The Lord of the Bible?

[littlemanpoet]

.... I'll just make an observation.

It's really quite comical how this is going once you boil down the arguments:

"There is nothing uniquely Christian in LotR."

"On the contrary, there are aspects of Christianity all over LotR."

"I could just as well argue that there are aspects of Norse myth all over LotR."

"If so, why can't we also say that there are aspects of Christianity in LotR?"

"I insist, though, that LotR is not a Christian book."

"And I insist, that you can't say there is nothing Christian in LotR."

"And I insist that there is nothing uniquely Christian in LotR."

"On the contrary, there are........"

We're arguing past ourselves. I don't think any Christian appreciator of LotR here at the Downs is saying that LotR is strictly Christian. That would be stupid.

Nor is any non-Christian saying that there is NO Christian element in LotR.

I think that we can all agree that there is no EXCLUSIVELY Christian aspect in LotR, just as there is no EXCLUSIVELY Norse mythic, Baghavad Gita'ish, etc., aspect to LotR.

My exhibits (properly numbered of course) will continue to show aspects; we will see what the text itself reveals. ... later....

[narfforc]

Well said LMP, it is exactly what I have been trying to say, LotR is not an allegory, it is an amalgm, now can we please stop the merry-go-round (carousel) I want to get off.

[Lalwendë]

lmp - you've just boiled down the many lost hours of internet time for me, because basically you could say that about any discussion on the Downs, or indeed on any forum about any topic! Someone says something, someone else argues a different case. You've scared me now, I'm thinking I should be doing something useful instead! Hey ho.

I hope you're right that nobody is arguing that LotR is exclusively Christian! But even any one single aspect can be interpreted any number of ways. One thing that a lot of us agree on is that there are multiple influences and interpretations. That's one of the reasons why Tolkien's work is so loved by so many diverse people.

As I've said before, feel free to say what you like on here, even if its a bit mad, I'll happily discuss and argue with anything that anyone sticks on, but we should all think twice before posting if we don't want someone to challenge us on what we say. Hmmm, maybe I'm jumping the gun a bit but is there anyone out there who does seriously expect to be able to post statements, assumptions, opinions without having them challenged? Isn't challenge and discussion what its all about?

Keep 'em coming if you like, 'cause I enjoy examining these points. None of us will learn anything otherwise.

[mark12_30]

Lal, you baffle me.

My last serious post on this thread was (A) in answer to two specific questions and (B) provided extensive detail for those answers. My answer to Sharon was geared entirely towards (my grasp of) Sharon's worldview and how it would contrast between Tolkien's pre-incarnation worldview. Hence the extensive comparison/contrast between the OT worldview and the NT pre-incarnation worldview, explaining the difference in terms I hoped would resonate with Sharon and provide the contrast I thought she was looking for.

However, instead of responding to the difference between the two worldviews, or questioning my presentation of the information and processing it, and challenging the provided aspects of (New Testament, Christian) pre-incarnation hope and post-incarnation hope versus the Old Testament (Hebrew) aspects of hope-- challenging the information given on its own merit-- I was simply accused of proseletyzing, and otherwise the discussion ignored everything I had said in the post. I can hardly refrain from adding, that except for the comment about sheep and goats which was intended for humor, I did not claim "This is what I believe, and it is clearly true and all else is false." (Some others on this thread have, with impunity.) I simply presented my arguments regarding hope in context of the Christian worldview, supported by the texts, as thoroughly as I could.

Before it was over, I was rebuked for my textual support, and Sharon was rebuked for her question. I find this extremely unfortunate, since I thought Sharon had asked one of the most challenging questions on this thread so far.

Level of detail has been a point of contention on this thread. The repeated accusation is that those arguing in favor of Christian/ biblical influences offer only guesses and no proof. How are we suupposed to offer any proof for our points when as soon as we offer concrete textual support of our points we are accused of proseletyzing?

If my discussion had been about the Norse worldview and I had discussed the Eddas, providing textual quotes and summaries of ideas and worldviews, would anyone have complained?

I hope you'll pardon my skepticism, but in light of your reaction to my detailed answer to Sharon's question, I find your statement "Keep 'em coming if you like" a bit hard to trust. What are you looking for?

An afterthought, directed toward those who hold an 'anti-biblical-influence' stance or a neutral stance: -- what is it that you would like to see? Textual support? Summaries of overarching principles? One-liner, unsupported opinions? If I'm going to put real time and energy into this thread (as yet undecided) I'd like some indication.

[mark12_30]

Sharon-- please allow me to cast the worldview argument in an entirely different light, that of eucatastrophe.

Tolkien's view (stated in On Fairy Stories, Ballantine paperback p.88, 89; and also in Letters 89, page 100-101) was that the incarnation was the eucatastrophe of Man's history (for the pre-incarnation world, or the BC era) and the resurrection was the eucatastrophe of the story of the incarnation.

A eucatastrophe assumes a catastrophe-- does it not?

By definition, using TOlkien's worldview as illustrated by his definition of the incarnation and resurrection as eucatastrophes, LOTR (and most of the legendarium) takes place in a pre-incarnation time period. Correct? Therefore it is pre-eucatastrophe. So by Tolkien's definition, the LOTR world is in a catastrophic state.

Why should he present such a world-- that is in need of a eucatastrophe-- in a hopeful light? The eucatastrophe IS the hope. Those present in that world are hoping for a eucatastrophe-- but by definition of an eucatastrophe, to those waiting for the eucatastrophe, until it arrives, all hope seems lost.

Does that make sense?

Further edit: I think the Norse worldview plays into this, rather than opposes it. I'd be happy to discuss that thought further-- but RL calls.

[The Saucepan Man]

Helen, I rather hoped that I had already addressed this point:

Originally Posted by me

There is a fine line between stating Biblical text (or any other religious source) to justify a particular point (for example, in the context of this thread, a personally drawn Biblical parallel) and "sermonising" to others involved in the debate. The latter can come across as aggressive and cause offence, which is why I expressed my hope earlier in this thread that those who might be inclined to indulge in it would refrain from doing so.

Mark12_30 was answering a specific question that had been raised and was at pains to point out in her original post that she had no intention of causing offence. Nevertheless, and particularly in threads like this, a reasonable degree of sensitivity to the feelings and beliefs of others is required (on all "sides" of the debate). This may not be a matter of changing the content of what you want to say, but considering the manner in which you express it. Generally, personal beliefs should be expressed as just that - personal beliefs - rather than as assumed realities.

I hope that clarifies the position and would ask that all involved in this discussion bear these points in mind, since continued Mod and Admin intervention is both disruptive of the ongoing debate and time-consuming for the Mods/Admins involved.

As I recall, there was no criticism of Sharon for raising the question. Nor was there any issue about whether it was a proper question to raise and discuss. My own view was that your initial response erred on the side of pure biblical discussion, as opposed to discussion of possible biblical influence on Tolkien's works, but I had no issue with your edited post.

If people make clear (whether by words, tone, content or whatever) that a particular point is either a personal opinion/reaction/interpretation or that it involves speculation as to Tolkien's intent/approach (in which case, it would be sensible to provide supporting material), then I would hope that this thread can stay on track.

I trust such optimism is not misplaced.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen -

We are reading this differently. I did not feel earlier that I was being rebuked by anyone for the question I raised.

Now on to the second post.....

First, regarding my "take" on Tolkien's world view. My words on Satan's domination were poorly chosen. On catastrophe and eucatastophe, I would agree that, as a Catholic and the outside author, Tolkien sometimes viewed things in the way that you are describing. However, even here there were differences. It's difficult to see the small, stubborn optomism of the Shire as part of a world totally engulfed in catastrophe. Does your equation allow for this?

In certain other respects, however, I feel the author paints with an even blacker brush than you are seeing. His world is corrupted with evil in a way that goes beyond the traditional Christian view. It is a bleaker, more fatalistic place than that proposed in the Bible, whether because of certain influences from his beloved pagan myth or an intentional desire to portray Arda in a strikingly different light.

Just look at the creation story. The biblical story does not have any of the fallen angels actively participating in the creation of the world. Yet this is what Tolkien does. Morgoth's music is intertwined within the very fabric of Eru's world. To me, that is a very important distinction. It makes Arda laden with evil in a way that is not true of the Judaeo/Christian world where evil was introduced by the personal choices of two individuals. In the biblical paradigm, we are fighting against the evil impulses within our own soul. In the context of middle-earth, we must not only fight our personal impulses but contend with an evil that was woven into the fabric of the physical world from before the dawn of time. This makes the "long defeat" even longer! And because of this unique aspect of creation, I sometimes get the general feeling (a la Shippey) that Tolkien has presented us with an evil in middle-earth that is a great deal more substantial than the traditional Judaeo-Christian view of evil as the simple negation of good. Pretty heavy stuff, considerably bleaker than the orthodox story of creation as itirated in the bible.

Why is this? Why did Tolkien change this critical aspect of the creation story? He could have had Morgoth fall before the beginning of time and drop away from the group, yet still used the other Ainur to help him fashion the music. Why did he permit evil to be woven into the core of creation in a way that is very different than the biblical story? Perhaps if we knew the answer to this, it would help us understand how and why Tolkien used symbols and stories from the bible, but somehow changed them to create a world which is not exactly the same as ours.

EDIT: Littlemanpoet -- Sorry, we crossposted so my post doesn't take your excellent point on Frodo and Sam under consideration. I do think the Shire has to be considered in any attempt to weigh good and evil.

[littlemanpoet]

Actually, Helen, I'm not sure I agree with all your points (below)

Originally Posted by mark12_30

A eucatastrophe assumes a catastrophe-- does it not?

I think it would be more accurate to say that a eucatastrophe assumes the potential and seeming inevitability of a catastrophe, or worse, a dis-catastrophe (another word Tolkien coined on the same page as 'eucatastrophe').

By definition, using Tolkien's worldview as illustrated by his definition of the incarnation and resurrection as eucatastrophes, LOTR (and most of the legendarium) takes place in a pre-incarnation time period. Correct?

Yes.

Therefore it is pre-eucatastrophe.

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

So by Tolkien's definition, the LOTR world is in a catastrophic state.

Not by definition perhaps, but it is readily apparent through his narrative description that much of the time Middle Earth is in a state of catastrophe; but much of the time it is not.

Why should [Tolkien] present such a world-- that is in need of a eucatastrophe-- in a hopeful light? The eucatastrophe IS the hope. Those present in that world are hoping for a eucatastrophe-- but by definition of an eucatastrophe, to those waiting for the eucatastrophe, until it arrives, all hope seems lost.

This is esepecially the case since those who are in the middle of the struggle are not even hoping for a eucatastrophe (Aragorn: "We shall have to do without hope"). They are struggling through because it's the right thing to do, even at the expense of their lives.

Further edit: I think the Norse worldview plays into this, rather than opposes it. I'd be happy to discuss that thought further-- but RL calls.

I agree. There is a mixture of 'mere' sense of duty as opposed to pushing forward because one hopes for the best. It seems to me that these two aspects are characterized by Frodo (duty) and Sam (hope). I hope I'm not oversimplifying, but Frodo is the one who most often speaks words of despair whilst Sam speaks words of hope.