The Lord of the Bible?

[davem]

Or we could just read & enjoy the story as a story, stop trying to second guess, impose meanings, foist our own belief systems on the work & generally try & make it serve our own purposes…

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by davem

Or we could just read & enjoy the story as a story, stop trying to second guess, impose meanings, foist our own belief systems on the work & generally try & make it serve our own purposes…

I'm inclined to agree here with Mr Dave. Reading Tolkien's forward alone tells us that looking for deeper meanings or messages wasn't the intension in creating the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion, but merely to create a history for his languages and an entertaining story.

It is folly, I think, to assume that Tolkien had any ulterior motive. Perhaps there are hints towards Christ. Perhaps there are some similarities. Who can say? I think that trying to look too deeply down this road can lead to us walking in circles for a long while.

I will not deny that there are some Characters that have some kind of Christ like attributions. Just as Christians are supposed to show forth Christ like behaviour (the term Christian being, of course, an insult to the early church meaning 'Christ like' to describe the behaviour of the early church) this was probably a little more common in Tolkien's day than today and would not have been regarded as anything unusual.

You could look at it a different and more ambiguous way... The Bible says that "God is Good" so, when in a book there is a character who does something good do you say they are an allegory for God? Personally, I wouldn't.
But... hay ho... I don't know...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Squatter

davem: as for Tolkien's comments on the Paternoster being reflected in the scene at the Sammath Naur, Frodo has forgiven the trespasses of another (Gollum), hence he does not suffer the full penalty for his own failure: Frodo is shown mercy just as he in turn showed mercy to Gollum, which seems a fair interpretation of those lines. Admittedly I doubt that was at the forefront of Tolkien's mind as he wrote the scene.

Well I'm quite familiar with Christianity & those particular lines never sprung to my mind when I was reading it. I can see they may have been in Tolkiens – either at the time of writing or later when he came to analyse them. However from a reading of LotR alone there is no sense that Eru has intervened to 'save' (ie forgive) Frodo, nor to 'damn' Gollum. The whole episode can be read as a working out of wyrd or just a simple fluke. Even when one knows about Eru there is no reason to bring in the Lord's Prayer as an explanation ( a reduction of a supremely powerful episode to a platitude imo), as there is little evidence in the text that Eru is exactly the same deity with the same values & patterns of behaviour as Jehovah. Seeing Eru as Jehovah is another imposition of Christianity on the story. Tolkien may not have distinguished between them (he probably did not) but from the text itself I don't see enough evidence to support the identification.

[Boromir88]

It's actually essential to have the critic in the corner who is separate from the main thrust of discussion if there's to be any hope of finding more than merely subjective guesses. All Books threads apart from mirth and RPG type ones will have a little critical pixie or two to pop up throughout and argue the opposite. That's part of the fun.~Lalwende

Well what would be more fun is everyone just agreeing with me.

I think we all must distinguish between Tolkien the omniscient narrator, Tolkien the recorder, and Tolkien the observer. All of which we can get a good dose of (especially in Letters). Of course lmp, I would bet that Tolkien knows his works better than anyone else would. When he is making these allegories to the 'Lord's Prayer,' or there is one instant when he thinks the Numenoreans are most like the Egyptians, it's important to realize that often times he's taking a step back from the story and reflecting upon his own experiences when reading. So, it's only natural that a man such as Tolkien I think would make a connection the the Lord's Prayer as he did.

I didn't see that, and I probably would have never noticed that connection until someone told me:

Tolkien may not have distinguished between them (he probably did not) but from the text itself I don't see enough evidence to support the identification.~davem

And that's the key, when Tolkien goes back he himself, because of the person he is and what influenced him, may be able to find allegories of the Lord's Prayer. But, someone like me when reading the scene in Mount Doom, I thought nothing of it. I think it's important that Tolkien all the way up there in his late ages stressed the importance of the reader:

Of course the L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and must now go its appointed way in the world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its fortunes , as a person would of a child.~Letter # 328

So, lmp, this is no knock to Tolkien, but what he thought of, what he found for his own 'allegories' really doesn't effect what I find and what I experience when reading his books.

[littlemanpoet]

One reader's platitude may be another's way of life. That it is a mere platitude for one does in no wise lessen its centrality for the other.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

One reader's platitude may be another's way of life. That it is a mere platitude for one does in no wise lessen its centrality for the other.

I suppose that means its all subjective then, a matter of opinion?

[The Only Real Estel]

First off, I very much like your 'cloud castle' analogy, davem, because it was imaginative.

Second off, I want to make a few comments on it.

Going on the assumption that by 'castles' you mean Christianity & by 'cloud' you mean LotR, which is correct unless I am sadly mistaken:

Originally Posted by davem

Ok. You look at a particularly impressive cloud formation & 'see' a castle. That's fine. However, if you then go on to claim there is something specifically 'castle-like' about that cloud, that it is necessary to know about castles in order to understand/appreciate that cloud...

I totally agree. However I don't think anyone is saying that it is necessary to know about Christianity to appreciate The Lord of the Rings. That would be utterly ridiculous. Even in a so clearly allegorical tale as The Chronicles of Narnia the reader doesn't need to know a thing about Christianity/Catholicism to appreciate the story. Would the reader appreciate it more if he did? Possibly. That lies in the individuality of the reader.

Originally Posted by davem

...that that cloud can tell you anything about castles, or that only someone with a knowledge of castles can understand what that cloud really is I will argue with you, because I think we would no longer be dealing with a matter of personal opinion but a wrong opinion (& frankly a silly opinion).

Again, I don't think anyone is saying that LotR can tell you about Christianity (or any other religion for that matter). And certainly no one is saying you must have knowledge of Christianity/Catholicism to understand the books!

Originally Posted by davem

To claim that only someone who believes that cloud castles are a real possibility has any valid opinion on clouds is not logical

Or to rephrase it (according to your own comparison: "To claim that only someone who believes that cloud castles (Christian themes in Tolkien) are a real possibility has any valid opinion on clouds (The Lord of the Rings) is not logical." Now I have no idea if that's the course you originally meant your comparison to go or not but I have to say I completely disagree with that.

Originally Posted by davem

to think that believing in cloud castles means you will have a deeper experience of that cloud than someone who doesn't believe in them is a bit smug (as well as wrong).

I don't think people finding 'Christian themes' in Tolkien's work & so insisting they have a deeper experience of the books than you is really the issue here - because I don't think that's even remotely a problem. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Originally Posted by davem

I'm sure he believed (ie convinced himself ) they were. Which means nothing as far as the works themselves are concerned. They are certainly 'vaguely Christian' but they are also 'vaguely' many other things.

Certainly! Is Christianity the only vague theme in Tolkien's book? Of course not. Forbid it if anyone should try to say that. But it was my understanding that at least this thread was created to talk about the 'vaguely Christian' them of the books. I have no problem with that as long as parallels aren't being wildly drawn with no regard to discuss brought against it.

Originally Posted by davem

Or we could just read & enjoy the story as a story, stop trying to second guess, impose meanings, foist our own belief systems on the work & generally try & make it serve our own purposes…

*Raise your hand if you don't enjoy the story as a story*

Alright now *raise your hand if you've spent hours pouring over the text trying to pick out meaning & parallels, twisting everything in sight to make it 'serve your own purposes.'*

Are there those that might do that? Are there those Christians that you remarked about that try too hard to find things in the book 'just to get us all back in church?' Probably so. That's unfortunate, but like you said that will happen in many different circles (WWII, atom bomb, etc.). Discussing possible Christian themes is not equal to the charges you levied in that statement, davem.

However as long as the discussion here doesn't venture off into ridiculous twisting or using the thread to evangelize I don't see what the worry is. Christianity was not the theme of the books, but it is at least arguable that it can be found (without too much trouble) in the books.

And discussing things you've found (or think you've found) in the books is not in place of enjoying them it is a part of enjoying them.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Only Real Estel

However as long as the discussion here doesn't venture off into ridiculous twisting or using the thread to evangelize I don't see what the worry is. Christianity was not the theme of the books, but it is at least arguable that it can be found (without too much trouble) in the books.

And discussing things you've found (or think you've found) in the books is not in place of enjoying them it is a part of enjoying them.

I'm sure anyone could find anything they wanted in LotR - but that's not to say its actually in there. Tolkien 'admits' to two specifically 'Christian' additions - the dates of the leaving of Rivendell (Dec 25th) & the Fall of Barad Dur (Mar 25th - the old date of Good Friday). However, a pagan could argue they are 'pagan' dates (Winter Solstice & Spring Equinox). For a general reader though they are merely the dates when the Fellowship left Rivendell & the date when the One went into the Fire & have no primary world connections.

The point is Christian readers of LotR keep coming back to the 'Christian' themes of LotR, & I think that behind that there is a desire to claim Tolkien & LotR as 'one of us', that there are things in the Legendarium which have a special significance to them alone, & that therefore an extra dimension is added to the work which is only accessible to them.

My point is that this is not (objectively) true. Each reader finds in the book something which resonates with them.

More importantly there are readers (Christians & others) who put forward their claims as 'facts' - they are not saying 'This character reminds me of Jesus' but 'This character is a Christ figure'.

If you read through my posts you will see I've repeatedly stated I have no problem with the individual reader's right to 'apply' characters & events in any way they wish. Where I do have a problem is when they state these 'applications' as facts about the story. As I said, this is to allegorise, to place the story in service of something else & thereby to denigrate it to an echo of something else. It is an argument about the nature of Art itself.

I can't see how applying Biblical figures & stories will deepen one's understanding of the story qua story, or of the individual's faith. What it will do, it seems to me, is blur the lines between the two & reduce both. But that's just me.

If you read LotR & think of Aragorn as a Christ figure you will risk missing the aspects of Aragorn's character which do not correspond to Christ. Same applies to Frodo or Gandalf or Elrond. They are not Christ figures (which Tolkien clearly stated). Morgoth's story (as Squatter mentioned earlier) may be close to the Biblical story of Satan, but Sauron's is not, hence the struggle between Aragorn & Sauron is not applicable to the struggle between Christ & Satan. The danger is that a reader who approaches the story as a 'Christian' story starts to 'fill in the gaps' & makes the story something it is not, makes it mean something it does not mean. Why is that a 'danger'? Because we then get the wholly erronious idea that LotR is a Christian allegory simply accepted without question by some readers. To me this is as unnacceptable as the idea that it is a racist work, or an allegory of WWII.

LotR is what it is. Your personal interpretation of it is something else. The two things are, & must be, different. I'm tired of various groups out there claiming the book & its author for their own. Whether Christians, pagans, racists, or accademic 'experts'.

Finally, I've seen no evidence for this 'Christian' interpretation of LotR that stands up at all.

Plus, I enjoy the debate (it will be noticed by some posters on this thread that the rep I have handed out in this debate has all been to those who have opposed me with good arguments...)

[The Only Real Estel]

Originally Posted by davem

The point is Christian readers of LotR keep coming back to the 'Christian' themes of LotR, & I think that behind that there is a desire to claim Tolkien & LotR as 'one of us', that there are things in the Legendarium which have a special significance to them alone, & that therefore an extra dimension is added to the work which is only accessible to them.

LotR is what it is. Your personal interpretation of it is something else. The two things are, & must be, different. I'm tired of various groups out there claiming the book & its author for their own. Whether Christians, pagans, racists, or accademic 'experts'.

I'm sure some readers do go at it from that point of view. I personally have never had an experience with a Christian Tolkien fan who tried to claim the books as works of Christianity or anything remotely like that, but that certainly doesn't mean that no one has ever done that. Most of the Christian Tolkien fans I know seem quite content to discuss 'possible connections' that they see without trying to attach too much to it.

But you're quite right that "every reader finds something which resonates with them." Therefore, a Christian reader might very well 'find' something that someone else would not. That doesn't mean that he's making it up or stretching for it, but neither does it mean that Tolkien specifically intended the connection or parallel or whatever you wish to call it.

Of course some people will put their opinion of what Tolkien intended forward as fact - but I don't think that 'Downers have had a whole lot of trouble with that on this particular topic (fortunately).

Originally Posted by davem

The danger is that a reader who approaches the story as a 'Christian' story starts to 'fill in the gaps' & makes the story something it is not, makes it mean something it does not mean. Why is that a 'danger'? Because we then get the wholly erronious idea that LotR is a Christian allegory simply accepted without question by some readers. To me this is as unnacceptable as the idea that it is a racist work, or an allegory of WWII.

Very true. That is a real danger & a bit of a difficult thing to avoid because it's easy to slip into the "fill in the gaps" mode you mention. Again, I think this can be avoided if you take 'Rings' as 'Rings' - any parallels (of any kind) that might be discussed should be matters of opinion. Support those with what you can, but it's very difficult to actually say "I think Tolkien meant..."

Originally Posted by davem

Finally, I've seen no evidence for this 'Christian' interpretation of LotR that stands up at all.

I typically just watch these discussions because I think Tolkien did a good job of not making any one thing possible to draw parallels to. As Hookbill said, there are some "Christ-like" characters, but none of them are indeed "Christ." The closest connection I see is indeed Morgoth=Satan, as Squatter brought up, in fact that might be the only one that I would argue much.

But it's still fun to discuss similarities of other characters to things in the Bible, just like it'd be fun for me to discuss similarities of the characters to any other thing I am familiar with.

Originally Posted by davem

Plus, I enjoy the debate

Can't argue with that. The only thing is I don't want to commandeer a thread...it's difficult to tell whether this discussion is getting too far off the original topic or not. :/

Originally Posted by davem

I'm sure anyone could find anything they wanted in LotR - but that's not to say its actually in there. Tolkien 'admits' to two specifically 'Christian' additions - the dates of the leaving of Rivendell (Dec 25th) & the Fall of Barad Dur (Mar 25th - the old date of Good Friday). However, a pagan could argue they are 'pagan' dates (Winter Solstice & Spring Equinox). For a general reader though they are merely the dates when the Fellowship left Rivendell & the date when the One went into the Fire & have no primary world connections.

The point is Christian readers of LotR keep coming back to the 'Christian' themes of LotR, & I think that behind that there is a desire to claim Tolkien & LotR as 'one of us', that there are things in the Legendarium which have a special significance to them alone, & that therefore an extra dimension is added to the work which is only accessible to them.

My point is that this is not (objectively) true. Each reader finds in the book something which resonates with them.

More importantly there are readers (Christians & others) who put forward their claims as 'facts' - they are not saying 'This character reminds me of Jesus' but 'This character is a Christ figure'.

If you read through my posts you will see I've repeatedly stated I have no problem with the individual reader's right to 'apply' characters & events in any way they wish. Where I do have a problem is when they state these 'applications' as facts about the story. As I said, this is to allegorise, to place the story in service of something else & thereby to denigrate it to an echo of something else. It is an argument about the nature of Art itself.

I can't see how applying Biblical figures & stories will deepen one's understanding of the story qua story, or of the individual's faith. What it will do, it seems to me, is blur the lines between the two & reduce both. But that's just me.

If you read LotR & think of Aragorn as a Christ figure you will risk missing the aspects of Aragorn's character which do not correspond to Christ. Same applies to Frodo or Gandalf or Elrond. They are not Christ figures (which Tolkien clearly stated). Morgoth's story (as Squatter mentioned earlier) may be close to the Biblical story of Satan, but Sauron's is not, hence the struggle between Aragorn & Sauron is not applicable to the struggle between Christ & Satan. The danger is that a reader who approaches the story as a 'Christian' story starts to 'fill in the gaps' & makes the story something it is not, makes it mean something it does not mean. Why is that a 'danger'? Because we then get the wholly erronious idea that LotR is a Christian allegory simply accepted without question by some readers. To me this is as unnacceptable as the idea that it is a racist work, or an allegory of WWII.

LotR is what it is. Your personal interpretation of it is something else. The two things are, & must be, different. I'm tired of various groups out there claiming the book & its author for their own. Whether Christians, pagans, racists, or accademic 'experts'.

Finally, I've seen no evidence for this 'Christian' interpretation of LotR that stands up at all.

Plus, I enjoy the debate (it will be noticed by some posters on this thread that the rep I have handed out in this debate has all been to those who have opposed me with good arguments...)

The point of the thread was really to stimulate discussion by comparing & contrasting two great & inspirational texts, drawing parallels where possible in order to understand characters in the LOTR better. Maybe I used the word ''steal'' to such an effect that it decieved you. I was never attempting to say that Tolkein used the Bible as his main purpose for the LOTR, but that there are similarities that can be made between them, even if Tolkein himself didn't intend for that to be the case.

There are other examples of this which spring to mind, for instance I found a lot of connections between The Speckled Band & An Inspector Calls, but who can prove that one author used the work of the other?. One could easily have compared those stories with the LOTR (although that may seem daunting at first), though they are not the subject of discussion here.

[Macalaure]

I was just writing about the same that Boro just did, so I'm making this short.

It is understood that Tolkien disliked allegory and looks for applicability.
In this light, Tolkien's interpretation of his scene at Sammath Naur is the way he applies the scene to himself. This does not mean that his interpretation is the only valid one. If it was, it would get us dangerously close to allegory.

The parallel between the scene and the Lord's prayer has never occurred to me before, but now that it is mentioned and explained, I see it. Very nice, though I still don't like the idea of divine intervention causing Gollum's death.

However, this is just Tolkien's application, not an imposed and uncontestable explanation, and noboby is forced to follow it. Edit: To say this view reduces the scene is a little hard, in my mind.

[Anguirel]

To skip back along way to Lalwende's quest for the Miltonic Satan in Tolkien-whom she found closest to Saruman-the character that leapt to mind for me was Galadriel.

Certainly Galadriel and Saruman, for all their enmity, have much in common. Indeed, I always thought their mutual loathing came from recognition of a kindred spirit; Galadriel liked Gandalf because he was a good deal more straightforward than she, and so reassuring. Maybe.

Saruman tempts for his own evil purposes. Fair enough. Galadriel is odder in that she tempts for the greater good. I am vaguely reminded of Gnostic and Cathar heresies, and the so called Gospel of Judas, which hinted that Satan/Judas was consciously fulfilling God's will in their treachery. A bit like certain theories I've seen about Melkor.

Galadriel fits more swiftly than Saruman for me because she is physically as well as mentally tempting. I get a kind of image of the Massolino fresco of the Serpent with the head of a golden-haired woman...

[Macalaure]

Indeed, I always thought their mutual loathing came from recognition of a kindred spirit;

Interesting. I always thought that Galadriel's loathing for Feanor had the exact same origin. Only that it wasn't mutual and Feanor seemingly was looking for a like mind in the beginning. When rejected, he leaves Galadriel back in Araman like everybody else.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

I'm inclined to agree here with Mr Dave. Reading Tolkien's forward alone tells us that looking for deeper meanings or messages wasn't the intension in creating the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion, but merely to create a history for his languages and an entertaining story.

It is folly, I think, to assume that Tolkien had any ulterior motive. Perhaps there are hints towards Christ. Perhaps there are some similarities. Who can say? I think that trying to look too deeply down this road can lead to us walking in circles for a long while.

Listen to what Hookbill says, he's speaking sense!

Tolkien told us that LotR was not an allegory. Therefore we can find all the metaphors we like in x y or z character or situation, but he didn't intend it that way. So if we do find these metaphors or symbols or whatever, we're not necessarily getting closer to understanding the text as intended, only our own response to it. It's intellectual navel gazing - loadsa fun but then someone might well come along and ask us what the hell we're looking at.

Temper this with the knowledge that Tolkien was indeed a Christian, in fact a devout Catholic, a very particular type of Christian. So of course put together with the other 1,001 influences on his mind, his faith would influence his work. I've just been talking about Catholicism/Gothic elsewhere.

I think the key point is that LotR has a Christian spirit; note that this 'spirit' is not an exclusively Christian one - how could it be for people of so many faiths (and none) to all join in enjoying this book? So it can't be co-opted by one group of society - sorry if anyone was planning on doing that - not that you were.

The book's a good one for Christians as of course some of the themes support a lot of Christian tenets (but do they all??? Now there's a discussion), but it also supports non-Christian ones too. And that is a very good thing as far as I'm concerned, and only further demonstrates Tolkien's sense of humanity