Trilogy and Bible?

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

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]

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 ...
[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Peace

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

[goldwine]

I guess God reveals his existance to us in a variety of ways. Whether we believe is up to us!

[Kalessin]

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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

[goldwine]

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]

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]

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.

Yeah actually, I think The Lord of the Rings and the Bible have a lot in common, well, not a lot, but I do see a lot of similarities. Like the whole fight between good and evil, but there's fights between good and evil in all literature. More specifically, one similarity is that the 'coming of age' for hobbits is 33, Jesus died when he was 33. Also like how there are three main books, well there are 3 'things' in the trinity, The Father, the Song, and The Holy Spirit. Um.... I'm sure there are more similarities, and I think I've probably thought of more before, but I'm too impatient to try to think of the rest right now. So I may add more laters... [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

[Estel the Descender]

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]

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 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] 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]

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]

Well, we lost a few posts, but I think the bulk of the missing portion of the thread has been restored. The lost, apocryphal posts (including one of mine, I think) will never more be seen again, I'm afraid.

[Kalessin]

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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Although the topic has been summarised in the previous message and is presumably deemed to be exhausted, I would still dare to suggest additionally an association between Rivendell and Lothlorien in the LotR, and the Christian concept of paradise.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

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]

so it might make sence that Tolkien also wrote alegories.

Yet once again, let me quote Professor Tolkien on this subject.

It (Lord of the Rings) is not 'about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular, or topical, moral, religious, or political.

- From a letter to the Houghton Mifflin Company, June 30, 1955

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Trust the Irishman to have his allegorical shelieleigh handy! (Boy I think I have that spelling wrong.)

[Bruce MacCulloch]

Trust the Irishman to have his allegorical shelieleigh handy!

I'm a Scot, thank you very much!

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

A scot? And they still have their head? Feeling generous today, aren't you?

[Bruce MacCulloch]

A scot? And they still have their head? Feeling generous today, aren't you?

Well, if you really want me to get violent ...

[Estel the Descender]

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 circumstances 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.
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

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]

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]

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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] )

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

[Estel the Descender]

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]

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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

Here goes. this is going to be long. OK.
As a writer, I can safely say that anything and everything in my life (characters, setting, plot, etc.) can (and most likley will be) reflected in what I write. As a devout Christian, I can also safely say that my Christianity carries over and translates to every aspect of my life, including (but not limited to) my writing. Therefore:
Where Tolkien's beliefs reflected in what he wrote? To that I say, heck yes.
Did he plagarize or draw on the Bible to write The Lord of the Rings? To that I say, heck no.

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

Just a p.s. I forgot to add:
Didn't Tolkien dislike allegories? Although I've only read the first two pages of the Sil (shame on me, I know, I know) The creation myths are similar to Genisis, the fall of Melkor/Morgoth, too, is Christian. But I find it hard to believe that Tolkien would actually write LotR as an allegory. And I think it's interesting to find Christ figures in LotR, but we could talk for hours and get absolutely nowhere. Most of my 'Tolkien Fanatic' friends are Christian (okay, okay, I know three other people, and two are Christian, but that's 2/3, right?) and I was a little relieved at finding out Tolkien was a Christian author, because I've always felt I should read more 'Christian literature' and felt a little guilty about reading (and enjoying) HP. But I've said it before, and I'll say it now, just to get it over with: If there hadn't been a Tolkien, there wouldn't have been a Rowling. Would there have been a Tolkien if he wasn't a Christian? That is another discussion...

[Estel the Descender]

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]

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]

I recently finished reading LotR for the first time and I have not yet read the Silmarillion or any of the background works. Even before I read LotR, I had heard that some people think it is an allegory of the Bible. This was in the back of my mind as I read it, but I must say that I don't see it. Sure, parallels can be drawn, as many people have already pointed out, but I think the nature of the stories is such that anyone trying to make them out to be allegories would have to fudge a little on some things in order to make everything 'fit.' I too am a Christian, and I read the LotR without knowing about Tolkien's beliefs. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have been able to guess that he was a Christian solely based on those books. As I stated above, and many others have said before me, parallels can be drawn to Biblical truths, but (this has also been said before) there are parallels to many ('non-Christian') literary works. The whole good vs. evil situation, for instance, is a theme that can be found in virtually all of literary traditions. So I think it is wrong to attribute meanings to Tolkien's books that he did not intend to be there. He stated himself that his work is not meant as an allegory, so why are people still trying to make it one? To make it something that it is not totally messes up the experience of reading it in the first place.
So, in short, similarities between Tolkien and the Bible can be found, but I don't think it is worth the effort.

[Kalessin]

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 advertisement 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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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

[Estel the Descender]

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]

You're right. I think I read Tolkien through the filter of my own spiritual experiences. What I should have said was that Frodo's struggle with the ring resonated with me in the context of my own Christianity. As a reader I experience what I read within the context of who I am and who I am becoming. I never meant to imply symbolism was Tolkien's intent, I know it was not. The depth with which Tolkien's work connect with readers on a spiritual level is amazing. If a reader has a Biblical background, then that is the texture into which is woven those parts of Tolkien's work which contributes to our spiritual understanding. Though the Lord of the Rings is not intended to be a Biblical work, I think it contains amazing spiritual depth.

[Luineeldaiel]

I so agree, grey! My experience in reading LotR and now the Simarillion is so much more enhanced and dare I say blessed by my own Christian beliefs and experiences.

[Aiwendil]

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]

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 amusement 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 amusement. 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]

Nar, I truly believe we would all do well to read Tolkien's letters as you have and are doing. If we want his true intentions, we need to read his words, as I plan to do if ever I finish his Simarillion and UT. Thanks for pointing us in the right direction. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Yes, Tolkein despised allegories and it definitely was NOT his intention in writing LOTR, but as it has been said earlier, his devotion to Christ was so strong that one might say that it couldn't help but "peak through" into his works, whether or not he realized it. However, one thing I'd like to point out it that any kind of allegorical "peak throughs" are not made, as some in previous comments have thought, in reference to entire Bible or to the life of Christ himself, but to the "adventure" of the Christian walk itself with its many struggles of self-control, temptation and the like. It is seen more as a representation of what we Christians go through in our striving to be like Christ and serve his ultimate good. Like Frodo, we are given a task far beyond our own stature and abilities that can only truly be achieved through putting trust in God. Gandalf taught Frodo that things don't happen by chance or luck, but are governed by something unknown and greater outside of the world he knew to be real. This is what I believe the "allegory" to be.

[Estel the Descender]

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). [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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

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