Bethberry wrote:
Quote:
|
Genesis in The Bible actually has two versions of creation, Genesis 1.1 - 2.4 and Genesis 2.5 - 3.24. In the first version, male and female are created co-equally in time, while it is in in the second version only that the female is made from the male's rib. Man is also created before the trees in the garden in the second version.
|
I was reminded of the two creation stories in Genesis as well when I was thinking about the
Valaquenta's repetition of the
Ainulindale. Tolkien would surely have been familiar with the coexistence of the two stories in Genesis. There's an interesting difference, though - what's remarkable about the two stories in Genesis is that they are
different. They actually seem to contradict one another. But everything that is said in
Valaquenta seems to be quite in line with what is said in the
Ainulindale. Of course, slightly different and contradictory versions of the creation story do exist within Tolkien's writing, but only if you compare works written at different times. It seems that Tolkien was rather intent on achieving a thorough consistency in his Legendarium, even among texts ascribed to different authors.
Actually, I have a question about Genesis that I've long wondered. I recall that scholars generally agree that Genesis as found in the Torah is actually an amalgamation of several different texts, and that this is why there are two creation stories. My question is how Christian theologians view this. Does the Catholic church agree that the text is an amalgam of different texts? How do they reconcile the two creation stories?
Nogrod wrote:
Quote:
|
What I mean is that at least I have had the impression that Tolkien was writing these stories or tales as kind of actual accounts written by different persons in the world he had created. And those writers should have a history of their own and thence a knowledge (fair or bent) of earlier stories which they interwoved into their own writing.
|
Yes, I agree with this. But my question is 'why include an account of the Valar at all?' I suppose a perfectly justifiable answer is 'why not?' But might there be a literary reason as well?
Quote:
|
who is a him, I've always been led to believe...
|
And you've been led correctly.