rings.htm) and More criticism (http://capalert.com/capreports/lordofrings_fellowship.htm).

People, please show restraint and do not spam or send nasty e-mails to either of these sites.

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mithadan ]

Gilthalion

05-08-2002, 09:44 AM

Kalessin:
Whilst any individual is free to believe that they, individually or as part of a grouping of any sort, are more insightful, blessed or perceptive than anyone else, if they assert it in a public discussion forum by means of a flawed axiom or analogy I don't see anything wrong with challenging that. We should all challenge our own assumptions (particularly those that makes us feel superior), and continually test ourselves against the aspirations or axioms we hold dear, rather than boldly commenting on the supposed failings of others

I seem never to have gotten my point across at all. Your unspoken axiomatic assumption is: unequal(different quantity) = inequal(social disparity). Therefore, when I generally say one group enjoys Tolkien more than another group, you seem to take it that I also say one group is therefore superior to another. That is not my position, as I have previously pointed out.

My "axiom" is not flawed if it is true. It was not an axiom to begin with, it was a general observation or assertion, which I took trouble to note as having obvious exceptions. You just went to great pains to capitalize the obvious exceptions to your generalizations in your latest post, as I had to in the lamentable smilies/wink.gif thread that seems coming to life again. (I say lamentable because such an argument will invariably generate more heat than light because it can resolve nothing.)

I made an assertion based upon a general understanding of like personal experience. It was not an immutable axiom and I wish that you would not continue to refer to it as such, since I have taken a great deal of time and effort to explain otherwise. It is not something that is subject to logical proof or disproof, and I cannot argue the point. The only viable challenge to such a position would be by scientific polling of Tolkien readers of various worldviews that statistically eliminates variables and reports on aggregate individual assessments of enjoyment.

Once again, this sort of position, if disputed, cannot be resolved by logical argument. It can be strengthened or weakened by statistical survey, but argument is futile unless the observation is demonstably inaccurate. This is a case that calls for inductive rather than deductive reasoning.

I hope that no Christian posting feels themselves in anyway "superior" to anyone else. In fact, our belief system holds a profoundly opposite view. But for my part, I have not been "boldly commenting on the supposed failings of others" but rather, I have asserted that "birds of a feather flock together."

Until the survey is done (hah! smilies/smile.gif ) the question of greater or lesser enjoyment by worldvies cannot be resolved, and so I must leave each to believe what they will. If you disagree, then I cannot convince you with argument and vice versa. So we must agree to disagree. Rest assured, this does not leave me feeling superior to anyone in any way. smilies/biggrin.gif

Halfir

05-08-2002, 11:29 AM

Estel: may I congratulate you on what I can only describe as a bravura performance. While I share neither your philosophic background nor your faith, I cannot but fail to be impressed both by the cogency and the sincerity of your argument.

On a minor point, to answer a question you raised - before I get to the one major one I wish to comment on - I was born and lived in the United Kingdom for 48 years. For the last 12 years I have lived in Thailand. My English peer group venerated the writings of Tolkien - at last a modern epic write had appeared on the scene. Lewis, with regard to his Chronicles of Narnia, was not held in any particualr esteem - a view I still subscribe to - I find him a poor creative artist. I do however share your total bemusem*nt over those who say Harry Potter will replace or outlive LOTR.

You ask: "Why does everyone become touchy when it is the Christians turn to rejoice in the accomplishment of one of their own?"

If people do, and I suppose I am included in the broad sweep of your statement, it is perhaps because they question the motives of some - not all - who are involved in what you describe as Christian rejoicing.

It was another Christian believer - T.S.Eliot - who raised the very basic moral dilemma that causes discomfort for some of us about certain of the posts about Tolkien that have come from Chrisitian believers :
"The last temptation is the greatest treason, to do the right deed for the wrong reason."

Man of Westernesse

05-10-2002, 12:34 AM

Man of Westernesse

05-10-2002, 12:56 AM

Mithadan

05-10-2002, 06:32 AM

Kalessin

05-10-2002, 05:49 PM

Man Of Westernesse

I do appreciate and respect the sincerity and humility of your post. Thank you smilies/smile.gif

Tolkien's faith as a devout Catholic, inferring as it does a certain worldview and moral sensibility, IS of course relevant to an academic understanding of his work. And if one shares a belief (based on secular or religious principles) in the values (or virtues) of self-sacrifice, loyalty, courage, honour, truth and justice, then LotR will strike a chord. And if one believes in the possibility of (secular or religious) moral redemption, or the overcoming of destructive and selfish forces - either personal or external, then his works will resonate. As narrative literature, there are profound and archetypal themes to be found in Tolkien that can move and enrich the open-hearted reader.

Of course, there are other cultural factors which influence a reader's relationship with Tolkien's work, to lesser or greater degrees. Each reader will have, in the end, a unique and individual experience and perception of the work.

Still, if an open-hearted reader shares Tolkien's devout faith (or, arguably, any similar religious or spiritual faith) - as opposed to perhaps an agnostic or rationalist "theory of morality" - then these themes will, naturally, resonate profoundly with such a reader's own spiritual core. Anyone interested in Tolkien's works as more than merely "entertaining stories" should acknowledge that his spiritual beliefs are reflected in the morality underpinning his narrative.

It is only the "more than other readers" assertion that I challenge, not the depth of experience, or the 'spiritual sympathy' that I acknowledge various readers WILL feel with Tolkien's moral sensibility and the underlying worldview.

Man of Westernesse has reflected an experience of reading, and an interpretation of Tolkien's faith as part of the relationship between author and audience, which I think has insight, conviction, but most of all, respect and a sense of gentle restraint. As such, I think in fact he deserves some of the praise that he so freely showers upon the rest of us (well, the rest of you ... probably not me smilies/wink.gif )

My compliments smilies/smile.gif

Peace

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

Man of Westernesse

05-12-2002, 04:38 PM

Karston

05-12-2002, 05:20 PM

littlemanpoet

05-14-2002, 10:30 AM

I'm slogging through page 4 right now, but I want to answer Estel the Descender's March 15 post since he brought up something I've been thinking about anyway (because of this discussion). And of course it would be handy to keep this thread within the 5 day parameter. smilies/wink.gif

The Bible as a snapshot of God as compared to Tolkien's writings being a snapshot of Middle Earth. I can imagine this has been tackled already, but I must say this: the Bible is a conglomeration of many different types of literature featuring one particular culture's beliefs about itself.
The Pentateuch (Genesis - Deuteronomy) is known as a suzerain treaty, typical of the era when it was written. It is a document of law agreed upon between a ruler and his subjects, including 1. identification of the ruler and his lineage and right to rule, 2. the history of the people and ruler that have brought them to this historic point, 3. the laws binding both parties, 4. blessings and curses in terms of the laws, 5. an oath sworn by both ruler and people to be bound by the treaty.

Thus, the first five books of the bible, for example, have a human context. They did not drop out of the sky via Moses' featherpen.

The same goes for all the other sections that make up what we call the Bible.

Therefore, the comparison between Tolkien's work and the Bible should be: the Bible is snapshots of Hebrew beliefs about themselves and their god while Tolkien's writings are snapshots of Middle Earth. I'm not even sure 'snapshot' is an adequate word. More on this later.

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

Kalessin

05-17-2002, 07:26 PM

littlemanpoet smilies/smile.gif

whilst I feel rather boring having to agree with you most of the time smilies/tongue.gif , I think this is a salient point.

Both the 'snapshot' metaphor and the whole Bible - Trilogy analogy are problematic, for a whole number of reasons.

On a structural level, the Bible was written (or recorded, or transcribed, whatever) by a multitude of hands from a multitude of sources, across a long period of time. In addition, we are familiar with one major translation, which address some (not all) of the range of source data. Tolkien was one man who wrote over the span of one lifetime.

On a causal level, The Bible was or is clearly NOT intended for the purposes that Tolkien intended for his works - and vice versa. Whilst for many the Bible may contain gripping narrative, a sense of adventure, and so on, that is clearly not the limit of what it is meant to be. And whilst Tolkien's work may for many seem spiritually uplifting and insightful, or resonate with eternal truths, he explicitly articulates its essential nature as a 'story'.

Possibly the key area of analogy, although highly contentious ( ... please don't close the thread BW ... ) is in Tolkien's idea that ALL the great myths had or were in some way essences of 'truth'. He therefore attempted to create a mythos that contained a priori integrity (truth). Note that in other threads I have argued that his cosmology breaks down under standard philosophical enquiry. It has been argued that the Bible is a collation of myth as a vessel for the 'truth' ... this interpretation allows some notorious rationalist Anglicans, for example, to view transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the Creation and so on as metaphorical rather than literal, and thus to reconcile the Bible with at least some of the 'sacred cows' of empirical science.

On this level - an invented purposeful myth providing a framework for abstract (or ethical) 'truth' - one could argue for the analogy. But this seems to me a very challenging assertion, and one of which Tolkien would almost certainly NOT have approved!

If you discount that, the nature of the cosmologies and their 'sub-creation' become a difficult analogy. We're not talking about competing RPG scenarios here smilies/wink.gif

However, I have argued (on another thread) that the Christian model is a useful and probably appropriate one with which to appreciate aspects of Tolkien's mythos (especially The Silmarillion), including the fact that the contradictions - between the Creator's omnipotence and the free will of His creations, or the sub-creative Fall of Melkor (ie. the beginning of Evil) arising from infinite perfection - are not resolved in a rational or philosophical way. Tolkien himself acknowledged these themes.

Thanks for another excellent contribution, LMP smilies/smile.gif

Peace

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

Kalessin

05-17-2002, 07:50 PM

Ouch!!!!!

I've just visited the sites posted by Mithadan as relevant ... check this out, a critique from an avowedly Christian perspective -

"Though not as overtly and sympathetically occultic as the Harry Potter series, Tolkien’s fantasies are unscriptural and present a very dangerous message ...

The world knows its own; and when the demonic world of fantasy role-playing and the morally filthy world of rock and roll love something (ie. Tolkien), you can be sure it is not godly and it is not the truth ...

Tolkien certainly did get his ideas from pagan religions, and the message promoted in his fantasy books is strictly pagan."

Now, from the second one - an explicitly Christian review of the film -

... (a) bright and dazzling display of the occult, witchcraft and evil. It is another presentation of the "good" using evil to fight evil. And it presents sorcery as both "good" and evil. Violently. Grotesquely. While the story being based on "good" fighting evil using evil is bad enough, it is clear the filmmakers capitalized on extremism. Tolkien certainly described the evil and demonic characters in his novel quite grotesquely but not nearly as hideous and vile as those in this movie.

... I am not going to try to debate the claims that Tolkien's Rings trilogy parallels shards of the Truth shattered from the Bible. Satan is very good at making the truth into a lie through the most innocent vehicles and by the least obvious methods.

Maybe the Christian faith is under more attack [by the adversary through the unbelievers] than any other faith because it is the "right one": the one faith that poses the greatest and maybe the only real threat to the adversary ...

It is fine that there are symbolisms of the Gospel and behaviors expected of Christians in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, however "adapted" or "adjusted" they may be ... But my original point still stands firm: the "good" used evil (sorcery/witchcraft) to fight evil.

Gandlaf (sic) dying in sacrifice of himself for the lives of others and later being resurrected does not fit the picture of the Crucifixion and Resurrection but is a counterfeiting of them.

Regarding the powers possessed by the "nonhuman" characters being hardly wizardry or sorcery since the users were not human, Satan is not human either. The source of the power determines the holiness of it, not the use of it.

In essence, maybe The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring is in itself a "One Ring."

smilies/eek.gif :: shudder ::

Still, I'm always interested in what people are thinking smilies/wink.gif

PEACE

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

littlemanpoet

05-18-2002, 01:05 PM

Okay. I've made it all the way through this thread. I had avoided it for the first three or so months because I expected ALL of it to be precisely what page 1 was, effusive and over-generalized appropriation of LotR as a Christians' book. Just to make perfectly clear, I do follow Christ. I will even go so far as to name myself a Christian, albeit with much trepidation at all the inferences the word now carries.

Estel, I read your mammoth post with mental defensiveness firmly in place, and discovered I had no need of it. You reminded me of some aspects of my faith that I had been forgetting of late in an effort to free my mind of certain pharisaical tendencies I was brought up to believe a priori. Enough of the quite personal stuff, and my apologies for any wincings I have caused by it.

You raised one point, Estel, that I would like to pick up on regarding Lewis' use of Merlin in That Hideous Strength and its differences as compared to Tolkien's use of magic. As any of you who have read a certain "Serious Fantasy" thread may know, I have been writing my own piece for about fifteen years now; one of the initial "energies" behind it was an attempt to work in Lewis's assertion in THS that the naturalistic type of magic that Merlin used was no longer neutral because of the advent of Christianity. I wanted to work the implications of that in terms of a spiritual thriller after the manner of Charles Williams, while partaking of Tolkien's spirit of Faerie. Suffice it to say that it was an insurmountable task, precisely because the three "streams" seem to be mutually exclusive. Lewis, in THS, writes Faerie out of modern reality while Williams, in his spiritual thrillers, appropriates sorcery and witchcraft into Christianity in a way that would make many American Protestants absolutely shudder or worse; I can't imagine Tolkien agreeing with either Lewis' or Williams' assertions as I have presented them (I think correctly).

I'm not exactly sure why I felt it necessary or useful to present this, but I'll hazard a few guesses. We have here three different Christian approaches to Faerie and magic. It may be argued that one is truer to reality or Christianity than the others, or makes better fantasy than the others. It also points, possibly, to different tendencies within Christianity that fall along lines of historic schism (that is, Catholic/Protestant), as to "how we ought to think about things like Faerie". Perhaps it is safe to say, for example, that JKRowling follows a Charles Williams approach to Faerie.

I fear I may be venturing onto areas that are deemed cause to close this thread; if so, please ignore my effusions and continue with the themes as they are presented so far.

Nevertheless, I am curious as to any of your thoughts as to the possible connections between the writings of the authors I named above and the "how we ought to think abour Faerie" question. As you may have guessed, I don't necessarily know what I'm asking but I just wanted to open this can of worms/pandora's box/take a bite of this forbidden fruit smilies/eek.gif just to see what it produces by way of your responses.

Kalessin

05-18-2002, 06:24 PM

So much is being said of great interest and value, and yet with such fluidity and a certain whimsy, that it is becoming impossible to do every contribution justice, or even maintain a good adversial debate smilies/wink.gif

Still, in light of the latest reflections, I am reminded of a particular traditional Irish tale that deals with the onset of Christianity and the interaction of priests with the pagan divinity - eventually leading to the pre-eminence of (Catholic) Christianity in a mythical as well as cultural sense.

In one story there is a spirit that resists the patient and gentle persistence of a priest. The ancient Tuan remembers and recounts "backwards through incredible ages to the beginning of the world and the first days of Eire". Father Finnian listens as Tuan tells of his power, of his joy in nature and delight in the hills and forests and streams, and the appearance of the people of Iarbonel, from whom came the race of Faery, the gods of Ireland. Tuan tells of becoming a salmon, the lord of the rivers, and then of his capture by men. He enters the pregnant king's wife as food and is reborn within her son, and remembers the warmth of the womb. Finnian the priest encourages this tale with patience and affection, and ends by baptising Tuan into Christianity so that he may, finally and fully, be born again into the family of the Living God.

Oscar Wilde's wonderful fairy stories contain something of this pathos and compassion, and the gentle interweaving of ancient myths with the presence of God.

Yet the arguments I quoted in my earlier post from avowedly Christian perspectives show another reaction to the old world. And an understandable (if unpleasant) one, in my view. For to acknowledge and allow for some small and subcreative element of Faerie, is to open the door to another aspect of non-Christian myth. Not to the emasculated pastiche of ancient deities that survive as leprechauns, or the dwarves of Snow White, but the fierce and territorial lordship over men of the elemental will - the fates, the wind, the sea and the sun, and so on. Zeus, Odin, Ishtar and Jehovah (to name but a few) cannot share 'truth', nor claim it as their own without the inevitable destruction of all others.

It is perhaps the nature of writers and philosophers to attempt to make sense of the irreconcilable and mysterious in their different ways. And in Tolkien we find a wonderful and obscure evocation of the ancient and the spiritual. Yet the tension remains, even there, as these boards continue to show.

Peace smilies/smile.gif

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

Estel the Descender

06-01-2002, 01:59 AM

"Though not as overtly and sympathetically occultic as the Harry Potter series, Tolkien’s fantasies are unscriptural and present a very dangerous message ...
The world knows its own; and when the demonic world of fantasy role-playing and the morally filthy world of rock and roll love something (ie. Tolkien), you can be sure it is not godly and it is not the truth ...

Tolkien certainly did get his ideas from pagan religions, and the message promoted in his fantasy books is strictly pagan."

... (a) bright and dazzling display of the occult, witchcraft and evil. It is another presentation of the "good" using evil to fight evil. And it presents sorcery as both "good" and evil. Violently. Grotesquely. While the story being based on "good" fighting evil using evil is bad enough, it is clear the filmmakers capitalized on extremism. Tolkien certainly described the evil and demonic characters in his novel quite grotesquely but not nearly as hideous and vile as those in this movie.
... I am not going to try to debate the claims that Tolkien's Rings trilogy parallels shards of the Truth shattered from the Bible. Satan is very good at making the truth into a lie through the most innocent vehicles and by the least obvious methods.

Maybe the Christian faith is under more attack [by the adversary through the unbelievers] than any other faith because it is the "right one": the one faith that poses the greatest and maybe the only real threat to the adversary ...

It is fine that there are symbolisms of the Gospel and behaviors expected of Christians in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, however "adapted" or "adjusted" they may be ... But my original point still stands firm: the "good" used evil (sorcery/witchcraft) to fight evil.

Gandlaf (sic) dying in sacrifice of himself for the lives of others and later being resurrected does not fit the picture of the Crucifixion and Resurrection but is a counterfeiting of them.

Regarding the powers possessed by the "nonhuman" characters being hardly wizardry or sorcery since the users were not human, Satan is not human either. The source of the power determines the holiness of it, not the use of it.

In essence, maybe The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring is in itself a "One Ring."

I actually know guys like these, and guess what, they don't like The Chronicles of Narnia(which is supposed to be explicitly Christian) also. The only 'Christian Fantasy" they like are Veggie Tales.

But seriously, even if someone was to read Harry Potter I don't think that they will in any way learn any true sorcery or witchcraft. The 'magic' presented is not real: the witches and the wizards there are stereotyped. The brooms, the screaming mandrakes. . . neither the Wiccan religion nor genuine Satanism has any of those elements. The magic of Harry Potter is just stage-magic: there is nothing really genuinely occult there (except, perhaps the nasty House of Slytherin and that grouchy Snape).

Anyone who has read the LotR knows that the story of the end of the Third Age is also the story of the end of Magic. That Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf knew that the destruction of the One Ring would also mean the destruction of their powers is lost to the guys who say that LotR promotes the occult. What? was Sauron overcome by magical Gandalf or was he undone by definitely un-magical Frodo and Sam? Did not Gandalf forego the use of the ultimate magic ring, knowing that it would corrupt him? The theme is definitely not 'good uses "evil" magic':

But my original point still stands firm: the "good" used evil (sorcery/witchcraft) to fight evil.

the theme is 'Better that good magic is destroyed forever rather than let evil magic survive'.

And please, Gandalf is NOT JESUS! The sacrifice of Gandalf is more comparable to a soldier throwing himself on a live grenade to save his buddies than to the Passion of Christ.

Well, at least we know that there are no generic Christians. . .

On a structural level, the Bible was written (or recorded, or transcribed, whatever) by a multitude of hands from a multitude of sources, across a long period of time. In addition, we are familiar with one major translation, which address some (not all) of the range of source data. Tolkien was one man who wrote over the span of one lifetime.

Well, there are some Christians who believe that although the Bible was written 'by a multitude of hands from a multitude of sources, across a long period of time' the finished work has only one author: God. Moses and St. Paul is to God what Christopher Tolkien is to his Dad.

smilies/eek.gif

Oh, NO--wait! smilies/eek.gif Please don't close this thread--

Daniel Telcontar

06-01-2002, 02:22 AM

littlemanpoet

06-01-2002, 10:30 AM

Daniel Telcontar

06-01-2002, 10:36 AM

MallornLeaf

06-01-2002, 06:36 PM

littlemanpoet

06-02-2002, 06:54 AM

Welcome, MallornLeaf. Who wrote the book?

Daniel Telcontar, you read more into my remonstration regarding the Tolkien/God analogy than I meant. Moses and St. Paul [are] to God what Christopher Tolkien is to his Dad. Not only is it problematic, it's incorrect. God can't be said to have taken pen in hand and then Moses and Paul collating and editing and choosing among a variety of versions to pick the most publishable. Some might say, perhaps, that God picked up Moses as his pen and wrote the Pentateuch with Moses/pen in hand. This is too mechanistic. It's not the way things go according to the Laws that govern life as we know it. Inspiration is an entirely different thing, however.

GreatWarg

06-02-2002, 08:39 AM

Estel the Descender

06-16-2002, 06:07 AM

Not only is it problematic, it's incorrect. God can't be said to have taken pen in hand and then Moses and Paul collating and editing and choosing among a variety of versions to pick the most publishable. Some might say, perhaps, that God picked up Moses as his pen and wrote the Pentateuch with Moses/pen in hand. This is too mechanistic. It's not the way things go according to the Laws that govern life as we know it. Inspiration is an entirely different thing, however.

I was told by my brother that using Christopher as an example was problematic. Let me ammend: Moses and St. Paul are to God what Bilbo and Frodo Baggins are to JRR Tolkien. In the Appendices and the Guide to Middle Earth, Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, and a host of annotators and editors both in Gondor and in the Shire are the 'authors' of the Red Book of Westmarch, the supposed originals for The Silmarillion, The Hobbitand of course the LotR. We know, of course, that in 'our' world the real author is Prof Tolkien himself, but in the world of Middle Earth the 'authors' are Biblo et al.

The same is said by Bible scholars about the Bible: in God's 'reality', He is the real author of the complete book known as the Bible. But in 'our reality' St. Paul wrote his various letters and Moses wrote the basis for the Torah. And then

It was a small body of Greek/Roman church leaders who voted us our canon of Holy Writ. They did not consult the Irish, Persian, Indian, or any other group of Christians outside the Roman Empire. Who is to say they made all the right choices? Why not include the Gospels of Peter and Thomas? Why include the second letter of Peter? That which constitutes Holy Writ is held to be canon only by accident of history. Which brings us to another question: Did God's hand bring about these accidents of history? That opens a new can of worms and theological wrangle. There is very little about which we can be dead-on certain. Our dearly held beliefs are not certain. Honest evaluation of them shows that they are held by faith. I doubt Tolkien would have been at all comfortable with your comparison of him to God. I see the point you're trying to make by it, but I find it more problematic than helpful.

Modern research into 1st-4th century uncials and miniscules have shown that the New Testament Canon as we know it today was already in use even as early as the Apostolic era or 1st century CE. What the Councils merely did was to 'recognise' what already was. (Besides, the delegates were not merely Greco-Roman: many were African, Gaulish, people from Antioch, people from all the actual Christian world, small as it was). Furthermore, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that the Old Testament Canon was also fixed by the post-exilic Era: the so-called Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals were not accepted by the Jews as Scripture (just part of the Mishna). Christians never quoted from the Apochrypha (with the apparent exception of St. Jude, who quoted from the book of Enoch, but this book is not part of the 'official' Apochrypha; still, who is to say that Jude did not get that particular info about Enoch direct from the source). And in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from before the 1st century CE, both variants of the OT are preserved: the Masoretic and the Hebrew originals of the Septuagint.

smilies/eek.gif Whoa!!! I'm getting too technical here! Okay. . .

Some might say, perhaps, that God picked up Moses as his pen and wrote the Pentateuch with Moses/pen in hand. This is too mechanistic.

Believe it or not, this is the traditional (dare I say Catholic?) definition of the doctrine of Inspiration, although not worded so, so-- well, not worded like the one above. Most Christians believe that God put the words and ideas into these human authors and then the latter did their best to transmit them into written form (by the aid of Grace, of course). Many Mainline Protestants accept this definition. It's very much like a reporter trying his best to present what a person said in an interview into something readable.

It's not the way things go according to the Laws that govern life as we know it

Yes! Divine Inspiration is not natural, it is supernatural.

But why compare God to Tolkien? My comparison is not meant to be taken as saying that 'Tolkien is Iluvatar'. My comparison only deals with authorship. smilies/wink.gif Nothing else.

MallornLeaf

06-17-2002, 03:31 PM

Tolkien deffinately wanted a Christain Worldview to run through the books. It was not meant to be a literal allegory of anything though, because Tolkein hated allegories. After starting the series however, tolkien went back and made sure that everything had a Godly worldview. As far as magic goes, I don't find any problem with it. the overall message of the book is:
Power easily corrupts, so don't misuse it.
and
destroying evil power is the only way to control it

I'm a Christian (I'm not ashamed of it) and I have absolutely nothing against the so-called magic in the LOTR

littlemanpoet

06-18-2002, 10:40 AM

Estel:

Your new rendering of 'Tolkien is to God as Bilbo and Frodo are to St.s Paul and Moses' does work better. In the sense of authorship.

The same is said by Bible scholars about the Bible: in God's 'reality', He is the real author of the complete book known as the Bible. That depends on which Bible scholars you choose to listen to. Other Bible scholars say that what are known as the Old and New Testaments are riddled with errors, that the Pentateuch is a collection of oral tradition stories whose errors actually often help prove that they are based in reality, compared to most of 'myth'.

I'll accept your historical evidence regarding the widespread acceptance of the Roman Catholic Scriptures (which are quite different from the Protestant). Nevertheless, considering all that was lost in the Germanic sackings and burnings and the Viking raids, it is a great leap to say that "Christians never quoted from the Apochrypha". More accurately, as far as we can tell from the evidence that remains to us, Christians never quoted from the Apochrypha. But I believe, based on my own readings, that that is not even accurate. You don't account for the Persian and Indian churches, who did indeed consider the "non-canon" gospels and letters to be legitimate.

Yes! Divine Inspiration is not natural, it is supernatural. This is assertion, and just a tad co*cky. What, my friend, is your definition of 'supernatural'? How do you know for certain that any such distinction is valid in terms of an accurate understanding of reality? Yes, I know that there is a great tradition for the distinction between the two, but that only argues for the fact that there is a traditional way of thinking about all this; it does not argue that the tradition is in fact correct.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

Estel the Descender

06-22-2002, 09:23 AM

Other Bible scholars say that what are known as the Old and New Testaments are riddled with errors, that the Pentateuch is a collection of oral tradition stories whose errors actually often help prove that they are based in reality, compared to most of 'myth'. . <div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

What kind of errors? smilies/confused.gif

According to the footnote in Appendix F of the LotR, Frodo made a mistake in thinking that the Elves of Lorien used a different Eldarin language, distinct from both Quenya and Sindarin. But the commentator of Gondor notes that it was actually a dialect of Sindarin. In their world, it seems like a grave mistake--- Frodo, the nine-fingered, the scholar of Elvish lore, mistaken about something as simple as elven dialects? However, to Tolkien, this was a deliberate in order to bring about that 'inner consistency of reality'. Let me get it straight. Tolkien did not make Frodo make a mistake, Frodo made the mistake himself, an honest mistake. Tolkien just so wrote it to show that Frodo can make a mistake, considering his level of knowledge at that time and the circ*mstances surrounding his visit to Lorien. Plausible reality. Using Frodo's 'slip' to prove that Tolkien did not write the LotR is pretty far fetched, even though 'other scholars' may claim it to be so. Even so to use the so-called 'errors' in the Bible to disprove God's authorship is ludicrous.

But as for the Torah being oral tradition first, most scholars agree on that, too. But who compiled the Torah: Moses or the so called 'post-exilic' editors? Tradition believes that Moses compiled the Torah, the last book being his original composition. 'Modern' opinion says that the Pentateuch was compiled after the Jews returned from the Babylonian Captivity (606-536 BC). Scholars of the latter are the ones who say that the Torah has 'errors'. They base their premise on the belief that the transmission of the Bible allowed several redactors to add or cut up several verses, or change many of the verses. As for the book of Deuteronomy, well, they say it was an ingenious forgery.

It is they, in actuality, that have made that 'great leap' considering that they have really no evidence to prove this premise. In fact, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the redating of the Matthew Papyrus shows that the 'traditionalists' were right about the transmission of the Judeo-Christian scriptures after all.

The Old and New Testament as we have it right now is basically the same as it was written before the first century CE. As for those who say that the 'Pentateuch is a collection of oral tradition stories' which was first written during the Post-exilic era forget that the Samaritan Pentacheuch is written in Pre-exilic Hebrew: the Pentacheuch as the Jews use them today are written in Aramaic characters, though the language is in Hebrew. They come down to us from antiquity through separate and distinct historical channels, yet they agree except for minor differences in spelling and wording (like Rebekah to Rebecca) which any scholar or Philologist would recognize as acceptable variants.

If there was no Pentacheuch before the exile, where did the Samaritans get their antiquated Pentacheuch written in Heriatric symbols only found in archeological digs in the Sinai and in Egypt? The excavation at the pool of Siloam dates an inscription to the time of King Hezekiah of Judah (around 726-697 BC) and the writing is similar in style as the Samaritan Pentacheuch. This was before King Josiah of Judah (639-608 BC) supposedly created, or as the 'scholars' say, forged the book of Deuteronomy in order to control the people. By this time, Aramaic was already the preferred language of the royalty and the priestly class (II Kings 18:26). Furthermore, the Samaritans were actually Assyrians who settled in historical Samaria at around 721 BC. Just like the Noldor who settled in Beleriand who utterly embraced Sindarin culture, the Assyrians similarly embraced ancient Israeli culture (even inter-marrying with the Israelites who remained). The Noldor went as far as translating everything, from speech to their personal names, into Sindarin: the Samaritans did the same.

Through the Samaritans, the Torah as the pre-exilic Israelites knew it was preserved. Of course, there are variations in language between actual Hebrew and the construct Samaritan tongue. A similar thing happened with the Noldor of Eregion: they had a reaalllyyy strange variety of Sindarin. Even in Rivendell, the Sindarin there is influenced by Quenya.

To account the differences between the copies of the Torah as 'errors' is, to put it simply, bad scholarship. Sorry to put it so bluntly. smilies/wink.gif

I'll accept your historical evidence regarding the widespread acceptance of the Roman Catholic Scriptures (which are quite different from the Protestant). Nevertheless, considering all that was lost in the Germanic sackings and burnings and the Viking raids, it is a great leap to say that "Christians never quoted from the Apochrypha". More accurately, as far as we can tell from the evidence that remains to us, Christians never quoted from the Apochrypha. But I believe, based on my own readings, that that is not even accurate. You don't account for the Persian and Indian churches, who did indeed consider the "non-canon" gospels and letters to be legitimate. . <div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

Actually, both the original 'Roman Catholic' Bible and present-day 'Protestant' Bibles are similar: Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, extracted the Apocrypha from the Old Testament in emulation of the Jewish Scriptures and placed them at the end of his translations. The Apocrypha became accepted as the Deuterocanonicals only during the Council of Trent in the 16th century (1545-1563) CE. Before, they were merely regarded as 'traditions'.

The Council that formally recoginised the 27 books of the NT as canon was not Roman Catholic but the African Church: the Council of Carthage (397 CE). But even then, the testimony of the so-called 'Church Fathers' and 'heretics' alike, as well as countless lectionaries dating back until the 1st century CE shows that the canon was already there.

You don't account for the Persian and Indian churches, who did indeed consider the "non-canon" gospels and letters to be legitimate.<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

You forgot the Coptics from whom we get the only copy of the Gospel of Thomas. But even then, it seems that they did not put on par with the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. Have you read the Gospel of Thomas? Have you ever compared it to the Gospels that is found in the New Testament that we have today? It reads like an imitation of the Gospels very much like a poorly written fan-fic meant to imitate the the LotR. Don't take my word for it. Get a copy and read it. All modern scholars know that it is a fake. How would you feel if someone tried to sell you a book purportedly one of Tolkien's lost writings but is actually a fake? Do you think anyone could be able to pull such a stunt now even though Tolkien is dead? Such a con artist has to wait for all of Tolkien's contemporaries as well as the third generation readers of Tolkien to die out before it can be possible. All the pseudo-gospels date no earlier than the 2nd century CE in style, language, Carbon dating, you name it. The language of the genuine NT writings is pretty consistent (particularly the use of the movable ν smilies/wink.gif.

This is assertion, and just a tad co*cky. . . Yes, I know that there is a great tradition for the distinction between the two, but that only argues for the fact that there is a traditional way of thinking about all this; it does not argue that the tradition is in fact correct..<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

Tradition has nothing to do with the definition: the Bible itself spells it out.

Jesus himself repeatedly called it [the Old Testament] the "Word of God."

Furthermore, St. Paul quotes 'as Scripture' in I Timothy 5:18b 'A worker should be given his pay.' This passage can be only found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which besides proving that these Gospels were written in the 1st century CE, also shows that by giving the written Gospels the appelation 'Scripture' St. Paul regarded them as the 'Word of God.

Also, St. Paul claimed that his teaching was not his own but God's (I Corintians 2:7-13; 14:37; I Thessalonians 2:13). St. Peter also placed the Letters of St. Paul on level with the Old Testament (II Peter 3:15-16). Besides, the idiomatic translation for 'Inspired of God' is 'Dictated by God'. The Bible not only defines the 'traditional' meaning of Inspiration but also claims it as its property.

Besides, just because something is handed down by tradition doesn't mean that it is incorrect.

smilies/eek.gif I HOPE that I have not written anything down that may cause this thread to close smilies/frown.gif but things just have to be said smilies/wink.gif .

smilies/rolleyes.gif By the way, the book Finding God in the Lord of the Rings was written by Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware. Kinda like Chicken Soup for the Soul. smilies/biggrin.gif

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]

littlemanpoet

06-24-2002, 09:56 AM

Your evidence, my friend, would be very persuasive in a court of law - until scholars representing other schools of thought were brought in and put on the witness stand and given their chance to interpret your evidence according to their own lights. Then the jury would be left with the task of forming an opinion based on their own lights.

Which means that all your evidence really serves to give credence to my main point, since that which you presented as fact is, actually, the opinion of scholars of a certain school of thought regarding your evidence. Other scholars will point out quite as demonstratively that it "should be obvious to anybody with any sense" (quoting Thomas Cahill here) that the Pentateuch is a compilation of numerous writings from numerous periods of time, organized for the best and most useful presentation.

If you deem it necessary to cast aspersions on the faith of the scholars of schools of thought other than that to which you adhere, I imagine they would take great umbrage and say as courteously as they know how that you speak out of a (sometimes called 'fundamentalist') triumphalism that they find ignores too much of the evidence; and then they would insist that their faith in Jesus is every bit as legitimate as yours, regardless of their opinions concerning the Scriptures.

So, in the end, we come back to the leap of faith that we all take. You must falsify all other options, not merely "prove beyond a reasonable doubt", because 'a reasonable doubt' in terms of faith is a highly subjective thing.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

Gryphon Hall

06-30-2002, 03:37 AM

littlemanpoet,
<span style="text-decoration: none; text-align: center; text-indent: 12pt; color: #00FF00">

I am a fan of LotR. Recently, when I was telling of the wonders of Tolkien's Middle Earth to a friend of mine, he promptly declared that Middle Earth was a boring world, that Tolkien was a boring writer, and that Tolkien's style was boring. smilies/mad.gif Why, I asked. A friend of his told him. Has he actually read LotR? No, he said. But I know that Terry Brooks is better, because I read him. He's tops!

You said that

[o]ther scholars will point out quite as demonstratively that it "should be obvious to anybody with any sense" (quoting Thomas Cahill here) that the Pentateuch is a compilation of numerous writings from numerous periods of time, organized for the best and most useful presentation.

Estel the Descender asked you whether you actually read the apocryphal gospel according to Thomas (in order to challenge your view that the present canon was arbitrarily put together and it could have either been this or that gospel thrown in). Now, I am asking you the same sort of question: Have you actually read the entire Pentateuch through? Or are you just taking this Cahill guy's word for it (probably because he is some hot-shot professor or something). Have you? "Other scholars" will point it out "quite as demonstratively"? Really? smilies/rolleyes.gif

So, in the end, we come back to the leap of faith . . .

Whose leap of faith? Yours, Estel's or those scholars who, without any real solid historical or documentary evidence, do find it necessary to cast aspersions on the faith of, ahem, "fundamentalists" and "triumphalists" (whatever those mean smilies/wink.gif) by pointing out that their Bible is

. . . riddled with errors . . .

and, what, "a collection of oral traditions" and "numerous writings from numerous periods of time, organized for the best and most useful presentation"? All these assertions about how wrong the traditionalists are when, then they say that the Pentateuch may have been this way or may have been written by these people (I've been doing a little reading myself, unless you read different books). They don't really know, do they? Like when some scholars say that it really was impossible for Shakespeare to have written all that he did because his experience was limited; that it was really Francis Bacon.

smilies/eek.gif How would it sound like if someday someone said that the LotR and the Silmarillon can't have been written by Tolkien, Sindarin and Quenya can't have been invented by him either, and that all of that world was merely compiled together from Nordic and other sources? And they would point out the numerous "errors" in the creation of Middle Earth, too. That, despite all the documentary and historical evidence showing that Tolkien did all by himself.

C'mon, what errors in the Pentateuch? Just taking their word for it again? What contextual evidence (I'm not even asking for other textual, historical or documentary evidence, just the stylistic variations as evidence in the Pentateuch itself, if it really was written by numerous sources).

smilies/tongue.gif My opinion: What evidence? Those admissible in a court of law, with reason: witnesses, documentary proof, historical evidence. Just because lawyers nowadays (or at least on television) misuse the system doesn't mean that proof is no longer relevant. The Pentateuch is a very cohesive work (that is, when I read it). I also read some of the Qu'ran, which was collected by "numerous sources" based on the words of Mohammed; just because most of the stories can also be seen from the Bible doesn't mean that Mohammed merely copied it from the other scriptures. Just because the description of Meduseld and Edoras are similar to some descriptions in Beowulf doesn't mean Tolkien merely copied from that poem (Tolkien is famous for changing the way people read Beowulf because of his literary criticism of it; he certainly was in the position to imitate Beowulf, but he didn't). Same goes for the Bible. How do we know that the Pentateuch was not compiled by Moses or even actually written by him?

If ever those other scholars were put on the witness stand, you're right, all they would do, all they can do, is interpret all the existing evidence in their light.

And nothing more. smilies/biggrin.gif

Read the Pentateuch yourself. "Don't take my word for it." I find it "a tad co*cky" to suppose that it "'should be obvious to anybody with any sense' . . . that the Pentateuch is a compilation of numerous writings from numerous periods of time, organized for the best and most useful presentation" (therefore eliminating all who disagree with Cahill from that group of people with sense).

I was able to get that biased friend of mine mentioned above to read The Hobbit. He finished it, but criticized Tolkien for "taking two pages to describe a mountain" but not enough describing the fight scenes. He said that Tolkien was "over-rated." Hmmmmm . . . Was he right? His opinion is every bit as legitimate as mine; but was he right?

I HOPE that I have not written anything down that may cause this thread to close but things just have to be said.

Neither do I.

If God does exist, if he really was the one who wrote the Bible (through numerous sources), think of it, if he really is out there, and someone is saying he DID NOT WRITE his book? Right. And the Lord of the Rings were really compiled by the Inklings.
</span>
<center>http://www.yayajon.com/watercircle/images/quizresultgriffin.jpg

<font size=1>A formidable creature half lion and half eagle, the Gryphon is said to be one thousand times stronger than any lion and five thousand times as farsighted as an eagle. It has a strange talent that when people are around it, they find themselves unable to lie. The Gryphon is also said to be feirce and untamed. It was a protecter against evil and people often wore talismans of a griffin's claw to protect them from demons. Gryphons were often used as trasport for the gods. They were also reputed to swoop down from the montains on occasion and pick up goats and small horses and bring them back to their nests for their young.

What mythical beast best represents you? http://www.yayajon.com/watercircle/beastquiz.htmlTake the quiz!</a></center>

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Gryphon Hall ]

Estel the Descender

06-30-2002, 03:52 AM

<span style="text-decoration: none;">

[Disclaimer: I am glad at the development of this thread. We who post here seems to have disproved the notion that the LotR is somehow an allegory of the Bible. I hope that instead of finding hidden meanings in the LotR, we examine Tolkien’s work in comparison with the Bible. In short, I hope that we can get into actual textual criticism. Furthermore, I hope that what follows will not be taken as a form of ‘appropriation’ of the LotR by a Christian in the sense that ‘If you believe that only Christians (of all denominations) can truly appreciate LotR, or - inversely - that if you appreciate LotR, that somehow proves or validates the ultimate truth of specific Christian tenets ... this is appropriation.’ You do not need to be a Christian in order to know proper hermeneutics. smilies/wink.gif]

littlemanpoet,

Your evidence, my friend, would be very persuasive in a court of law - until scholars representing other schools of thought were brought in and put on the witness stand and given their chance to interpret your evidence according to their own lights. Then the jury would be left with the task of forming an opinion based on their own lights.

Which means that all your evidence really serves to give credence to my main point, since that which you presented as fact is, actually, the opinion of scholars of a certain school of thought regarding your evidence. Other scholars will point out quite as demonstratively that it "should be obvious to anybody with any sense" (quoting Thomas Cahill here) that the Pentateuch is a compilation of numerous writings from numerous periods of time, organized for the best and most useful presentation.
<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

I wonder what Cahill meant by ‘anybody with any sense?’ Hmm– did he mean, ‘To anybody who would interpret the Torah as “myth” and not “history” would see that the “Pentateuch is a compilation of numerous writings from numerous periods of time, organized for the best and most useful presentation”.’ But this characterization is a bit unfair, after all

. . . the Pentateuch is a collection of oral tradition stories whose errors actually often help prove that they are based in reality, compared to most of 'myth'. [emphasis mine]
<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

I take it then that you do believe that the Torah is ‘historical myth’, or as Tolkien would say, ‘Legend and History have met and fused.’ Thus, when the Torah says that Moses parted the Red Sea, this event actually took place. The only thing we seem to disagree on is the date of writing of the actual manuscript. But what exactly do you mean by ‘errors’. Did you mean ‘typographical errors’, the errors in copying? Or did you mean ‘reportage errors’

. . . [R]eportage–though it may no doubt contain errors–pretty close up to the facts. . . [emphasis mine]
<div align=right>– C.S. Lewis</div>

If either of the above is what you mean by ‘errors’ then I am in a position to agree with you. Typographical errors are easy to deal with: just find other copies of the same manuscript and make a comparison. Reportage errors help prove that the manuscripts are eyewitness accounts, written immediately after the event or in hindsight by the eyewitnesses themselves or their ‘interviewers’.

But if what you mean is ‘historical errors’, that all those miracles, the Creation of Humanity, the Great Flood, the Ten Plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the giving of the Decalogue, the Fall of Jericho, all else in the Torah are nothing more than non-literal, symbolical myths that impart some allegorical truth.

This begs the question: what do you mean by myth? Do you mean it in the same way as the ancient Greeks, myth being the literal true history of their gods, or do you mean it in that it means a story that is not literally true? Or is it somewhere in between?

If you deem it necessary to cast aspersions on the faith of the scholars of schools of thought other than that to which you adhere, I imagine they would take great umbrage and say as courteously as they know how that you speak out of a (sometimes called 'fundamentalist') triumphalism that they find ignores too much of the evidence; and then they would insist that their faith in Jesus is every bit as legitimate as yours, regardless of their opinions concerning the Scriptures.
<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

Am I to understand, given your use of the terms ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘triumphalist’ that your belief about myth is decidedly ‘non-literal?’ As to the appellations

We are not fundamentalists.
<div align=right>– C.S. Lewis</div>

What evidence do I ignore? It seems to me that, with all due courtesy and respect, that they are the ones who ‘ too much of the evidence’. How can I say this with a straight smilies/smile.gif face? Letsee–

. . . I find in these theologians a constant use of the principle that the miraculous does not occur. Thus any statement put into Our Lord’s mouth by the old texts, which, if He had really made it, would constitute a prediction into the future, is taken to have been put in after the occurrence which it seemed to predict. This is very sensible if we start by knowing that inspired prediction can never occur. Similarly in general, the rejection as unhistorical of all passages which narrate miracles is sensible if we start by knowing that the miraculous in general never occurs. Now I do not here want to discuss whether the miraculous is possible. I only want to point out that this is a purely philosophical question. Scholars, as scholars, speak on it with no more authority than anyone else. The canon ‘ If miraculous, unhistorical’ is one they bring into the study of the texts [eisegesis], not one they have learned from it [exegesis]. If one is speaking of authority, the united authority of all the Biblical critics in the world counts here for nothing. On this they speak simply as men; men obviously influenced by, and perhaps insufficiently critical of, the spirit of the age they grew up with.
<div align=right>[i]– C.S. Lewis</div>

What he meant of course was that those ‘scholars’ were influenced by their logical positivist-skepticist philosophies that doubts everything from reason to Shakespeare

. . . I have learned in other fields of study how transitory the ‘assured results of modern scholarship’ may be, how soon scholarship ceases to be modern. The confident treatment to which the New Testament is subjected is no longer applied to profane [Lewis means ‘secular’] texts. There used to be English authors who were prepared to cut up Henry VI between half a dozen authors and assign his share to each. We don’t do that now. . . Even the belief of the ancient Greeks that the Mycenaeans were their ancestors and spoke Greek has been surprisingly supported.
<div align=right>– C.S. Lewis</div>

These ‘modern scholars’ ignore the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which shows that the Old Testament as we know it today was already known then before Christ. Only the caves that were dated after the 1st century CE had any ‘apocryphal’ writings.

Let us reconstruct! Supposing we were in Middle Earth at around the 7th Age. We meet several scholars from Gondor who says that The Hobbit, or There and Back Again could not have been written by Bilbo Baggins. ‘Why, we know how present Halflings dislike travel and adventure. Furthermore, the book has been written in the third person: if it was a personal recollection, it should have been written in the first person.’ About the Red Book of Westmarch: Thain’s Copy: ‘It is impossible for the Book to have been written by untravelled Halflings. Furthermore, it is riddled with errors. There could not have been an historical Gandalf: he was merely a Patriarchal construct. And as for the Elves: how do we know that they are immortal? We see very little of them and about the only time we see them is when they go over the Sea. How do we know that there is a “Faerie” to where they go to? Our explorers find no trace of this “Faerie”. Furthermore, there are conflicting accounts as to the location of “Faerie”: is it to the West of Endor or is it actually located in the valley formerly known as Lothlorien? What if the elves actually go to the Sea in order to die in secret? We know that Queen Arwen died when she failed to “go over the Sea”. It is probable that elves have a similar life-span as we humans do: elves being just another race of humans. And dwarves? They must have been a race of Halflings who were hairier than usual: they are not a separate race as portrayed in the Thain’s book. As for the descendants of Numenoreans having a longer lifespan than most humans–that is nothing more than myth, legends that the redactors inserted in order to justify racism among the Edain. Besides, there is no evidence that Amar was ever flat!’

Why include the second letter of Peter?
<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

Supposing in our ‘reality’ but in the 51st century, we find scholars who say, ‘The Silmarillion is obviously not written by JRR Tolkien. For one thing, the style of the work differs from his attested works, the original Hobbit (not the spurious “corrected” version) and the LotR Trilogy. You must realise that in the last half of the 20th century and the early quarter of the 21st century was engaged in that phenomena which was the writing of “Fan-fics” (fiction based on Tolkien’s LotR). The Silmarillion was one of these, evidently based on the Appendices of The Return of the King. The name of both John and Christopher Tolkien was merely inserted later in the 22nd century in order to give the Silmarillion ‘respectability’ as part of the canon and was probably composed by Walter Hooper. But modern scholarship now knows that the Quenta Silmarillion is actually a form of “Fan-fic”. Furthermore, the LotR was actually a joint writing by Tolkien and the Inklings. The Black Speech, based on Gaelic, was no doubt the invention of fellow Fantasy writer, the Irish C.S. Lewis. Sindarin was probably created by a Welsh student of Tolkien as a part of a college thesis. . .’

smilies/biggrin.gif
</span>

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]

littlemanpoet

06-30-2002, 03:39 PM

Gryphon:

I make no claim to being a great debater. I usually can be beaten into the ground in a debate. It's because I'm not interested in debating for debating's sake, unlike some of the people who thoroughly wallop me in that venue. I am seeking truth, which, I have found over the years, is a whole lot harder to be sure of than I had believed when younger.

To answer your question, I have never read the Pentateuch straight through from beginning to end, but I have read virtually all of it at different times, and some of it so many times I can't keep count. It's called devotions at dinner or in the morning, readings from the pulpit, what-have-you. I studied the Pentateuch at a Bible College I attended for three years. So yes, I know what I'm talking about.

As to whose leap of faith, anybody's. Either a person simply accepts without question what s/he has been taught to believe, or examines her/is beliefs and is forced to acknowledge that s/he chooses to believe what s/he does because any alternatives are unacceptable for whatever reasons.

As for 'what evidence', I could go into all of that but I don't see the point. It would only become more fodder for debate, endless debate, which is useless, as the Teacher in Ecclesiastes hints for us.

I'll write off your sarcastic tone to the intensity with which you hold your opinions, no harm done or taken.

Estel, Cahill didn't see the Torah as myth and not history. He saw it as oral tradition of a real history passed down over many generations and compiled at a point in the history of the Jewish people when they had become literate. Cahill's main thesis is, in fact, that the Jews changed the way we think and feel from the 'cyclic wheel' where nothing changes (the Hindu understanding of life) to a historic line in which actual people and actual events change the course of peoples' lives, making the most crucial event of history possible for humans to even apprehend and comprehend, that of Jesus' saving humanity from death by his own death and resurrection. So he writes as a believer in Jesus who happens to not accept that the Torah was dictated to Moses by God.

I do not remember the specific instances Cahill remarks on of errors, but they were indeed Reportage errors for the most part. One other thing Cahill mentions is more an error of modern filmmaking misconception: The Sea of Reeds is a better translation than The Red Sea, and the water that was parted was probably not fathoms deep, but perhaps a few inches to a foot or so. Of course, Cahill takes it further and says that the tale probably grew in the minds of the tellers until after so many generations they convinced themselves that water actually did part. That is, of course, surmise on his part, no more or less legitimiate than surmise that it did actually happen.

'compared to most of myth': this particular usage refers to most mythologies, such as Gilgamesh, Achilles, the hindu, the celtic, you name it. Again, these adhere to the cyclic wheel paradigm of human life experience, whereas the 'myth' of the Jews has broken away from that because YHWH caused it to happen by telling Avram to leave Ur of the Sumerians (of the Chaldeans is an error, so there's one for you).

To try and tie this post back into Tolkien, as Gryphon and Estel so aptly do, JRRT takes his cue from the Jews by writing a legendarium thoroughly based in the paradigm of persons and events changing the course of history. The evidence is overwhelming for this. I'm not even going to touch your hypothetical arguments regarding the historicity of Tolkien having written the Tolkien legendarium. Argumentum ad absurdum.

Seeking truth, lmp.

Talking Hawk

07-07-2002, 11:24 PM

To put it briefly...

Frodo - Jesus or David (as in David and Goliath..)
Sauron - If Frodo were David, he would most certainly be Goliath (especially in the movie..he's HUGE!)
Sam - Paul of the Twelve Apostles (you know how in the Garden of Gethsename, he cut off that guy's ear to protect Jesus, and Jesus scolded him for being violent?...I can see that happening with Frodo and Sam...)
Boromir - If you're one of those people that view Boromir as a traitor, then he would most likely be seen as the one apostle who betrayed Jesus (I forgot his name...). However, I don't really see Boromir as a "bad guy," so I don't know who he's like...
Gandalf - Possibly the one prophet who was around during Paul and Davids' reign...Simon, I think.
Gollum - A leper! Okay, just kidding.. =)

That's my two bits, even though this thread is over a year old... :rollseyes: Just my luck...

Estel the Descender

07-12-2002, 07:55 PM

The Sea of Reeds is a better translation than The Red Sea, and the water that was parted was probably not fathoms deep, but perhaps a few inches to a foot or so. Of course, Cahill takes it further and says that the tale probably grew in the minds of the tellers until after so many generations they convinced themselves that water actually did part. That is, of course, surmise on his part, no more or less legitimiate than surmise that it did actually happen.
<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

I'm glad you made that clear smilies/biggrin.gif Of course, you probably are aware that Cahill was, to use Bultmann's term, demythologising. This kinda implies that, although Cahill did not say it, that Cahill sees the Red [Reed] Sea incident as, well, 'myth'. At the very least, however, he did not Disneyfy the account (no Little Mermaid [Disney version] or any cameos by Sebastian smilies/rolleyes.gif ).

'Then the prophecies of the old songs have turned out to be true, after a fashion!' said Bilbo.

'Of course!' said Gandalf. 'And why should not they prove true? Surely you don't disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself? You don't suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You are a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!'

Frodo - Jesus or David (as in David and Goliath..)
Sauron - If Frodo were David, he would most certainly be Goliath (especially in the movie..he's HUGE!)
Sam - Paul of the Twelve Apostles (you know how in the Garden of Gethsename, he cut off that guy's ear to protect Jesus, and Jesus scolded him for being violent?...I can see that happening with Frodo and Sam...)
Boromir - If you're one of those people that view Boromir as a traitor, then he would most likely be seen as the one apostle who betrayed Jesus (I forgot his name...). However, I don't really see Boromir as a "bad guy," so I don't know who he's like...
Gandalf - Possibly the one prophet who was around during Paul and Davids' reign...Simon, I think.
Gollum - A leper! Okay, just kidding.. =)
<div align=right>-- Talking Hawk
</div>

smilies/eek.gif Wha--wot-the!!!

--uhh, St. [Simon] Peter had the sword. . .

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]

littlemanpoet

07-13-2002, 06:31 AM

Estel the Descender

08-09-2002, 08:51 AM

Along the same lines, another theologian and bible scholar, N.T. Wright, argued through the likelihood of Jesus' resurrection, and being a 1st century specialist, knowing all he knows, and communicating it, his conclusion was that every explanation to the counter is insufficient, thus, inexplicably, the only reasonable conclusion is that the resurrection must have happened - so what if we don't know how?
<div align=right>-- littlemanpoet</div>

smilies/biggrin.gif

I have a few quotes from a related thread called (Lack of) Religion in LotR:

Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its `færie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.
For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary `real' world. (I am speaking, of course. of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days.)... ~letter 131
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like `religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. ~letter 142 ]
<div align=right>-- letters of Tolkien quoted from Fingolfin of the Noldor
</div>

gayare'dion

08-09-2002, 09:23 AM

galadwen29

08-18-2002, 10:47 AM

MallornLeaf

08-20-2002, 07:32 PM

<font color="violet">It seems like I say this all the time. I haven't read over all of the posts, there's just too many. So I don't know what points of view you are all taking. But I do know that Tolkien hated allegories...

<font color="white">But that doesn't mean that the trilogy and the Bible are unrelated...

<font color="violet">After starting to write the trilogy, Tolkein realized that some of it COULD be taken as witchcraft, etc. So he went back and revised it... not only taking out things that could be misinterpreted, but also replacing them and adding things that would give the books a Christain undertone.

<font color="aqua"> So if you are trying to relate characters in LOTR to characters in the Bible--you won't succeed. If tolkein hated allegories, why would he write one?

If you want me to go into detail as to how LOTR has christian undertones, I'd be happy too... but for now I think this says enough.

Estel the Descender

09-01-2002, 07:19 AM

After starting to write the trilogy, Tolkein realized that some of it COULD be taken as witchcraft, etc. So he went back and revised it... not only taking out things that could be misinterpreted, but also replacing them and adding things that would give the books a Christain undertone.

smilies/biggrin.gif

TolkienGurl

10-06-2002, 03:59 PM

Disclaimer: As a Christian, this is merely my interpretation of the characters in LOTR. In no way is this meant to be treated as fact, nor is it what Tolkien intended!

Aragorn reminds me of Jesus Christ. Both were Kings, but were scorned because they did not "look" like Kings.

Also, Gandalf (representation of Jesus) fell into the abyss (hell) and fought the balrog (the devil) and returned as from the dead (Easter) dressed in white (the transfiguration).

~TolkienGurl~

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

Estel the Descender

12-01-2002, 03:25 AM

I found this article at http://www.users.cts.com/king/e/erikt/tolkien/gdfchrst.htm
entitled, Did Tolkien Intend for Gandalf
to Represent Christ?. I post a copy of it here:

Did Tolkien intend Gandalf's Death and Return to represent Christ and the Ressurection?

Heavens, no! smilies/smile.gif

This would have represented a too literal embodiement of Christian ideal, which Tolkien thought undesirable in a story. He specifically stated this while commenting on the Arthurian tales:

"{i}t is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion. For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy- story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary `real' world."LETTER #131

This is not to say that he didn't like the Tales; he did, but his feeling was that such a direct connection between one of his characters and Christ was allegorical - which he utterly disliked.

Further, in one of his letters, he flatly denies this type of allegory (which he avoided in his stories and repeatedly denied):

"Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees." LETTER #181

However, Tolkien's work is religious and consciously admitted by Tolkien to be so. While he disliked "allegory" he still embodied his religious ideals and beliefs into his work by making them "symbolical", if you will. Gandalf's death and return is meant to "symbolize" that the sacrifice of one's self for a worthy purpose can be changed and enlarged to another and higher purpose.

In another article I found here at http://www.users.cts.com/king/e/erikt/tolkien/jrrtcrst.htm
titled Was Tolkien a Christian? excerpts from Tolkien's letters regarding his Christianity:

From Letter #131:
...Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its `faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.
For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary `real' world. (I am speaking, of course. of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days.)... In the cosmogony there is a fall: a fall of Angels we should say. Though quite different in form, of course, to that of Christian myth. These tales are `new', they are not directly derived from other myths and legends, but they must inevitably contain a large measure of ancient wide-spread motives or elements. After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of `truth', and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear.

From Letter #142:
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like `religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

From Letter #165:
It is not `about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular, or topical, moral, religious, or political. The only criticism that annoyed me was on that it `contained no religion' (and `no Women', but that does not matter, and is not true anyway). It is a monotheistic world of `natural theology'. The odd fact that there are no churches, temples, or religious rits and ceremonies, is simply part of the historical climate depicted. It will be sufficiently explained, if (as now seems likely) the Silmarillion and other legends of the First and Second Ages are published. I am in any case myself a Christian; but the `Third Age' was not a Christian world.

From Letter #195:
Actually I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect `history' to be anything but a `long defeat' - though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.

From Letter #213:
...I object to the contemporary trend in criticism, with its excessive interest in the details of the lives of authors and artists. They only distract attention from an author's works (if the works are in fact worthy of attention). and end, as one now often sees, in becoming the main interest. But only one's guardian Angel, or indeed God Himself, could unravel the real relationship between personal facts and an author's works. Not the author himself (though he knows more than any investigator), and certainly not so-called `psychologists'. ...I was born in 1892 and lived for my early years in `the Shire' in a pre-mechanical age. Or more important, I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic. The latter `fact' perhpas cannot be deduced; thou one critic (by letter) asserted that the invocations of Elbereth, and the character of Galadriel as directly described (or through the words of Gimli and Sam) were clearly related to Catholic devotion to Mary. Another saw in waybread (lembas)=viaticum and the reference to its feeding the will (vol. III, p. 213) and being more potent when fasting, a derivation from the Eucharist. (That is: far greater things may colour the mind in dealing with the lesser things of a fair-story.)

From Letter #269:
With regard to The Lord of the Rings, I cannot claim to be a sufficient theologian to say whether my notion of orcs is heretical or not. I don't fell under any obligation to make my story fit with formalized Christian theology, though I actually intended it to be consonant with Christian thought and belief, which is asserted elsewhere.

From Letter #310:
...So it may be said that the chief purpose of life, for any one of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all the means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks. To do as we say in the Gloria in Excelsis:...We praise you, we call you holy, we worship you, we proclaim your glory, we thank you for the greatness of your splendour.

From Letter #320:
...I think it is true that I owe much of (the character of Galadriel) to Christian and Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary....

smilies/biggrin.gif Well, so much for that!

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]

Kalessin

12-01-2002, 09:29 AM

Estel, good to hear you smilies/smile.gif

This is an excellent post and you have highlighted what I believe to be the core issues, that I will attempt to summarise thus -

1. Undoubtedly art reflects the artist, and the intent and act of creation is not solely willed and conscious, therefore allowing that all the sensibilities of the artist as a human being will be to some extent a presence in the work ... but Tolkien himself disliked the diminishing of (his) art that categorising it by a simple, superficial portrait of the creator implies(examples - Orwell = committed leftwing, QED all Orwell's work is leftwing propaganda, Joyce = repressed Catholic, QED all Joyce's work is repressed Catholic psychobabble, PG Wodehouse = nazi sympathiser, QED all Wodehouse's work etc.), and saw preciseley the danger of personality cult or caricature and so on that almost inevitably result. Hence his, and my, contention that art does not solely embody the artist, but equally stands in embodiment in and of itself.

2. A reader can confer 'allegory' to a work for their own purposes, just as many other personal interpretations are part of their own valid experience. Yet Tolkien himself (as your Lembas example illustrates), acknowledged that once readers became self-conscious in this kind of interpretation and began to analyse narrative for symbolism that met their own expectations, all the elements of the work would be reduced to a technical context, and regardless of narrative importance the reader would simply be concerned (in a somewhat postmodern way) with the mechanics of (their own inferred) literary device.

3. We, I, you, Tolkien - are contradictory and complex beings ... we change our minds, our view of self shifts, we re-invent our persona and artefacts, we make mistakes, we are inconsistent and unpredictable, we rise above our own expectations, and so on. Your list of irreconcilable comments by Tolkien simply demonstrates that, and his work itself does too - was LotR revised from a specific religious agenda, or in response to other pressures, and if it was consciously 'revised' in Christianity, was the earlier manuscript deeply flawed by the omissions (obviously not, since much of the crucial narrative and characterisation maintained). Tolkien was a devout Catholic when he wrote the first edition - had his Catholicism changed by the time he came to revise? It is NOT the Bible, it is a human book by a human author and not the verbatim dictated words of God (unless through divine determinism you posit that all actions are willed by God - and even if you do, is there no difference between the inspiration of the Gospels and Tolkien's own subcreation?) ...
we should acknowledge, cherish and celebrate the humanity, the contradictions, the subtelty and variety of form, meanings and message in LotR, that is it's true and lasting triumph.

Estel, I hope, or think, our areas of agreement are fundamental and any disagreements technical (I am not talking about personal religious convictions here smilies/smile.gif), and I say that with respect for your thoughtful and valuable contributions here and elsewhere, from which I quote -

The LotR cannot be used as a Christian tome even though it has Christian elements in it.

I agree, and wonder why no-one else has said it so straighforwardly before (apart from me, as you know I am incapable of succinctness smilies/smile.gif).

Peace.

Kalessin

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

Tyler

12-02-2002, 04:42 PM

This post isn’t meant to offend anyone and if it does im sorry but this is what I think. I am a Christen and I don’t really thing LoTR was an allegory to the Bible

I really don’t see a Jesus figure. It goes into great depth on his birth. It was a very big deal. If someone was to be a Jesus figure there is not mention of something like that. Aragorn was born as a Numenorean which was a big deal due too having some aspects on an elf but nothing compared to Jesus. In the Bible Jesus did so much. I really don’t see any character doing anywhere as much as he did. There were people who did a lot such as Frodo just dealing with the ring. You could say this is like Jesus saving everyone. It was going to cost him his life but he knew that it had to be done. Just like destroying the ring had to be done. Also Frodo doesn’t die which makes the reader happy to see the hero win and live happily ever after. This makes a better story.

Gandalf killing the Balrog which in a since is like David vs. Goliath but not really due to Gandalf being very powerful with wisdom and immorality while David had his faith in God.

I find the idea about the good vs. evil being a Christian only moral wrong. That has probably been in every culture since the dawn of time. It was used to teach morals. Not to mention is makes a good story.

Now the creation of middle earth could be taken two ways. Eru was God and the Valar were angels as in the Christan way or you could say Eru was like Zeus and the Valar where more like demi gods. You take your pick.

Next we can deal with the devil issue (Morgoth and Sauron). In my mind they are too physically active. The devil in the Bible was more mentally active. Putting temptation in front of you not coming up to you and cutting off you head. They just have too much of an active role in the downfall of the people of middle earth.

God didn’t make one person better than the other. He created all men equal. People from South America don’t get to live forever while people from Europe are short miners. Elves were the only ones who had the chance to go join Eru.

There are many more points that I didn’t put down but that is all im going to put down for now. Feel free to tell me your comments, feeling, or snack ideas.

Estel the Descender

12-06-2002, 08:04 PM

smilies/biggrin.gif Hello, Tyler!

smilies/biggrin.gif Don't worry man, no one is offended
. Besides, if any of us wrote an offensive post, either the post gets deleted by the dread Barrow-wight (and no Tom Bombadil to the rescue!) or the the thread mysteriously closes. Since that hasn't happened yet, well, then everything is still okay!

I really don’t see a Jesus figure. It goes into great depth on his birth. It was a very big deal. If someone was to be a Jesus figure there is not mention of something like that. Aragorn was born as a Numenorean which was a big deal due too having some aspects on an elf but nothing compared to Jesus. In the Bible Jesus did so much. I really don’t see any character doing anywhere as much as he did. There were people who did a lot such as Frodo just dealing with the ring. You could say this is like Jesus saving everyone. It was going to cost him his life but he knew that it had to be done. Just like destroying the ring had to be done. Also Frodo doesn’t die which makes the reader happy to see the hero win and live happily ever after. This makes a better story.

Well said! Nothing anyone in the LotR did can even compare to the work of Jesus Christ. I think that comparing Jesus to Frodo, Aragorn, or Gandalf is like comparing a bonfire to the sun.

smilies/biggrin.gif Good to hear from you too, Kalessin!

Tolkien himself disliked the diminishing of (his) art that categorising it by a simple, superficial portrait of the creator implies. . .
<div align=left> --Kalessin </div>

I see that we understand Letter #213 the same way.

A reader can confer 'allegory' to a work for their own purposes, just as many other personal interpretations are part of their own valid experience.
<div align=left> --Kalessin </div>

I dislike Allegory--the conscious and intentional allegory--yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be accepted just as a story.)
<div align=left> --From Letter #131 </div>

The more 'realistic' a story the more people find meaning in the story, hence the tendency to allegorise. It is funny that the deliberate allegory Starship Troopers is seen more as sci-fi literature rather than a philosophical work.

Tolkien was a devout Catholic when he wrote the first edition - had his Catholicism changed by the time he came to revise? It is NOT the Bible, it is a human book by a human author and not the verbatim dictated words of God (unless through divine determinism you posit that all actions are willed by God - and even if you do, is there no difference between the inspiration of the Gospels and Tolkien's own subcreation?)
<div align=left> --Kalessin </div>

I quite agree that the LotR is not like the Bible in the sense of Divine Inspiration. As an Evangelical Christian I would affirm the uniqueness of the Scriptures in this matter. I however am not like most believers in Divine Inspiration: I am not a determinist but a person who affirms the doctrine of Free Will. (Don't worry, I took no offense nor do I intend to give any smilies/wink.gif .) I do not believe that all actions are willed by God, definitely not those done against his known will.

Estel, I hope, or think, our areas of agreement are fundamental and any disagreements technical (I am not talking about personal religious convictions here smilies/smile.gif ). . .
<div align=left> --Kalessin </div>

smilies/biggrin.gif I HOPE so, too, Kalessin. But, hey! differences are a given. What would life be like if all of us had the same face, same sex, same age, same everything? Where others see contradiction I see harmonic counterpoint. But like any 'classically' trained musician, I do enjoy harmonic resolution.

Advanced Happy Holidays, People of the Downs!

smilies/biggrin.gif A ná merye i turuhalmeri ar alya i vinya loa!

InklingElf

02-18-2003, 06:37 PM

[Disclaimer: I am glad at the development of this thread. We who post here seems to have disproved the notion that the LotR is somehow an allegory of the Bible. I hope that instead of finding hidden meanings in the LotR, we examine Tolkien’s work in comparison with the Bible. In short, I hope that we can get into actual textual criticism. Furthermore, I hope that what follows will not be taken as a form of ‘appropriation’ of the LotR by a Christian in the sense that ‘If you believe that only Christians (of all denominations) can truly appreciate LotR, or - inversely - that if you appreciate LotR, that somehow proves or validates the ultimate truth of specific Christian tenets ... this is appropriation.’ You do not need to be a Christian in order to know proper hermeneutics.]

You're cool Estel the Descender smilies/wink.gif, and now that I confirm my beliefs I will post on this wonderful thread.

I dislike Allegory--the conscious and intentional allegory--yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be accepted just as a story.)

--From Letter #131

Given Tolkien's stated distaste for allegory—his main motivation for writing was storytelling, not the exploration of a literary theme.

It is NOT the Bible, it is a human book by a human author and not the verbatim dictated words of God

Yes, I definitley agree. Though the books do somehow tie with some references in the Scripture.

BTW:Estel the Descender:I am also a fellow Evangelical Christian.