The Tolkeinite's bible?
 

Is the Silmarillion like a bible for Tolkeinites? I mean, they're both rather long and rather boring, and they talk about ancient history...

Well me, being a Christian, would not even dare to begin to compare the two together. The Bible, for one, is not just a long storybook full of historical happenings. It's a guide in how to live.

The Silm on the other hand, is just a storybook. Yes, at times it can get a little boring, but it's good once you read through it.

But in no way would I ever say the Silm is anything like a Bible for Tolkienites. It's just a...LOTR in a longer and more developed form with more background history to it. So I would say it's not a Bible, but sort of like an encyclopedia for Tolkienites.

Yes. I greatly apologize for offending anyone in any way,shape or form by comparing the silmarillion to the bible. I did not mean to offend anyone, and I am greatly sorry if I did offend anyone (hey, didn'y I just say that?). I, in fact, am a christian myself and I did not mean to make fun of any catholics, anglicans, protestants, baptists, or any other forms of christianity out there. Sorry!

at 1st time when i read the silmarillion...well, it was quite boring - strange names and lots of facts.but when i re-read it it was far better!
i haven't read the Bible through (yet) but i think they can't be compared to each other because the sil is a story (sorry folks...it is [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] ) and the Bible is true events.

The Silmarillion does seem to come across as the absolute essential for every Tolkien fan, but it isn't the definitive guide.
Personally, I depend on an encyclopedia as my "Bible". It collects every piece of Lotr and related information in one giant book, and is pretty useful to me.

Additionally, there are thousands of long and boring books about ancient history. The Silmarillion and the Bible are not on my list - far from it, really. They might be boring to you, but I would say that any boredom as a result of reading them actually might be a result of looking for the wrong things, expecting things out of it that it wasn't intended to give.

The Bible, while there is a good bit of action, is not intended to give the reader a thrill based on events alone. It's a history of the beginnings of Christianity, and is primarily held as a Christian's one-stop guide to living a virtuous Christian life.

The Silmarillion, on the other hand, is exactly what is presented - a Elven-based history of Arda. How can one find the stories of Beren/Luthien, Turin, or Feanor boring? They may not be your style, but there's action to there.

Tolkien wrote this is Letter No. 181 in response to a reading comapring Gandalf to Jesus:

That's obviously not the matter of discussion here, but holds some insight into Tolkien's reverence for the Bible. Just as Tolkien would never have dared to write about the Incarnation of God, so too would he have found the Bible infinitely greater than anything he was capable of writing. It definitely was not intended as Middle-earth's 'bible' by any means (and I don't think there are readers who treat it like one), though one can easily learn some of life's lessons in reading it.

*points to signature*

[ June 26, 2003: Message edited by: Legolas ]

Somehow I can't see the Silmarillion being even close to the Bible in related terms, even for a Tolkienite. It only deals with the creation of Arda and the events that follow. The Lord of the Rings continues these stories, as does much other Tolkien literature.

The Bible, on the other hand, deals with the creation of the world, and what we believe is the end~in prophecy. It is also more of a guidbook than a storybook, something to live by. If a Tolkienite lived by the events in the Silm., he would probably go to prison.

While the Silmarillion is quite clearly not comparable to the Bible in terms of historical and spiritual significance, I nevertheless think that there is an element of truth in this statement.

I remember that, when I tried (and hopelessly failed) to read the Silmarillion first time round (age 12), I would describe it to people as being akin to the Bible. This is probably because I got no further than the Valaquenta, and the Ainulindale and Valaquenta are, stylistically, very similar to the Bible.

I'm happy to say that I have now (quite recently) managed to finish the Silmarillion, and I am extremely glad that I did. While I still found the first two chapters fairly hardgoing, much of the Quenta Silmarillion (of Turin Turambar in particular) makes compelling reading.

Sad to say, I have still not made it all the way through the Bible. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

I think that the Professor meant for the first few chapters of the Silmarillion to sound like the Bible. After all, he did want to create a mythology and a great epic for England, and it definitely needed it's own "book."

Other than that, I definitely wouldn't compare the two. I've read the Bible from cover to cover (thanks to 8th grade Religion class!), and the Silmarillion from cover to cover, and they each have their charms and their boring parts. I've found some interesting parts in the Bible, and the Silmarillion is far from devoid of action. They're both excellent works, and I recommend them both to everyone here, but they're not really comparable in the way that you mean.