Of another world

[Lalaith]

dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflections of the truth

There may well be an infallible, perfect Truth, but surely, given the imperfect and fallible nature of humanity, all versions of this truth, whether oral or literary, will have been filtered through human perception and will thus be dim, shattered, debased, diffused etc?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

There may well be an infallible, perfect Truth, but surely, given the imperfect and fallible nature of humanity, all versions of this truth, whether oral or literary, will have been filtered through human perception and will thus be dim, shattered, debased, diffused etc?

Suppose so - things are a certain way. All opinions are not true. Even if we didn't know what shape the earth was, we'd know for certain it was one specific shape. I think the point LMP was making was that the 'specific shape' of Truth is the Biblical one & that that one was not 'dim, shattered, debased, diffused etc' - only the 'variations' of it - indeed we could only speak of myths & legends being 'corrupt' version of something else if we believe that that 'something else' is uncorrupt.

[alatar]

Note that our world (that includes Christianity) and Tolkien's secondary world are at best parallel. As much as I would choose it to be so, the Sil and LotR do not document 'pre-Abrahamic' events. If you really think about it, Tolkien's world actually excludes Christ as there is no need for such a saviour. No Adam, no need for a Second one.

Think that I may have said this before, and others have too, but we see in the text those things that are familiar to us. As lmp sees images of the Christian world whereas davem sees other things (of some I have no idea), I see some of these things too, knowing what each poster is talking about. However, I also can see my self in the text, but as none of you have spent hours pouring over my autobiography (shame that ), it's really not worth discussing further. So we discuss Christ, or Odin, or the story of the hidden king regaining his throne as these things are more common to many of us.

And for a thought that might make even less sense: Ministers use text from the Bible (and I assume it may be similar in other churches/religions) to relate to 'today.' As things were back in the day, so goes it today. People are people, and the same situations occur even after thousands of years have passed. With ease the ministers can transform the text so that we understand and empathize with it.

Turning that around, we take our every day experiences and look back into such texts (even LotR) and find those experiences again, regardless of the text or experience. It's how we're wired.

Look, and ye will find.

[Aiwendil]

Alatar wrote:

Note that our world (that includes Christianity) and Tolkien's secondary world are at best parallel. As much as I would choose it to be so, the Sil and LotR do not document 'pre-Abrahamic' events. If you really think about it, Tolkien's world actually excludes Christ as there is no need for such a saviour. No Adam, no need for a Second one.

Obviously, I agree that Arda is not our real world. However, does Tolkien's world really "exclude" a Christ-figure? Is there no Adam? Tolkien intentionally left the awakening of Men out of the Silmarillion; it seems to me that he intentionally left room for the Eden myth. Moreover, he refers in Letters to the first "fall of Men" as an event not actually depicted in the Legendarium. In fact, he did at one point write a short account of that fall - presented in the guise of Adanel's ancient Edainic lore. Although that story is certainly not exactly the same as that told in Genesis, it does seem to fill the same theological role. And then, of course, we have the Athrabeth, with its Messianic hints (a work that is quite connected with Adanel's tale of the Fall).

I think that Tolkien did, at least at some points in his life, consider Arda to be a fictional version of the real world in pre-Abrahamic times.

Of course, this is a separate question from the one that littlemanpoet and Davem debate - i.e. whether elements of Christian theology are explicitly present in Tolkien's works.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Alatar wrote:
Tolkien intentionally left the awakening of Men out of the Silmarillion; it seems to me that he intentionally left room for the Eden myth. Moreover, he refers in Letters to the first "fall of Men" as an event not actually depicted in the Legendarium.

I think that Tolkien did, at least at some points in his life, consider Arda to be a fictional version of the real world in pre-Abrahamic times.

Well, the fact that the 'Fall of Man' is not mentioned is a rather odd thing for Tolkien to play up - he never says in any Letters that the 6.15 to Paddington, or those little plastic tabs on the ends of shoelaces are not actually depicted in the Legendarium. I don't think either of those things would be assumed to be present by readers of the Legendarium & neither would they expect (unless they were Christians) to find the Fall of Man there - at least not the Biblical version of it.

This just strikes me as yet another example of Tolkien attempting to make the Legendarium 'fit' in response to challenges from Christian correspondents. 'Oh, its really there, but I just didn't mention it' is a cop out. The real point is that for the purposes of the Legendarium there was no need for a Fall of Man - it played no significant part - unlike the Fall of the Elves.

The Athrabeth is a work of great beauty & profundity, but if it is read as a reference to the Christian story it ties the Secondary world too closely into the Primary world - something he himself said would be fatal. It would then both cease to be a self contained Secondary World but couldn't be accepted as a 'genuine' possible history of the Primary World - in other words it would be neither one thing nor the other. The thing is, Tolkien knew this well but he still felt driven to attempt this disastrous move. If he'd succeeded his creation would have been no more than another Narnia-type 'allegory'.

Of course, this is the danger of the Translator Conceit, because the TC actually does attempt to tie the Legendarium into the Primary World. Interestingly, most readers pay no attention to the idea. They actually don't want Middle-earth in the long distant past - they really want it to be a place that exists 'now', just round the next corner or over the next hill.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

However, does Tolkien's world really "exclude" a Christ-figure? Is there no Adam?

Yes & no. Evil (an active force) enters Arda the day it becomes real; evil enters creation when Adam falls.

I think that Tolkien did, at least at some points in his life, consider Arda to be a fictional version of the real world in pre-Abrahamic times.

It may be in his mind, but I'm not sure how he ties in all of the Bible into Arda. More thought would place his works post-Adam (duh!) and pre-global Noachian flood.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, he didn't have the faintest grasp of theology either.

This is actually humorous. davem, you are, I fear, being as vituperative in regard to Paul the Apostle as you accuse the "critical elite" of being regarding Tolkien.

Originally Posted by davem

Is it not equally possible that it is Christianity that is a 'dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflection of the truth as presented in the Pagan traditions - after all any objective observer can find more of Hellenism (where demi-gods, virgin births & the like abound) than Judaism in the Christian story?

Well, of course it's possible. But, of course, I don't believe that, since I'm convinced that God has spoken to us through the Christian Bible and revealed himself to us through it, including through the apostle Paul.

My faith consists of definites. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Et cetera. I know it's unpopular and deplorable by the standards of currently generally acccepted, tolerant opinion, but according to my faith, there is indeed only one path that is true. Either we are the most arrogant people on earth, or we have been humbled by Someone who has revealed Himself to us directly. If it seems like the height of hubris, I can't help that.

Originally Posted by alatar

...evil enters creation when Adam falls.

Not so. Satan is a part of creation, and came in the form of a serpent. Since Jesus speaks of a real Satan, so must I. It would be more accurate to say that evil mars creation with the fall of Adam.

[davem]

This is actually humorous. davem, you are, I fear, being as vituperative in regard to Paul the Apostle as you accuse the "critical elite" of being regarding Tolkien.

Not at all. Paul was clearly a great mystic. Unfortunately, as with all great mystics he could only communicate to the rest of us in either nonsense ('I went to the third Heaven') or platitudes about loving each other. Not his fault. The point I was making was making was about his claim to be able to 'explain' the Unknown God. Just because you've met God it doesn't make you smart.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Et cetera. I know it's unpopular and deplorable by the standards of currently generally acccepted, tolerant opinion, but according to my faith, there is indeed only one path that is true.

Yes, & as I pointed out Mithras said: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." & he said it before Jesus.