The Lord of the Bible?

Originally Posted by narfforc

An argument is very rarely Won, what tends to happen is that both sides go their seperate ways still believing what did from the start. It is not always won by the person who utters the last words, nor shouts down his opponent, and is never won when one side is independently silenced. The problem is that this thread turned into an argument and not a discussion, and that is usually the case when religion is involved. It is probably the best thing Davem to step away and not concede defeat, knowing that this discussion will continue in circles.

The original question to the thread was a rhetorical one - the answer was always going to be a no. But out of it has come a greater appreciation of the LOTR & the Bible, & acknowledgement of the fact that there is great similarity between the two texts, suggesting that Tolkein gained many of his fundamental themes/ideas through inspiration from the Bible. Gandalf isn't Christ, but he is Christ-like. Saruman isn't Judas, but he is just as bad a traitor. The far green country isn't heaven, but it is the undying lands where the High Elves dwell in peace.

[narfforc]

I agree with many of your points Mansun, and the thread for the most part has been a success, I just haven't enjoyed reading some of the repetitive arguments.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mansun

The original question to the thread was a rhetorical one - the answer was always going to be a no. But out of it has come a greater appreciation of the LOTR & the Bible, & acknowledgement of the fact that there is great similarity between the two texts, suggesting that Tolkein gained many of his fundamental themes/ideas through inspiration from the Bible. Gandalf isn't Christ, but he is Christ-like. Saruman isn't Judas, but he is just as bad a traitor. The far green country isn't heaven, but it is the undying lands where the High Elves dwell in peace.

Um, well I'm just one of a few yet to be convinced by anything. The most interesting notion was that of having a 'holy city' of some description in Middle-earth, and even with that there's absolutely no evidence in the text that Tolkien intended it, it's just an interesting literary motif to be pursued.

And on that note....

Originally Posted by LMP

Exhibit #1: Pity stayed Bilbo

In the Prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, section four, paragraph seven, we read,
"...Bilbo was tempted to slay [Gollum] with his sword. But pity stayed him...."
First, this is precisely the same way it is presented in the revised "The Hobbit, Riddles in the Dark". Note the passive tense. It does not say 'Bilbo took pity on him', but 'pity stayed him'. Pity is thus something acting upon Bilbo rather than he doing the pitying. What is this pity? Does it have a source? If not, we are left with an unanswerable conundrum, or else not the best writing (passive tense instead of active). If this pity does have a source, what is it? Or are we dealing with a 'who'?
The question is too early to answer yet; we don't have enough information, and must read further to see if any answers are forthcoming.

Interesting point. I know that Pity is one of the Christian virtues, and in fact is pretty central to any genuine Christian (now aint the place to pursue what a non-genuine Christian is in this respect ) but I would also have to point out that its in no way exclusive. Pity is one of the attributes setting us out as distinctly human (and is naturally linked to another basic emotion - disgust). Pity is something also displayed to a great degree by non-Christians, e.g. Oxfam is a secular charity doing work to help people less fortunate. Amnesty International also works to lobby for more 'pity' even for people who have broken the law and done 'wrong'.

Saying 'Pity stayed him' actually to me seems more like the basic human instinct of pity coming to the fore, whereas 'took pity on him' suggests the conscious mind taking over, e.g. deciding to exercise the pity you are required to show as part of your religion.

[Raynor]

My congrats to Mansun too, I think he phrased his idea very well.

Originally Posted by Lal

Saying 'Pity stayed him' actually to me seems more like the basic human instinct of pity coming to the fore, whereas 'took pity on him' suggests the conscious mind taking over, e.g. deciding to exercise the pity you are required to show as part of your religion.

I think it is interesting to show Gandalf's comments too:

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

Pity? It was Pity that stayed [Bilbo's] hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity

Now, it is interesting to note the capitalisation of Pity and Mercy - the ones who will bring about the saving grace in the end - also, the fact that Pity is rewarded, which, again, implies divine action.

To adress the second part of Lal's statement:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.

So, in the light of this, unless we consider Frodo to be mad, we are left with the spiritual explanation of his action.

I would also compare Tolkien's words:

Originally Posted by Letter #192

Of course, he did not mean to say that one must be merciful, for it may prove useful later – it would not then be mercy or pity, which are only truly present when contrary to prudence. Not ours to plan ! But we are assured that we must be ourselves extravagantly generous, if we are to hope for the extravagant generosity which the slightest easing of, or escape from, the consequences of our own follies and errors represents. And that mercy does sometimes occur in this life.

to the Bible:

Originally Posted by Luke 6:35

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Now, it is interesting to note the capitalisation of Pity and Mercy - the ones who will bring about the saving grace in the end - also, the fact that Pity is rewarded, which, again, implies divine action.

I have to add here that many Important Things are capitalised. In the UK the terms Government and Minister are capitalised too, but this does not imply divine action. The common Christian use of capitalisation too is to reserve it for naming or referring to God, and occasionally to Jesus and Mary, e.g. in His name, the lord our God, the Almighty, our Lady etc. so Tolkien capitalising the words in no way implies exclusively Christian virtues. It all depends if you would use capitalisation or not; as matter of fact, I sometimes might myself, when discussing as a concept. Note that Tolkien also capitalises Ring, East and West.

Blake also uses a capitalised Pity in The Divine Image (where he also links virtues like Pity directly to humanity and says that it is in our fellow humanity that we find God - something that also comes through in Tolkien's work to me - Frodo instinctively recoils from hurting Gollum, unlike Aragorn and Gandalf who treat him inhumanely, resorting to baser instincts - it is Frodo's innocence and recognition of himself in Gollum which I think stays his hand), but he like Tolkien also goes on to capitalise in an individualistic fashion, see Auguries of Innocence for some highly random capitalisation of simple things which he found important to emphasise, as Tolkien also did.

Originally Posted by Raynor

So, in the light of this, unless we consider Frodo to be mad, we are left with the spiritual explanation of his action.

Again, only if you read that into it. Pity at times which might seem foolish can include any number of instances which have little to do with faith, and a whole lot to do with simple humanity, e.g. the many stories of soldiers in war not killing someone from the opposing army when they could, something which Tolkien would have been well aware of. Whether that urge comes from God is entirely a personal thing, but with or without God, humans do that kind of thing all the time.

Pity is a common theme throughout culture, e.g. a hero not killing a creature who at a later stage will prove to return and save them. And it is possibly an even stronger theme in Buddhism (and Confucianism), but who is going to say that Tolkien was giving us a Buddhist message here?

[Raynor]

so Tolkien capitalising the words in no way implies exclusively Christian virtues.

Did I [or for that matter, all those who more or less argue on this side of the fence] ever claimed the we can find exclusively Christian virtues in LotR? I am sorry, but your argument is a strawman. More to the point, I think you misunderstood me; I wasn't trying, in that particular post, to prove that this is Christian pity, but that it is a religious feeling, not a "merely" human one.

Whether that urge comes from God is entirely a personal thing, but with or without God, humans do that kind of thing all the time.

All the time?? I _really_ doubt that. It is really hard to see pity when it is required, let alone when it is safe; to do pity nowadays when it would present a mortal danger represents something very rare, almost unique. More to the point, I would argue that Frodo's pity wasn't singular, he did spare Gollum's life at just one moment - but throughout it all.

And it is possibly an even stronger theme in Buddhism (and Confucianism), but who is going to say that Tolkien was giving us a Buddhist message here?

Now that we are at it, I am really curious to see what redempting value is given to pity in Norse myths.

Originally Posted by lmp

No. Such a reading assumes a one-to-one correlation between, on the one hand, eucatastrophe, and on the other, incarnation and resurrection.

I disagre; in the letters, Tolkien noted that:

Originally Posted by Letter #297

The Fall of Man is in the past and off stage; the Redemption of Man in the far future.

So, to a point, this does indicate that LotR is at a time that is pre-eucatastrophic, as mark (Helen, if I may) pointed.

Originally Posted by Lal

And to follow on from that, while we're all flinging ideas around from said text, it must be remembered that Tolkien himself felt distinctly uncomfortable with the text as he felt it was almost a parody of Christianity, something he did not want.

Chris, in his comments, while he does admit that this presents a challenge to Tolkien's desire to present the religious truth only implicitly, also goes on to say that:

Originally Posted by Atrabeth Firnod ah Andreth

But this surely is not parody, nor even parallel, but the extension - if only represented as vision, hope, or prophecy - of the 'theology' of Arda into specifically, and of course centrally, Christian belief

An extension; not parody, not allegory.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Did I [or for that matter, all those who more or less argue on this side of the fence] ever claimed the we can find exclusively Christian virtues in LotR? I am sorry, but your argument is a strawman. More to the point, I think you misunderstood me; I wasn't trying, in that particular post, to prove that this is Christian pity, but that it is a religious feeling, not a "merely" human one.

Pinpointing an instance of particular behaviour and then analysing it to say that this marks a parallel with a point in the bible or a tenet of Christian faith is unavoidably 'claiming' it as Christian. And pity isn't a religious feeling, its a cognitive process.

Originally Posted by Raynor

All the time?? I _really_ doubt that. It is really hard to see pity when it is required, let alone when it is safe; to do pity nowadays when it would present a mortal danger represents something very rare, almost unique. More to the point, I would argue that Frodo's pity wasn't singular, he did spare Gollum's life at just one moment - but throughout it all.

I agree Frodo's pity wasn't just one instance but a generalised feeling towards Gollum. But I don't agree that pity is lacking in our world, in fact its alive and well, but most of us don't expect anything for it nor make a show of it (we just give the beggar a quid and walk on, help the old lady pick up her dropped shopping bags and continue on our way to work, have a direct debit each month to Amnesty International etc. etc.)

Originally Posted by Raynor

Now that we are at it, I am really curious to see what redempting value is given to pity in Norse myths.

Don't know, but Tolkien's inspiration isn't either/either Christian or Norse, it's a lot of things, not least English fairy and folktale, which is filled with instances of pity, usually a lesson where a hero stays his hand filled with pity for the injured wolf (or other scary creature), and later on finds said creature rescues him or turns out to be a princess etc.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagre; in the letters, Tolkien noted that:

So, to a point, this does indicate that LotR is at a time that is pre-eucatastrophic, as mark (Helen, if I may) pointed.

Yet we have to acknowledge that Tolkien doesn't have The Fall Of Man. Men do not Fall, the world is Fallen before Men even get there. There is no garden of Eden, no serpent, no tree of knowledge. Melkor is the cause and root of evil, not Men. There is no original sin to be saved from.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Chris, in his comments, while he does admit that this presents a challenge to Tolkien's desire to present the religious truth only implicitly, also goes on to say that:
An extension; not parody, not allegory

Christopher's thoughts, not his father's, which were as I stated distinctly uncomfortable with the implied parody of Christianity.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Pinpointing an instance of particular behaviour and then analysing it to say that this marks a parallel with a point in the bible or a tenet of Christian faith is unavoidably 'claiming' it as Christian.

Well, this is quite a general statement; someone who is actually a non- or anti-Christian (whatever that means) could write something more or less similar. To claim that it is something Christian, knowing the background/intentions of the writer, it is quite a stretch.

And pity isn't a religious feeling, its a cognitive process.

Although I agree this is a bit off-topic, could you please expand on that idea? As far as my understanding of Christianity goes, pity is to be given regardless what reasoning says, and out from the heart.

But I don't agree that pity is lacking in our world, in fact its alive and well, but most of us don't expect anything for it nor make a show of it

I didn't say it was lacking (completely); rather that the level we encounter is a far cry from Frodo's.

Don't know, but Tolkien's inspiration isn't either/either Christian or Norse, it's a lot of things, not least English fairy and folktale, which is filled with instances of pity, usually a lesson where a hero stays his hand filled with pity for the injured wolf (or other scary creature), and later on finds said creature rescues him or turns out to be a princess etc.

Then I am curious in what folklore does pity save the world? And to keep on the Norse line, since you made a powerful argument concerning possible parallels, what sort of moral values does it promote? I would generally have the same questions about other belief systems in which you could find genuine/signifcant parallels.

Christopher's thoughts, not his father's

Yes, I stated so at the begining of my sentence; I do believe they represent a rather valid idea.

There is no garden of Eden, no serpent, no tree of knowledge.

Well, there is Valinor and Melkor tempting people with reasoning and gifts. As far as the Fall is concerned, it is attested in the Letters (#131 deals at large with it) and hinted at in the Silmarillion:

Originally Posted by Of Men, Silmarillion

But it was said afterwards among the Eldar that when Men awoke in Hildorien at the rising of the Sun the spies of Morgoth were watchful, and tidings were soon brought to him; and this seemed to him so great a matter that secretly under shadow he himself departed from Angband, and went forth into Middle-earth, leaving to Sauron the command of the War. Of his dealings with Men the Eldar indeed knew nothing, at that time, and learnt but little afterwards; but that a darkness lay upon the hearts of Men (as the shadow of the Kinslaying and the Doom of Mandos lay upon the Noldor) they perceived clearly even in the people of the Elf-friends whom they first knew.

[Lalwendë]

Although I agree this is a bit off-topic, could you please expand on that idea? As far as my understanding of Christianity goes, pity is to be given regardless what reasoning says, and out from the heart.

Well I mean quite literally that pity is something innately human, it is one of our instincts (and I suppose you could say it comes from the heart, as its usually felt without a conscious decision). Assigning it to come from God (any God) is ultimately neither here nor there as we feel it anyway. The only difference is that a genuine Christian should consciously think about showing Pity.

I didn't say it was lacking (completely); rather that the level we encounter is a far cry from Frodo's.

I don't know. People can be capable of tremendous feelings of Pity which can go on for a long time. I should feel just angry towards the bloke who crashed into my car a few years ago, but I actually feel pity for him as he now has no face and I was fully able to accept him not going to prison as I felt he would be suffering enough, even though I had the chance to challenge that judgement. Other people show vastly more compassion than I do!

Then I am curious in what folklore does pity save the world? And to keep on the Norse line, since you made a powerful argument concerning possible parallels, what sort of moral values does it promote? I would generally have the same questions about other belief systems in which you could find genuine/signifcant parallels.

Well a reading of a selection of folklore and fairy tales will soon give you plenty of instances. The Princess and the Frog for one shows a girl who shows pity to a little ugly frog who turns out to be a prince. Beauty and the Beast shows how a girl's turning to pity results in yet another happy ending. I'm not sure why the moral values promoted by a culture or a belief system would be relevant though as Tolkien's stories weren't putting forward a moral message?