Is Eru God?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, here's one for you all to consider:

Is Eru God? Please note that the question isn't, "Is Eru the god of Middle-Earth?" (he pretty clearly is) but, is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)?

There's a lot hanging on this question: if you believe that Eru is God, then you are saying that the moral "rules" of M-E are Christian. If you believe that Eru is not God, then those "rules" are something else.

I did a search for threads on this topic but kept getting messages that the search terms I used (Eru, God, is eru god, what is eru) are "too common": so obviously there's a lot of material out there already. If you know of a thread post it here please so we can all review it.

[Bêthberry]

Oh, two votes already. Here I was thinking that, if no one actually votes, what could then ensue would be a discussion of the void. But I guess people have now chosen to avoid that possibility.

[Folwren]

Is there going to be no explaining why they voted thus? Estelyn, why did you say no? Lommy. . .why yes? I'm only waiting to vote until I can put my thoughts into words so that I could explain.

-- Folwren

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Is there going to be no explaining why they voted thus? Estelyn, why did you say no? Lommy. . .why yes? I'm only waiting to vote until I can put my thoughts into words so that I could explain.

-- Folwren

Let me add my voice to Folly's: please give an explantion to your vote:

*coughsHookbilltheGoombacoughs*

[Thinlómien]

Sorry for not giving reasons...

I thought that since Tolkien was a christian and he said that ME was the same world we live in, wouldn't it just be logical that the god was same also?

[The Only Real Estel]

I vote no thanks largely to Estelyn’s arguments. I was going to vote “yes” without much thought to it or, more than likely, not vote at all because; frankly, I don’t have much time to research the subject.

But I think Estelyn is entirely right. There are parallels, perhaps the largest one being that they both created a world, but, again, as Esty pointed out, Eru at no time seemed much interested in a personal relationship with his creation.

There’s my explanation, & thanks to Esty for doing all the work of expressing it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

No.

Eru Ilúvatar is not the God of the Christian Bible (nor the Jewish Yahwe of the Old Testament).

Yes, both create the worlds in which their creatures live, including the sentient creatures. Yes, both are good. There are quite a few other comparisons as well.

However, the most important, decisive difference is this: The God of the Bible seeks a personal relationship with his created people. From the very beginning, he establishes contact and reveals himself to them (walking with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden). He continues to reveal himself to individuals and then chooses a people to be his representative in the world - the people of Israel. He reveals himself in the word, spoken and later written, given to humans but intended for transmission as the revelation of his will. Finally, he reveals himself in his incarnation as a man.

Nowhere in Tolkien's works (with the exception of the possible look ahead in the "Athrabeth") do we see Eru attempt to contact his "children". The only ones of his creation whom he speaks with are the Ainur - mostly the Valar, but we do not know what was involved in the return of Gandalf, so that is still a possibility. Eru keeps his distance - he does not enter Arda. From what we see, at least, there is little or no knowledge of him among Men. And even the Elves, who are apparently more "religious" than the other races, do not address him directly. They pray to the Valar.

Eru is not God. And quite frankly, I wouldn't trade creators with the people of Middle-earth!


[edit: Cross-posted with Folwren. Obviously, the first word of my post is in answer to Fordim's question, not hers.]

[Gurthang]

I was going to vote Yes. That was until I read Esty's post. Very nice points, Estelyn.

I'd like to add to, and somewhat reiterate, what she said. First, that Eru does not seek a personal relationship, which is the core of Christian belief. The main difference then is the fact that God became incarnate and walked among us. It is debatable that Eru's presence was in Middle-Earth for a short time(s), but I think I've just heard that somewhere else on the 'Downs (I know I've never read it myself).

But here's another difference. God is a Trinity. Eru is not. You could say that Eru is more like the Father within the Trinity, but you cannot say he is the Son or the Spirit. But even saying that Eru is like the Father is wrong, because the Old Testament tells us that God was active in the world, long before Jesus' birth. Whereas Eru is very 'stand-offish'.

I'd reason that Tolkien meant for Iluvatar to be akin to God, and to be the god of Middle-Earth, but he did not make him the same God.

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Eru is not God. And quite frankly, I wouldn't trade creators with the people of Middle-earth!

I agree completely.

[Eonwe]

well, ill add my two cents.

i've always seen the "creation" of middle-earth/arda as two separate parts. (i don't know if this is how its supposed to be viewed, though i makes sense to me.) the first part is the three themes of music. in this section, Eru acts very much how I've always though God would. (except in teh judgment of melkor.) He is involved and active. there is more personal relationships, as he raises up manwe to combat melkor's cacophany. you could kind of see it as god and the angles here.

the next part is kind of wierd. he shows the ainur the vision of teh world, and then creates it. the valar go down into it and dwell there, along with their mia, and melkor. here it is kind of passed on to Manwe and the Valar. they become sort of like teh "god's", with their angles being miar. but you can't really make a comparision between them and God, i suppose.

it seems to me that Eru gave a "gift" to the Valar: to fastion arda into waht it was in the vision. i guess they can do whatever they want with it (ei. lets make a mountain range here, put some lamps there, etc., as the vision was rather vague, if i recall correctly.) Eru doesn't really have much to do with it, except in extreme matters, such as the destructino of Numenor.

so i would have to conclude that Eru doesn't act as "God" for middle-earth. i guess maybe he could for whatever region he dwells in with teh ainur.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Sorry for not justifying my vote yet, I've not had time yet... but here goes.

This is how I see it: Middle Earth was supposed to be a new mythology for England and (not meaning to sound pompous or high and mighty) therefore this world. Therefore, I think that as Eru created Middle Earth (and hence this world) that he is supposed to be Tolkien's showing of God in the creation.
Doubtless, I'm wrong.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Reason for voting yes follows the line of:
"If it looks like a duck and talks like a duck,
chances are it's a duck."

The Silmarillion beginning makes it clear that Ea is
monotheistic, and the valar are essentially angelic
spirits, so Eru is God. Of course, being a
pre-Christian world Eru is a more generalized deity.

[Kuruharan]

As much as I would like to vote, I can't. I've just spent some time rereading relevant passages in the Letters. Estelyn makes excellent points, however, Tolkien seems ambiguous on the subject. He repeatedly uses the word "God" (capitalized) to refer to Eru (as one example of this ambiguoity.) He also uses the phrase "true God" a number of times.

I think there may be a reason why he did not write about a more involved creator.

The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write.
-Letter 181 author's emphasis

He seems to have been afraid of writing a mischaracterization. I think he wanted the parallel (or maybe "similarity") to be there but didn't want to push it too far.

I think the question is unanswerable.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

As much as I would like to vote, I can't... I think the question is unanswerable.

Chicken.

[burrahobbit]

I voted yes for reasons that I feel are very obvious and that have already been brought up. However, I will add that I disagree with the following:

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

There's a lot hanging on this question: if you believe that Eru is God, then you are saying that the moral "rules" of M-E are Christian. If you believe that Eru is not God, then those "rules" are something else.

Middle-Earth is a pre-Christian world. Like the Jews. Jewish moral rules are not Christian moral rules.

Now I'm going to comment on everything else, all at once, and pay absolutely no attention to who is saying anything. Replies will follow quotes. Feel free to sip all of the rest.

From the very beginning, he establishes contact and reveals himself to them (walking with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden).

Granted. However, he also contacts people through angels and the Holy Spirit. One could say that he does all or nearly all of his contacting through angels and the Holy Spirit. That seems fairly analogous with the various Ainur.

I thought that since Tolkien was a christian and he said that ME was the same world we live in, wouldn't it just be logical that the god was same also?

Yes.

Eru at no time seemed much interested in a personal relationship with his creation.

Reminds me of the Catholic idea of praying through saints. Tolkien was one of those, wasn't he?

I'd like to add to, and somewhat reiterate, what she said. First, that Eru does not seek a personal relationship, which is the core of Christian belief.

I would like to iterate, all on my own, that it isn't. You are confusing "What Christians Believe" with "What I Believe." Perhaps it is very important to your particular group of Christians, but there are lots of diffeent groups and they don't all hold t hat bit in quite such high regard.

The main difference then is the fact that God became incarnate and walked among us.

That just hadn't happened yet. The books take place BC. Except for BoLT, sort of.

Eru acts very much how I've always though God would. (except in teh judgment of melkor.)

Howso? The Devil does lots of things that God wants him to, even naughty things. CF. Job.

i guess they can do whatever they want with it (ei. lets make a mountain range here, put some lamps there, etc., as the vision was rather vague

That sounds like things that God's Hands would be doing.

He seems to have been afraid of writing a mischaracterization. I think he wanted the parallel (or maybe "similarity") to be there but didn't want to push it too far.

Excellent point. I don't see that as affecting Eru as God, though. Eru is God, but there is much more of His nature revealed to us in the Bible. The books aren't about him, so they don't go into too much detail. I've read plenty of books about modern people, even modern religious people, and those books don't tell me nearly as much about those people's God as the Bible. Likewise with Tolkien's work.

Chicken.

Don't be a prat, that isn't your job.

God is God and I believe because we cannot know exactly what 'God' is, how can we know if a fictional God is the same?

I listen to this one blues song a lot, I have about sixty versions of it, and I may not know if it is about a real person but I can say with some certainty that Stagger lee is the same guy as Stackalee.

The Legendarium, from the Ainulindale down to the fall of Sauron was intended to be the history of this world, in a somewhat distant time B.C. This same world which, in Tolkien's faith, is under the dominion of God. Therefore, if the world in that time was under the dominion of Eru, then Eru must be God.

Eru and God are intended to be one and the same.

And I personally feel that no amount of "personal opinion" on the matter changes it. If you accept the existence of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum in Middle-Earth, you have to accept the existence of Eru- as the Judeo-Christian God within the story.

Do as you wish in real life, but within the confines of the story you have to, in my opinion, accept Eru, as presented, as God, if you are going to accept it at all.

Yes.

Is the question: do you think that Eru is God? Or is it: do you think Tolkien thought that Eru is God?

Good point. I see them as the same question since we are talking about things that Tolkien wrote. Tolkien's world, Tolkien's rules.

So how do we know whether we are reading the view of the translator or the original writer? And how do we know that the original writer was correct in their view of Eru?

Too meta.

As christian, it's obvious that Tolkien's view of a god is that of the Christian/Jewish(/Muslim/Buddhist etc. as all gods are the same according to many people) and he's been influenced by that of course.

NO. WRONG. God is God, the other ones are NOT God. That is the same sort of reasoning as saying the Black Numenoreans the worshipped Sauron/Morgoth were actually worshiping Eru, because it's all the same anyway. It is not the same, it is idolatry.

But if you say that Eru is God, you say that Tolkien tried to describe God through Eru Illuvatar

No you don't.

Eru might have become an equivalent to God

You do realize that equivalent means "the same as"? Right? Is equal to?

M-E is his kingdom, not Eru's domain even if Manwe subordinate to Iluvatar. There's no equivalent in Tolkien's religion.

It's like a ven diagram.

Also intersting is Melkor's role as the fallen angel, becoming the Dark Lord. In this case, there's a lot of similarities with Christianity and Satan's fall. He was one of the greatest angel's, one of those with most power and one of those closest to God, but was hungry for more power. Exactly like Melkor. They both fell and became to metaphor of Evil.

That is pretty interesting, isn't it? Pretty interesting indeed.

There's a downloadable issue of Vinyar Tengwar http://www.elvish.org/VT/VT43sample.pdf which contains Tolkien's translations of the Lord's Prayer & the Ave Maria. Tolkien uses 'Eru' to translate 'God'.

For what its worth - Tolkien seems to have considered the two words equivalent - only really stubborn & awkward people would deny that

+1

Stubborn and awkward it may be, but this only proves that Tolkien used that word in this linguistic experiment as it was as close as he could get in the Elvish language.

The whole thing is a linguistic experiment. He made the world for his language, not the other way around.

Is the character of "Deep Throat" from All the President's Men W. Mark Felt?

Ooo, that one is much better than what I came up with. Good form.

Done now, might come back later.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

Certainly valid, Saucy, but hardly relevant to the question presented. I simple meant that in the context of the thread, it's meaningless. Such points are really just getting off topic. The question was "Is Eru God?" and the only person who would know for certain is Tolkien himself. Since he can't really answer that for us, we are left to discern what he thought on our own. Application of the text is a different subject altogether.

Fea and Esty have already made the point, but just to reiterate the clarification which I extracted from Fordim:

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

At any rate, Esty has already pointed to what I meant with the question: what do you think? If the question were what did Tolkien think the answer would be pretty obviously "yes" -- Tolkien intended Eru to be the Christian God (as Tolkien saw him).

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

I see them as the same question since we are talking about things that Tolkien wrote. Tolkien's world, Tolkien's rules.

I would disagree. The reader can, of course, interpret Eru on the basis of presumed authorial intention, but he or she is not inevitably bound (by the text or otherwise) to do so. A Muslim reader, for example, may well interpret Eru as Allah regardless of Tolkien's intentions and imply into Eru's character aspects of that God. Similarly, an Atheist reader, or one who has no strong religious convictions, is likely to view Eru as a purely fictional character, just like the other characters, with no equivalent in reality and interpret him solely on the basis of the material presented in the text. Neither, objectively, is wrong to do so. Why should "Tolkien's rules" bind the reader when they have no direct bearing on the story?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

You do realize that equivalent means "the same as"? Right? Is equal to?

But the thing to remember is that different things can easily add up to the same. You don't always require 'two' plus 'two' to equal four... remember that you can get the same exact answer with 'three' plus 'one', or 'four' plus 'zero', and if you feel like incorporating minus, you're possibilities are endless for combining different numbers (my metaphor, if it isn't clear, is that number are qualities/characteristics) and ending up with the same exact thing.

Originally Posted by Fordim

At any rate, Esty has already pointed to what I meant with the question: what do you think?

I re-quote that which has been quoted a lot already for posterity alone. Extra emphasis mine.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

NO. WRONG. God is God, the other ones are NOT God. That is the same sort of reasoning as saying the Black Numenoreans the worshipped Sauron/Morgoth were actually worshiping Eru, because it's all the same anyway. It is not the same, it is idolatry.

Idolatry or just plain confusion. For it to be idolatry (in the Christian sense), one would have to be aware that the god in question wasn't YHWH and worship it anyway. That's why the first two commandments are to separate ones; 1) No other gods before me; 2) no idols. The reasoning for the wrong choice can vary.

It seems like splitting hairs and in some sense it is, I guess. But it also seems to me like Tolkien set it up pretty cleary, so that those who worshipped Sauron (even in unintentional confusion, thinking him good) were led to do what they should have known was wrong (human sacrifie, etc) and so should have realised that worshipping Sauron was wrong. In that case I would have called it idolatry.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Why should "Tolkien's rules" bind the reader when they have no direct bearing on the story?

Once more, the canonicity thread reappears, continued here, again, still.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Now, just because the two ideas (for example, those expressed in the Silmarillion and the Christian Bible/theology) have the same words, themes, etc does not make them equal, especially as we humans are great at seeing patterns where none truly exist.

But, Tolkien being a Christian, do you not think that he may have deliberately put these parallels into the story? I think that he wanted the Christian message in his legend and, as I mentioned before, as Middle Earth was supposed to be a mythology for this world, he meant Eru to be the God of this world. Hence the parallels.
That's how I see it anyway.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

A Thought has just occurred to me.

What I thought of was this:
Tolkien wanted to write a new Mythology. He loved all the old mythologies in Norse and such. Most of those had multiple gods (like Thor and the crew) so he incorporated this into Middle Earth in the Valar. He probably wanted to keep alive to the minds of his audience that there was One God and so he incorporated Eru to be the master creator and satisfy both the idea of the multiple gods and the One God.
You could probably say that this would mean that Eru was not God (Jehovah) but I beg to differ. I think that Tolkien's Christian beliefs would have lead him to use Eru as Jehovah and so, perhaps, spread the Christian message.
Any thoughts?

[Morsul the Dark]

I confess to voting without reading the first post i clicked yes and when i read the first post i change my vote to no

EDIT: to make this post more objective here are some thoughts...Eru can be god if you want him to be...I could be god and technicly there is no way to disprove that(Im kidding I know god knows that thats why i wont be struck by lightning) what im saying is god is anyone you want him or her (as the case more likely is) to be

[Eonwe]

yes, but that is only kind of true. you can think of god as anything you want. and you can believe god is anything you want. but that doesn't change who God really is.

in other words, you can believe an idol to be God, but that doesn't make it God. God is God no matter what you or i believe.

i think the bottom line is that Eru displays none of the charactersistics of the Christian/Jewish (aka Jehovah) God. which would be personal relationships, mercy, grace, etc.

here is something else to think about. you can't really make any kind of comparison about Eru and God without looking at morality. in the christian view, if you sin, you're screwed, except for grace and jesus' blood. in teh middle-earth consept, that is not always true. the sons of feanor didn't really get punished all that much. (correctly me if im wrong, i believe they just got extra long time in the halls of mandos, which isn't much to an immortal elf.) It never says much about the fate of men, not to mention the fate of good men, and evil men. or even what make you a good man or an evil man. (well the evil is obvious i guess. but many of teh "good" men did bad things.

it seems as if Eru/the powers that be that represent Eru's intetions and wishes are quite a bit more linitent that God. and sin is a huge, major deal to God.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Eonwe

God is God no matter what you or i believe.

Either that or God isn't God, no matter what you or I believe.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Eonwe

in the christian view, if you sin, you're screwed, except for grace and jesus' blood.

Unless we assume that all of Tolkien's revelations were BC, then a blood sacrifice would do.

Originally Posted by davem

Recently I've begun to wonder whether what we get from LotR is not 'satisfaction' a having our spiritual questions answered or our confusions & dilemmas resolved, but rather a 'confirmation' of our own doubts & uncertainties.

Or do we see a reflection of what we want it all to be? Do Christians see the Christian God? Do others see a First Cause? And still others might see a great 'explanatory' mythology. And of course the more boring just see words on a page...

Is that the making of the next poll where one indicates his/her belief system and also how he/she perceives Eru? I'd wager that you'd see a strong correlation between 'beliefs' and the text.

[Roa_Aoife]

If we assume the LoTR is a history, it would probably be in the BC era, which, according to the Old Testament, faith and repentance were the saving grace, and nothing else. The "good guys" in LoTR seemed, for the most part, to have this faith in Eru, and to truly repent when they screwed up. And just because a character didn't fight for Suaron, it doesn't make him necessarily a "good guy" (I point to Denethor.)

Eru does fit the Deist view of God, which says that God created the world and then left it to it's own devices. Many Christians were and still are Deists, both Catholic and Non-Catholic. So it is very possible that Tolkien had a similar view. (I think from the quotes provided it is clear what Tolkien thought.)

However, Eru does act, albeit indirectly and subtlely, throught the story; and it is obvious that unseen forces are moving on both sides. Eru shows mercy in the Silm. several times, and demonstrates love of His children, both the first and second born, by giving them different gifts.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Or do we see a reflection of what we want it all to be? Do Christians see the Christian God? Do others see a First Cause? And still others might see a great 'explanatory' mythology. And of course the more boring just see words on a page...
.

I suppose we all read it in the light of our experiences - though I think we should try not to. The more of the primary world we bring in to our reading the less Middle-earth will seem a real, self-contained secondary world.

What interests me is the way reading LotR in the light of the Sil affects our understanding of the story, & in particular our understanding of Frodo's fate. Helen's post makes this point. The 'permanent problem' of evil in LotR is dealt with & answered if we read it in the light of the Sil. If we don't the problem remains unanswered. Yet many readers find The Sil difficult & have little or no time for it. It doesn't move them in the way LotR does. I wonder if this is because it offers answers to those very 'permanent problems' & that on some level those answers seem either over complex & metaphysical, or overly simplistic. Maybe those readers just feel 'No, that's not it' - even if they can't supply the 'right' answers for themselves.

LotR simply presents us with the kind of world we know, where sacrifice & suffering, selfishness & loss, cruelty, beauty, love & grief are facts of existence, existing for themselves. The Sil attempts to explain the 'why' of those things. The Sil introduces the necessity for 'faith', trust & belief in things 'beyond the circles of the World' - it requires those things from readers if they are to enter into the story. LotR does not. For all Tolkien's protests it is, ultimately, a 'secular' novel - yes, there are 'believers' in it (notably the Elves, hymning Elbereth) but there is no necessity for the reader to believe what they do.

Certainly, the massive popularity of LotR over the Sil says a great deal about our age. I daresay if the novels had been published 500 years ago the Sil would have been the more popular work.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

In short, I think if we only had LotR & knew nothing of its author's life & beliefs I can't help thinking that no Christian would make a claim to its being a Christian work by a Christian author - though they may notice some 'similarities' between Galadriel/Mary, Lembas/the Host, etc.

Actually, the history of the discussions surrounding LotR before the publishing of The Silmarillion are precisely the opposite of what you suggest. I remember many articles in a host of magazines that were quite specifically about Aragorn, Frodo, and Gandalf as specifically Christ figures - - before 1977. And that's just one example.

Like you, davem, I think that Tolkien has done us a service in revivifying the old pagan myths, because there were riches of truth in them. To read LotR as a pagan novel is certainly possible, but it still misses much. Too much that Tolkien included, on purpose.

To suggest that Tolkien became obsessed after LotR was published, to make it appear that there was something (Eru) in it that he hadn't put in there in the first place, doesn't square with the evidence. Tolkien plainly stated that LotR was consciously Catholic in the revision. Otherwise, Tolkien was faking himself out, and that might be going just a bit far.... It seems to me that you have to take huge efforts to wrestle the facts into this theory. Occam's Razor obtains here.

Regardless, the spiritual power in the books goes beyond anything in pagan myth. Of course, that's an opinion based on my personal perceptions, but that's what I experience when I read LotR.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well I do declare! It appears that davem is arguing in support of the reader's freedom to intepret, as against the primacy of authorial intention ...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Well I do declare! It appears that davem is arguing in support of the reader's freedom to intepret, as against the primacy of authorial intention ...

Ah, but dear Wormcan Man, he's merely arguing for the adherence to the topic at hand: what the reader's interpretation is, as opposed to the author's intention.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Ah, but dear Wormcan Man, he's merely arguing for the adherence to the topic at hand: what the reader's interpretation is, as opposed to the author's intention.

Ah, Wormcancloser of the Peredhy,
if the evidence is most weighty
such that author's intention
and reader interpretation
ought to be one thing,
then the reader may think
what s/he wishes all the day long
and still be wrong.

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien grabbed hold of these & played them up in order to point up his Catholic credentials.

Could you produce the evidence that Tolkien felt the need?

[The Saucepan Man]

Now boreding at a platforum near you (again) ...

Originally Posted by lmp

if the evidence is most weighty
such that author's intention
and reader interpretation
ought to be one thing,
then the reader may think
what s/he wishes all the day long
and still be wrong.

Hmm. A recent opinion poll suggests otherwise.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Could you produce the evidence that Tolkien felt the need?

I think we can draw conclusions. In reference to the Elves' Hymn to Elbereth he states (The Road Goes Ever On) 'The Elves sing hymns to her. (These & other references to religion in LotR are frequently missed) ie he is clearly responding to accusations that there is no religion in LotR. In the Letters he repeatedly snatches at any references to Christianity by readers (to the extent that some of his responses are not actually sent, because he decides he has gone too far in emphasising the Christian 'connections').

Its clear that early critics did not pick up on the 'Christianity' that Tolkien states is there - but is it really there? If it can (& often is) read & enjoyed by readers who do not percieve any Christian elements in it (even ones familiar with the tenets of that faith) then Christianity is obviously not something that underlies the story.

I find it very interesting that when readers/reviewers/critics assigned to the story an underlying political allegory (War of the Ring = WWII) he roundly condemned the idea, but the vaguest suggestion of any 'similarity' between elements in the story & aspects of Christianity produced the most positive response. Let's face it, the similarities between Elbereth* & Isis are far stronger than those between Elbereth & Mary. His famous statemment that the book is 'a fundamentally Catholic work, unconsciously so at first, but consciously so in the revision' is simply not true - read HoM-e. Any 'revision' of the story was made for artistic reasons, or because he realised 'what really happened'. He even contradicted himself in statements in the Letters - in one he claims that the events at Mount Doom are an exemplification of the words in the Lord's Prayer 'Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil'. In other letters he states that it is the inner dynamic of the story so far that dictated those events. The culminating events may well exemplify the words of Jesus, but Tolkien only 'realised' that after the book was published. I think its pretty clear that he wrote the story as a story, letting it flow & waiting till he realised 'what really happened'.

After publication he seems to have become distressed by statements that it was a religion-free work & eagerly took up every suggestion of an underlying Christianity. My feeling is that Tolkien never 'revised' LotR to make it 'fundamentally Christian & Catholic work' - except in his own mind after the fact. He wrote a story. Only after publication, when it wasn't recognised as the work of a Christian, did he feel he had to 'prove its credentials'.

* As she appears in LotR, that is.