The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I think that its a dangerous business to try and pin down theological theories on Eru, the Valar and anything the legendarium, really. People tend to forget that Tolkien was not a Bible scholar* and so it would be unfair to try and fit a lot of theological ideas into his legends.

Tolkien's Illuvatar may well have his roots in many legends as well as the Biblical accounts, as davem has pointed out he had a similar name to Odin from Norse. Tolkien's expertise were in language and legends and we can't expect him to have all the answers to all the most difficult questions of life the universe and everything. The fall of Numenor, then, may be derived from the Atlantis legend which does include an arrogant people plotting war against the gods and so some harsh punishment had to be dealt out.

To say that Tolkien's Eru is some how a picture of his beliefs of God is a dangerous thing to do because here we have Eru placed in a legend that had nothing to do with the Jewish God and so to pin ideas of 'God is a meanie' or 'The Numenorians had every right to do such and such' is not a good road. If we want to find out the motives behind Eru or the Numenorians it might be better to look into the Atlantis legend and see what it says about it. I don't think that Tolkien's personal beliefs came into it and I think he just wanted to tell a story here. It would be like looking at the killing of Balder by the trickery of Loki and then asking a Jew or Christian, "Why would your God allow that?"

At least, that's what I thought anyway...

*Okay, neither was C.S. Lewis who seemed to get his head around complex theologies, but that's not my point... so... ignore that fact.

[Lalwendë]

Exactly!

There is the distinct danger too that if one person strongly associates Eru with God (their God) then when someone comes along and criticises or puts an alternate view it is sometimes seen as Blasphemy! (the ! is important) and they will be Offended. But people have every right to question a character in a book, no matter what anyone else associates with it.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

There is the distinct danger too that if one person strongly associates Eru with God (their God) then when someone comes along and criticises or puts an alternate view it is sometimes seen as Blasphemy! (the ! is important) and they will be Offended. But people have every right to question a character in a book, no matter what anyone else associates with it.

There is always a temptation to read more into that which one likes well than that which the author intended. Perhaps it's inevitable. It's not necessarily a bad thing if the reader is aware of it.

It's a separate issue however to propound an alternate view compared to the stated nature of a character. In the case of Eru, part of that nature is transcendance and monotheistic deity. Quite simply, that is how Tolkien describes Eru. Therefore, the characteristics of a transcendant monotheistic deity adhere to this character. That there are many similarities to the Judao-Christian God comes therefore as no surprise. However, there are differences, and those are well worth studying .... so long as they really are there rather than being unexamined constructs (and opinions) of our own minds that we bring to the topic.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That there are many similarities to the Judao-Christian God comes therefore as no surprise.

Which would include wiping out mankind in the Flood, and nuking Sodom and Gomorrah, and directing the Israelites to commit genocidal massacres.... So why is the Akallabeth so different?