The Lord of the Bible?

[Lalwendë]

I think the chief sticking point here is this idea that all myths point to the truth, because yes, I can see aspects of certain characters reflected in Biblical myth (though not whole characters, who seem to have a distinct integrity within the separate cosmology of Arda) e.g. I can see the aspect of Gandalf that was 'reborn', though Gandalf is most definitely not Christ, he is Gandalf. However, there are as many if not more apsects which do not stem from Christianity, or which could equally be from other beliefs/myths/folklore.

However, as I say above, I know that I will be told again that all myths point to The Truth. I have to stick my neck out and venture to say that though Tolkien may have put forward this idea, it is by no means accepted by everyone, and possibly only by a small proportion of Tolkien readers. It is also a shaky argument which in order to accept ourselves, we first have to accept that Christianity is the only acceptable belief and that all others are just 'little copies' of it, and their followers are really just Christians. News - they're not. They're Moslems, Jainists, Wiccans, Taoists etc. But everyone is indeed under the same umbrella, yes, its just that its a bit more multi-coloured. The concept is basically similar to those put forward by Jung and Campbell of Collective Unconscious, but ring-fencing it in favour of one religion of the many available, which defeats the object of what Campbell suggests - that there is indeed one myth, but it cannot be 'claimed' by anyone. It belongs to us all, and we don't have to have a pass to get in.

It is also an idea put forward in a quite obscure text which Tolkien would not have considered would even be read by many (if any) of his fans - so my argument is that how would he have expected anyone to know, let alone accept this argument and system of interpretation. He simply gave us non-allegorical stories which he accepted could be read in any way. He kept his own interpretations under his hat (or in his desk ) because he did not wish to impose. He was not an evangelist.

Really, if we are hoping to pinpoint any Primary World 'messages' that he wants to put to readers, shouldn't we only be focussing on those texts he intended for us to read? If said messages can only be vaguely supported in principle by papers he determinedly did not publish or make otherwise generally available (and lecture notes are not such documents), then can we truly say that he wanted those messages to be read in that way?