The Lord of the Bible?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Lalwende wrote:
This strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Gandalf has no particular association with Gondor over any other part of northeastern Middle-earth. I suppose that, in the absence of further information on Gandalf, some readers might interpret it this way, but it seems quite clear that this is not what either Gandalf or Tolkien intended..

That would be one of the inevitable conclusions that a reader might make before reading The Sil, in the absence of any information about Eru. Yes it does look like a stretch to us, but we are privileged as we have much material to read.

However, the relationship between Gandalf and Aragorn is a special one, and Gandalf does act on Aragorn's behalf, and very much acts as his personal adviser; note how Aragorn does defer to the wiser Gandalf and allow him to make decisions, very much what a Steward would do.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

This strikes me as splitting semantic hairs. One might as well ask whether Milton's character is "really" Satan, or whether Allah of the Koran is "really" Yahweh of the Torah.

Hmm, no, as Milton's Satan is a clear literary interpretation of the Biblical Satan - this is what Milton set out to do; and readers of Paradise Lost must accept that this is in no way a depiction of the 'real' Satan but one writer's vision of him. In fact, if readers did start to think that this was the 'real' Satan they might end up deserting churches in droves as he's rather cool. As for the second example these are theological writings and so are very different to either Paradise Lost or to LotR.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

If you ask me, the question "is Eru God?" is only a semantic one.

Now that's a wormy point to make knowing the rows that have happened over the years on this very topic. Everything I've read has pointed to the fact that the question can't be answered definitively. We cannot even all agree that Eru is Tolkien's personal interpretation of God, let alone that Eru is God full stop. I'd rather this one remained buried where it was.

Had some more thoughts on this recently and the gist of them went thus: Tolkien may have wished to have a Monotheistic God in the manner of the Christian God (who we can't even define anyway as there are Unitarians as well as Trinitarians in the real world, and a Pantheistic range of Gods in Arda) in his cosmology, and he may even have referred to Eru as He (capitalised) in his letters, and drawn upon comparisons of God and Eru, even going as far as saying Eru is 'The One' (what? Neo?); but the very nature of God and how he is interpreted by each individual is far too numinous for us to be able to say with absolute certainty that Eru is God. The very most we could ever say is Eru is Tolkien's God.

Even breaking this down further, Tolkien may have hoped that his readers would perceive Eru as being in nature something like the God he knew, hence using terminology similar to Christianity to emphasise this fact. As someone who writes, if I wanted to create a cosmology where there was a Monotheistic, omnipotent God in the nature of 'our' God, then I too would employ the familiar literary devices of He and The One and Almighty.

Whose God anyway? Eru is most defintely not the God I have known even as a Christian, nor the god that I know now. Eru is a construct in a book, a writer's creation, and in his nature is something entirely different. From my Christian youth one thing I remember being taught is that there was only one book to find the real God in and that's The Bible.

Consider this - if we are going to say that Eru is God, with absolute certainty, does this not then suggest that Tolkien's work, stories about Eru and his world, is the Word of God and we might as well study that in church instead of the Bible if we so desire? I think Tolkien would have found this prospect slightly frightening himself!

There's something very clever and very deliberate behind all of this fudging in my opinion, and Tolkien put it there. He despised allegory and did not want to write one. Likewise he was squeamish about creating a world with a God which was wholly different to the God he loved as a devout man. If he had the God in there then this would be allegorical, not only that, but also potentially blasphemous. But he could have something which might remind some of us of God, and he could cleverly construct this to make it convincing; he could also construct enough around this 'Eru' figure he made up to make it look like something new. And hey, what an opportunity to explore all his own, personal feelings about God?

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry wrote:

Interesting. I wonder, then, if Pippin's thoughts about Gandalf on the facing page (in my trusty HarperCollins paperback) were also a later addition?

They were present in the first draft, but the wording was different:

Whence and what was Gandalf: when and in what far time and place [was he born >] did he come into the world and would he ever die?

You might want to invest in HoMe VIII - but I forgot HoMe is "boring" . . .

The title "Steward" is an interesting one. It has the general meaning of a manager, one who watches over things for an owner, but the word's full panoply of meaning is more replete than that. It is an example of a word with a specifically UK historical sense: not simply an officer of a royal household, but also a title of state.

Another use of the word that may have been in Tolkien's mind is in "The House of Stuart". The Stuart monarchs of England and Scotland were descended from Robert Stewart of Scotland; his ancestors had been the Lords High Steward, but in 1371 he, like Denethor's ancestor, went from Steward to ruler - though unlike the Stewards of Gondor, he took the title 'king', and indeed he was descended from the former king Robert Bruce through his mother. Still, it seems to me that someone who still resented the Norman invasion might very well still consider James VI/I and his descendants "stewards" of a sort.

Lalwende wrote:

As for the second example these are theological writings and so are very different to either Paradise Lost or to LotR.

I don't know - it seems to me that the Torah and the Koran are stories, "myths" if you like, and that we can't draw a clear line between myth and literature. On which side would the Kalevala fall? What about the Eddas? Beowulf? Sure, there are people who believe the Torah or the Koran to be true, while there aren't people (as far as I know) who consider LotR or the Silmarillion to be true. But surely this doesn't make them incomparable or incommensurable.

There is a character in the Torah called God. There is a character in the Koran called God. In a sense, they seem to refer to the same entity. It is sensible for Jews and Muslims to discuss God, and even perhaps argue about God; they basically mean the same thing when they say "God", even if they have different beliefs about that thing. Consider the question "Is Allah God?" from the point of view of a Jew or a Christian. The question might be understood in several different ways, and thus elicit several different answers. The Jew might understand the question to mean "Is 'Allah' the word Muslims use for God?", in which case he or she will answer "yes". Or the question might be understood as "Does Allah of the Koran present a true picture of God?" in which case the answer will presumably be "no".

I'm sorry if I seem to be belaboring the point. What I'm getting at is that a question like "Is Eru God?" is vague and could in fact mean several different things. Some of those possible meanings will bear an affirmative answer (e.g. "Is Eru the God of Arda?"), some will bear a negative (e.g. "Is the presentation of Eru identical in every way to the presentation of God in the New Testament?"), and some will be debatable ("Is Eru fundamentally very similar to the God presented in the New Testament?").

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

From my Christian youth one thing I remember being taught is that there was only one book to find the real God in and that's The Bible.

This suggest, dearie, that you was brung up Protestant, because in the Catholic pedagogic tradition, individual reading of The Bible was not the purview of each believer. There were other ways of learning faith and that was through the Church catechism.

There is also, for some Christians, the Book of Life.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

You might want to invest in HoMe XIII - but I forgot HoMe is "boring" . . .

At $25 a volume, paperback, and twelve volumes, that's a bit steep. I know some people who have bought first editions LotR for not too terribly much more than that.

Besides, it is much more interesting coming from you than from Christopher.

[Lalwendë]

There was a fantastic talk on Stewardship and its function in real history (including with regard to the Scots) at Birmingham last year, but I think Esty was not there, and I cannot remember all the detail, so your last hope on that one is to recall davem for more information...

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

There is a character in the Torah called God. There is a character in the Koran called God. In a sense, they seem to refer to the same entity. It is sensible for Jews and Muslims to discuss God, and even perhaps argue about God; they basically mean the same thing when they say "God", even if they have different beliefs about that thing. Consider the question "Is Allah God?" from the point of view of a Jew or a Christian. The question might be understood in several different ways, and thus elicit several different answers. The Jew might understand the question to mean "Is 'Allah' the word Muslims use for God?", in which case he or she will answer "yes". Or the question might be understood as "Does Allah of the Koran present a true picture of God?" in which case the answer will presumably be "no".

The very thorny sticking point that fascinates me so much is this very one. And note I'm talking Real World now. That God can be God for so many different religions yet they all have to fight over him; my own belief is that there is One God, but no one religion has it 'right', even if we can personify whatever God is. That's why I call myself a Universalist. And why I also resist categorising Eru.

And is also why, ultimately, I like to stick to thinking of Eru as Eru (or Illuvatar, depending on the text...) and examining what he does from within the context of the secondary world, otherwise it all gets far too thorny.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I'm sorry if I seem to be belaboring the point. What I'm getting at is that a question like "Is Eru God?" is vague and could in fact mean several different things. Some of those possible meanings will bear an affirmative answer (e.g. "Is Eru the God of Arda?"), some will bear a negative (e.g. "Is the presentation of Eru identical in every way to the presentation of God in the New Testament?"), and some will be debatable ("Is Eru fundamentally very similar to the God presented in the New Testament?").

This is what I'm getting at myself! If we assume that Eru = God then we can get into some real tangles of interpretation and most likely, not get anywhere.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

This suggest, dearie, that you was brung up Protestant, because in the Catholic pedagogic tradition, individual reading of The Bible was not the purview of each believer. There were other ways of learning faith and that was through the Church catechism.

I was, but with a gloomy and not entirely fully renounced Catholic grandmother who liked to make me read the Catechism. Again though, she'd have told me that God's Word was only in those texts approved by the Pope (Bible, prayer book, catechism). And believe me, I'd hear some squabbles between her and one of her sisters about this and that from the Bible (usually to do with what it said about gambling ), so they didn't leave it all up to the Priest to decide what it meant.

[littlemanpoet]

Boring but Necessary Preliminaries (feel free to skip):
The Question: "Does this text adequately reflect that which Christians understand about reality"?

• Pity stays Bilbo; Bilbo is the passive receptor of Pity. What is the source of this Pity?
• Bilbo is not in control of his own will; it takes Gandalf's will overpowering Bilbo's, for the hobbit to begin to come to his senses.
• That Gandalf is powerful and good; we have as yet no indication where his power comes
• Bilbo calls the Ring his own: he claims possession. This is a critical point, and we shall see (or already know) how it compares to Frodo and Sam.

Exhibit #3: Bilbo Surrenders the Ring

I won't quote this section at length; it is that section in chapter one that starts with "You have still got the Ring in your pocket", and ends with "Well that's that."

1. Bilbo is at this point trying to cooperate, but he needs Gandalf to guide him through the most basic steps in regard to the Ring. Bilbo is not being difficult (at least not on purpose) anymore. Either the Ring's power is causing him to forget that he has it in his pocket, or a long habit of possession holds sway; whichever the case, Bilbo's stated choice to give up the Ring to Frodo is quickly compromised.

2. Bilbo uses what seems now to him to be the wise course, to turn over the responsibility for the Ring to Gandalf; but he refuses it, knowing full well what a danger the Ring is in his hands (even if we only guess this as of yet). He directs Bilbo to leave it on the mantelpiece for Frodo.

3. This next sequence is telling.

• Bilbo tries to set the envelope on the mantelpiece but his hand jerks back against his will. What will is overpowering his own? Surely not Gandalf's. It is the Ring: if the Ring can get out of Hobbiton in Bilbo's possession, it will not be long before it has betrayed Bilbo into the unmercies of Sauron.
• Rather than remain in Bilbo's hand, the packet falls to the floor. What has happened? Is this Bilbo's will trying to let go versus the Ring trying to stay in his hand, resulting in the accidental drop? Or is there another force (other than gravity) at work, causing Bilbo's clutch to loosen? If so, is it Gandalf? The actions of Gandalf as described up to this point do not indicate it. Perhaps there is another force? The text doesn't clarify it if there is. Whatever the case, it appears that chance, "if chance you call it", leads to another chance.
• In a quick motion Gandalf picks up the packet and sets it on the mantelpiece in a gesture so decisive that his purpose in regard to it is clear: he wants nothing to do direclty with it.

4. Bilbo's complex reaction to this quick sequence deserves a study unto itself.

• First comes a spasm of anger: something has happened that Bilbo doesn't want to have happened. What is it? That the Ring is on the mantelpiece instead of in his hand? That Gandalf has taken the situation out of his hands? Maybe both; we are not told for sure.
• Second, Bilbo exhibits relief and laughter. So immediate! What has happened in this millisecond of time? The Ring has been taken out of his possession, and just as critically, he has been freed from possession by the Ring. Just moments before, Bilbo apparently had enough of himself still free from the Ring's domination so that he could want what was right and best, to give the Ring to Frodo. Now that it has been achieved - with much help, cajoling, and direct force of will from Gandalf - Bilbo is free. Finally free, he is able to laugh. His concluding words say it all: "that's that"; a phrase synonymous with "it is finished", but said at a hobbit level.

Conclusions: It is critical that we recognize and acknowledge that Bilbo being freed from the Ring, is, here again, a passive event. Gandalf had to free him; he couldn't do it on his own. Once freed, Bilbo is finally happy again, ready and quite relieved to leave the Ring behind. Bilbo is finally himself again.

[littlemanpoet]

Exhibit #4: Frodo is Seen

While Gandalf is gone for the most part of the next seventeen years, Frodo is seen. Just once he is "fingering something in his pocket" when Lobelia Sackville-Baggins is about. He is not recorded as becoming invisible. We do not read that Frodo uses the Ring or is not seen where he is expected to be seen.

This implies that Frodo heeds Gandalf's advice and shows wisdom. What's more, he behaves in a very unhobbit-like manner, constantly wandering about the Shire's wilds and talking with Dwarves and Elves when he gets a chance. This makes him a bad hobbit, maybe, but not a bad person.

The point is, he remains free from the Ring. Lack of use results in lack of addiction, and therefore the Ring holds little if any sway over him. His heart is his own. He stewards the Ring and does not possess it. This is critical.

Tolkien does not specifically use the word "steward" in this part of the story, but what he does say indicates that Frodo is not behaving like a possessor of the Ring. The only alternative, short of dropping it on the side of the road, is stewardship. This word and theme will come back often in the story; it is an important element. Frodo stewards the Ring, which places him in an appropriate relationship to a thing. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Frodo's heart is not with the Ring, but with the Shire.

The Ring's power does leave him well-preserved, but that may be the effect of having it near. The important thing is that Frodo is not under the Ring's influence, and that is a very good thing, especially considering what Gandalf has to tell him soon.

I would like to thank the people who contributed to this thread so intensely & helped to achieve so many views & viewers.

[littlemanpoet]

Uh, I have more 'exhibits', but it seems the call for them has died down. Anyway....