Trilogy and Bible?

[Kalessin]

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

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

Peace

Basically all I was saying is that whether or not we realize it or expect it, our beliefs are in a sense automatically fueled into the things we do, in big and small ways. It so happens that Tolkien professed to believe the message of Christianity and he expressed that to him, the Gospels are a culmination of everything we love about fairy-stories. However, he stated that they far surpass all other fairy-stories in that they have passed over from their own "realm" into the world we know because of Christ's sacrifice for mankind. "True" fantasy is that that is in and of itself. It has no physical connection to the real world. This is partially why we love it so much. It's something that deep down we wish were true, but it isn't, so all we can do is appreciate it for what it is based on the mental images it gives us thanks to the author. In the case of the the Gospels, as Tolkien put it, they are great stories as well, but they DO have connection to our world! As I've said before, one should appreciate LOTR for what it was meant to be: a story. But that doesn't mean that we can't recognize that Tolkien's strong personal beliefs of faith and salvation were "intertwined" in his writing of the story without his direct choice. It was a sublimial thing. Our beliefs are the foundation of our decisions and actions whether or not it's easy for us to recognize it at the time. A person with a belief against gambling will most likely be very wise and cautious in how he spends his money as well, whether or not he realizes that these decisions may somewhat stem from his belief concerning gambling. I definitely love LOTR mainly for its beauty as a grand story, but at the same time, I respect Tolkien's beliefs as a person and just how important they were to him.

[Kalessin]

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 [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ). Please forgive me!

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

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

[JenFramp]

Since Tolkien was a Christian, his worldview obviously was portrayed in his writing, but was he trying to actually trying to write a message? I don't think so..but nonetheless you can draw virtues from it..and a good book about that is "Tolkien's Ordinary Virtues" and you can view it on Amazon..link is below
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...862886-0199915

[Halfir]

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]

what value added is gained by trying to find parallels between Tolkien's writings and the Bible?

That is a question that has been in my mind. 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. Just pure, unadulterated fiction for the sake of telling a (in Tolkien's case, great) story.

[greyhavener]

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]

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]

(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 [I hope]).

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 [intended meaning] 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 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.

Epilogue: On Fairy-Stories by J.R.R. Tolkien

Gloriait is true

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

[Gilthalion]

Wow! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

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]

Double "Wow", Estel!!!! Thank you so much for your mega post!!!!!!!!!! You have said what I never knew and could never say. What a surprise it will be to so many when the LORD of ALL returns and all truth is revealed. Again, thank you!!!!!!!!!

[Kalessin]

Hi Estel

Thanks for a detailed and thought-provoking contribution [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] 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' [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). 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! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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 [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] (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" [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

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

Peace

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

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

I totally agree with the fact that limiting a story to a mere allegory takes away from the overall grandeur, majesty, and beauty of the story. His works should definitely not be limited to a set of allegories especially since he dislike them to begin with! All that I was previously saying was that it is fact that he openly admitted to believing in the Christian faith and that Christ died for man's redemption. What I was saying was that one's beliefs in some way or another have an influence on their actions, whether or not they realize it. In speaking with (and later converting) C.S. Lewis about Christianity, he said that the life of Christ and the Bible were the two things that took the supernatural wonders of fantasy realms and combined it with our own world in that Christ had the power to perform miracles in OUR world(not a fictional world)and that his mission directly affects US in the redemption of our souls. Frankly, anyone that isn't a Christian themselves really wouldn't give a rip about Tolkien's faith. Why should they? But for those that are, it gives them a respect for him on a level that's different than just the fact that he was a gifted and profound author, philologist, and philosopher. I'm not saying that he actually studied parts of Scripture for the soul purpose of adding it to his books; all I'm saying is that a person's opinions and beliefs in ways big and small are interwoven into decisions they make in life. If a person is under the opinion that violence in movies and video games doesn't affect them, then of course the decisions they make in the their entertainment will somewhat circle around this belief. I'm not trying to develop sides for people to take or to cause division, but I do think that we as Tolkien fans get so wrapped up in his books that we sometimes subconciously fall under the belief that every aspect of who he was as a person has come from his books, almost to say that we sometimes think that it's the books that made him who he was. Basically, people need to sometimes sit back and remember once again that he was also a regular person, just like us! I am just saying that he believed in the Christian faith, and that obviously in believing so, he'd want to guide the way in which he lived his life around its principles! Just take some time and forget for a split second that he was the author of some of the most incredible works of literature of our century and remember that he was a regular guy who had beliefs that cared about! Seeing any kind of parallels between his faith and the books of course wouldn't interest anyone that wasn't looking for it in the first place! And reading the books shouldn't be wrapped around that either, but nevertheless, Tolkien was a Christian and greatly believed in it. All I'm saying is that our beliefs and opinions are "threaded" into the decisions we make and the things we do in life both voluntarily and involuntarily. Iluvatar in the Silmarillion is viewed by many as basically the God figure. I'm sure Tolkien didn't think to himself, " I need to create a character that plays the part of God in my stories." However, because he did believe that God created the universe and the world, that's not to say that the creating of Iluvatar wasn't a subconcious result of his belief in God whether or not that thought actually occurred to his mind. I just hope that we all can remain calm in any differences that we all may still have, but please just think about what I've said.

[Mithadan]

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 and More criticism.

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]

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 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] 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! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) 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. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Halfir]

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 bemusement 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."

I would also like to thank you Estel!!! I believe that you have vocalized what a good amount of the rest of us were trying to get across but did not exercise the eloquence that you displayed! In no way do Christians feel superior to any other readers in their enjoyment of LOTR. It's just that one might say that we have a strong appreciation and admiration of Tolkien's faith and the fact that it was very important in his life. Again, though he had no motive other than writing a story, his love of God and following of Him, one might say, subconciously "infiltrated" many of the priniciples of his story, whether it be dealing with temptation, the overcoming of self, or the realization (as Gandalf put it) that are other forces at work than just the powers of evil, some of which may surprise us. I would like to publicly apologize to everyone if it seemed as if I was on a high horse in any of my statements. Estel beautifully stated the bulk of what I was trying to get across in a way far beyond my own eloquential skill. Also, obviously not EVERY Christian is going to have some profound, deep experience when reading LOTR; they have to have a "passion" for that kind of reading and story in the first place. Whether or not you guys realize it, I have met people that are even uncomfortable with The Chronicles of Narnia! These were INTENDED to be an allegory. In other words, even for a Christian to be truly blessed in reading LOTR and other works, he himself must have an open mind to how God can work through the lives of people that put their faith in Him (such as Tolkien did). Again, most Christians agree that of course Tolkien didn't want an allegory; he said it himself! And that's not what we're trying to turn it into at all. But we are trying to maybe show that some of the principles in the books very well may have been connected with his fervent faith in Christ(overcoming temptation, overcoming self, having faith in what we cannot understand or see, etc.) We're not saying "Tolkien did this and Tolkien did that." We're just trying to point out that he was a man of great faith in Christ, and that this aspect of his life probably greatly contributed to some of the foundational PRINCIPLES of LOTR, not saying that his characters represent this or that, because he didn't want that. Sometimes it's "fun" to see possible character parallels, but we know that of course that not what they really are. However, again, the principles that are foundational in the tales were like those of the principles of his faith in Christ. Tolkien said that everything, in one way or another, has elements of truth in it. The principles in the books are things that we as real people deal with, and recognized that the principles came from Scripture. As Estel quoted earlier, he said also that the Gospels were the GREATEST culmination of fairy stories in that legend and history were combined in Christ. The supernatural wonders that are in many works of fantasy were placed with reality in our world in Christ himself and in his mission to save mankind. Again, I apologize if I appeared pig-headed in any of my previous statements. In pointing out the significance of the principles in LOTR in relation to Tolkien's faith, I was really only hoping that people might see the bookds possibly from a differnt angle in that the books' principles refelcted Tolkien's faith. I was only trying to benefit people, rather than cause further division, and I apologize publicly if it appeared that I was doing so.
I pray that this discussion will have possibly met some type of stalemate or ending point. May God bless you for it! And also, may everyone of you continue to benefit in various ways, big and small from Tolkien's writings! I only hope that our looking at his faith in Christ will perhaps develop a deeper respect in you for him as a person, or maybe even allow you to enjoy the books in a new way; and if not, thank you all for contributing your thought and ideas on the matter. I pray that we all remain "friends" in a sense because we all greatly admire and respect this man and the milestone that he's created for us to benefit from. Estel, thank you again for "shedding some light" on this issue. You display a great skill of eloquence and and peacemaking! May God bless you for it!!! God bless you all, Man of Westernesse

could someone please tell me where the Christianity and Tolkien forum is??? I just wanna check it out for curiousity's sake. "The Books" forum has something like seventeen pages to it, and I'm having a difficult time finding this topic. If any of you know, please tell me. Later all.

[Mithadan]

It should be no more than a page or two back as that thread was closed about 10 days ago. Check Books II and Books.

[Kalessin]

Man Of Westernesse

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

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

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

Peace

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

Thank you for your kind words, Kalessin. I absolutely love talking about and discussing Tolkien and his many works. However, I would say that despite of our different views of him and his works and our debating, there shouldn't be any overt division among us. We all have differences of opinions, of course, but at the same time I'm happy that through the words of Estel and others, we can hopefully still maintain a healthy respect for one another in that we all love Tolkien. It is our "common bond" one might say that we are united underneath. Thank you again for your kind words Kalessin. I respect your opinions and beliefs and thank you for your honesty and willingness to listen. Later all. PS- though it has no relation to basically all that this website is about, is anyone here as pumped for the new Star Wars as I am??? Just curious

This really is an interesting discussion and I am not sure what to add... so until I know what I will add to the debate at hand I will just add to the previous entry saying... YES ! I am very pumped about the new Star Wars coming out... I am seeing it on thursday.

[littlemanpoet]

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

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]

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

whilst I feel rather boring having to agree with you most of the time [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] , 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 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

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

Peace

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

[Kalessin]

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."

[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] :: shudder ::

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

PEACE

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

[littlemanpoet]

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 [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] just to see what it produces by way of your responses.

[Kalessin]

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

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

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

[Estel the Descender]

"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.


[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

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

[Daniel Telcontar]

Well, Estel you sure made some points clear. But I am with you there, so the only reason that I make this post is to give you my support and keepo this thread open. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[littlemanpoet]

Hmmm, do I want to get further into this, or not?

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.

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.

[Daniel Telcontar]

Littlemanpoet, you may be right about the Tolkien/God thing leaning towards blasphemy, but some people needs to see the world in colours. For them it is either black or white. If a book has mythology in it, it does not mean it was written by some cult looking for members.

[MallornLeaf]

The LOTR were deffinately not meant to be an allegory of the Bible. However, after starting to write the series, JRRT did go back and edit things so that they would have Godly worldview. He was a devout Roman Catholic but he hated allegories (much unlike his great friend, C.S. Lewis). A few months ago a book came out called "Seeing God in the Lord of the Rings." It explains how a Christian worldview runs through the books, but it clearly sets down that the books were not an allegory.

[littlemanpoet]

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]

I'm not going to say anything much, but What is this? A contest to see who can write the most?! Estel, you have the gifts of a true thinker and essay-writer. In the news, if I ever see any huge, long reports on LotR, then I'll know it you! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Anyways, there are some cults out there that use the LotR books as, so to speak, their "Bible."

[Estel the Descender]

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.

[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] 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. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Nothing else.

[MallornLeaf]

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]

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 cocky. 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]

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? [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

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

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

This is assertion, and just a tad cocky. . . 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.

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

[img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] 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. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

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

[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.

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]

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. [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] 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? [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

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

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

[img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] 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. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Read the Pentateuch yourself. "Don't take my word for it." I find it "a tad cocky" 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>

<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 ]