The Lord of the Bible?

[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. :/

[davem]

Of course, another danger in taking such a single minded approach to interpretation is that one misses or misinterprets events in the story which can't be explained from that angle of approach. How many readers pick up on the references to Northern myth & legend (for instance the way Bilbo passes Sting onto Frodo in his room in Rivendell by driving it into a wooden pillar is a direct 'echo' of an incident in the Volsungasaga). Such 'echoes' of Northern myth are far more significant & indisputable than the Christian ones - which are vague & general at best. I suspect they were also more important in Tolkien's mind as far as the actual storyline & events were concerned.

But all this is secondary. For the story to work it has to be self contained & not dependent on externals. The events must follow logically one from another, not simply be inserted to make a point, or illustrate a religious ideal. When they do this they are taken out of their original context & that context left behind. Tolkien may have chosen Dec 25th & Mar 25th for their Christian significance, but within the world of the story they actually take on a different significance & bear no relation to their original source. As soon as you see in Appendix B that the Fellowship set off on 'Christmas Day' you are in danger of finding yourself in another 'story' & out of Middle-earth. Tolkien disliked the Arthurian legends for their mixture of Christian & Pagan things. Here he was in danger of perpetrating the same mistake.

There have been numerous books & articles recently by Christians which focus exclusively on the Biblical themes & characters, & attempt to claim the story for the Church. The truth, however, is that Tolkien was inspired by many sources, & possibly least by the Bible in terms of actual events & individuals out of them. I note that he spent a great deal of effort in the Letters attempting to 'prove' the work's orthodoxy - many of his Christian correspondents challenged him on that point. Many of his replies show him pushing the boundaries of 'interpretation' of his work virtually to breaking point, seemingly inventing motives & background on the spot.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Only Real Estel

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. :/

Indeed. Christian Tolkien fans are not the only ones who ride hobby horses hard.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Indeed. Christian Tolkien fans are not the only ones who ride hobby horses hard.

I wonder if this thread would have reached 86 posts & nearly a thousand viewings otherwise...

(I would also point fans of my 'equine tendencies' to my own Spun Candy thread & ask them to check out the number of posts & views there & ask them to recall the doldrums we were going through recently...)

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I wonder if this thread would have reached 86 posts & nearly a thousand viewings otherwise...

It's amazing isn't it how quickly the delight in the critical pixies makes ambulance chasers of us Downers, eh?

[The Only Real Estel]

Well I guess what it really comes down to then, davem, is that you are asserting that there are Christians out there who want to search Tolkien’s book for Christian-like themes so they can claim The Lord of the Rings “as their own” as you put it. I concede this. It is very likely that that isn’t just your perception of it, that there are actually those that are attempting that. It’s likely true because many circles of life are attempting to do that, as you’ve pointed out.

I am asserting that there is nothing that could even be considered remotely ‘wrong’ or out of place about discussing and debating possible parallels between Tolkien's great work and Christianity that fellow ‘Downers have discovered. As long as it is not trying to reduce it to a religious work (& it hasn’t been to this date) or have Tolkien’s motives dictated for him based solely on opinion then it’s simply individual readers discussing their individual interpretations.

Of course I’m not saying that interpretations should be offered and then shielded “because that’s just my interpretation of it and you can’t take that from me!”

They should still be debated...it’s just that it should be the interpretation, connection, or parallel that’s being debated and not a reader’s right to draw such.

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.

[davem]

Sounds fine but I notice no-one's actually come up with any direct correspondences that work. All the suggestions so far (Elrond or Gandalf or Frodo is a 'Christ figure' all seem to have been rejected. Morgoth's story is a 'bit like' the story of Satan, etc).

The general feeling seems to be that some people are vaguely reminded of Biblical figures/stories.

Where are the specifics?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

Where are the specifics?

Thus far it's been fun simply to antagonize you. The specifics will come when I have free time to think about it. As for anybody else's specifics... you'll have to wait for their responses.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Thus far it's been fun simply to antagonize you. The specifics will come when I have free time to think about it. As for anybody else's specifics... you'll have to wait for their responses.

So in other words you have abolutely nothing to back up your position as yet? It seems that the 'pro-Christian interpretation' lobby are demanding the right to do something they cannot actually do. Bit like demanding the right to turn lead into gold or fly to the moon on a bicycle....

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

Bit like demanding the right to turn lead into gold or fly to the moon on a bicycle....

If it's possible, should it be forbidden to ride your bike to the moon? Surely not. If it's impossible, why are the con-lobbyists at all worried?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

If it's possible, should it be forbidden to ride your bike to the moon? Surely not. If it's impossible, why are the con-lobbyists at all worried?

Who's worried? After all your demands to be allowed to do it we just want to see what kind of job you make of it.

You seem to spend a great deal of time demanding to be allowed to do it & not actually doing very much is all...

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

So in other words you have abolutely nothing to back up your position as yet? It seems that the 'pro-Christian interpretation' lobby are demanding the right to do something they cannot actually do. Bit like demanding the right to turn lead into gold or fly to the moon on a bicycle....

Maybe reminiscing about what's been done in depth elsewhere.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Sounds fine but I notice no-one's actually come up with any direct correspondences that work. All the suggestions so far (Elrond or Gandalf or Frodo is a 'Christ figure' all seem to have been rejected. Morgoth's story is a 'bit like' the story of Satan, etc).

The general feeling seems to be that some people are vaguely reminded of Biblical figures/stories.

Where are the specifics?

He admitted to Galadriel being linked, to a certain degree, to Mary:

Originally Posted by Letter #320

I was particularly interested in your remarks about Galadriel. .... I think it is true that I owe much of this character to Christian and Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary, but actually Galadriel was a penitent: in her youth a leader in the rebellion against the Valar (the angelic guardians).

Earendil is linked more than etymologicaly to the concept of divine messenger:

Originally Posted by Notion Club Papers, HoME IX

Its earliest recorded A-S form is earendil (oer-), later earendel, eorendel. Mostly in glosses on jubar = leoma; also on aurora. But also in Blickling Homilies, se niwa eorendel applied to St John the Baptist; and most notably Crist, eala! earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard monnum sended. Often supposed to refer to Christ (or Mary), but comparison with Blickling Homilies suggests that it refers to the Baptist. The lines refer to a herald, and divine messenger, clearly not the sodfaesta sunnan leoma = Christ.

He calls Elendil "a Noachian figure" - and I think that the comparison is rather accurate, seeing that he saved the remnants of an entire culture from deluge. As far as the story of Melkor being "a bit" like that of his Bible counterpart, he did call his rebellion as satanic, and commented on Melkor being "the inevitable Rebel and self-worshipper of mythologies that begin with a transcendent unique Creator", or more directly,"the Diabolos of these tales".

All in all, I don't think he disliked the presence (and the detection) of christian elements in his works; he stated that "I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories)" and he called LotR a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work".

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

All in all, I don't think he disliked the presence (and the detection) of christian elements in his works; he stated that "I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories)" and he called LotR a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work".

Full quote goes thus:

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

So many people just include that first clause in discussions, but taken that way it loses its meaning. As Tolkien says above - he made the effort to cut out religious elements, leaving in only the most fundamental elements. The story itself - the battle of little people against big baddies - is the Christian element.

He was probably quite pleased when people wrote him letters saying "Oooh, such and such is like x biblical character", what with being Catholic and all. So no, he didn't dislike this. But the knots he ended up tying himself into over Galadriel at a later stage proved that some things, such as trying to 'build in' Mary Myth to his story weren't working; that whole struggle could even be why he never got round to finishing the Silmarillion, which began as a very pagan work, but which grew more and more thorny as he tried to 'Christianise' it.

[davem]

My own feeling is that once the 'Christian' elements have been absorbed into the story (assuming of course the 'absorption' is successful ) they lose any specific Christian aspect & become a part of the Secondary world. Hence, they are no longer 'Christian'. To the extent that they are still identifiably Christian they have not been properly absorbed & the Secondary world is not truly self contained.

[Raynor]

The story itself - the battle of little people against big baddies - is the Christian element.

Then again, what moves the battle to its happy ending is the Christian pitty, the one who saves Frodo and the world.

But the knots he ended up tying himself into over Galadriel at a later stage proved that some things, such as trying to 'build in' Mary Myth to his story weren't working; that whole struggle could even be why he never got round to finishing the Silmarillion, which began as a very pagan work, but which grew more and more thorny as he tried to 'Christianise' it.

I am not sure, to what problems of Galadriel are you reffering to? If you mean whether her staying in ME in the Third Age is self-choice or a valar ban, then this isn't related to our issue. As for the later part of your statement, I agree; what started initially subconsiously as Christian, he would later emboss in his work even more evidently, should he had had the time.

Originally Posted by davem

My own feeling is that once the 'Christian' elements have been absorbed into the story (assuming of course the 'absorption' is successful ) they lose any specific Christian aspect & become a part of the Secondary world. Hence, they are no longer 'Christian'. To the extent that they are still identifiably Christian they have not been properly absorbed & the Secondary world is not truly self contained.

We need to consider the fact that Tolkien tried _really_ hard to make his creation like our world. I mean, he try so hard that he almost destroyed his creation. This is true either concerning the phisical level:

Originally Posted by Myths Trasnformed, HoME X

It is at any rate clear, for he stated it unambiguously enough, that he had come to believe that the art of the 'Sub-creator' cannot, or should not attempt to, extend to the 'mythical' revelation of a conception of the shape of the Earth and the origin of the lights of heaven that runs counter to the known physical truths of his own days: 'You cannot do this any more'. And this opinion is rendered more complex and difficult of discussion by the rise in importance of the Eldarin 'loremasters' of Aman, whose intellectual attainments and knowledge must preclude any idea that a 'false' astronomy could have prevailed among them. It seems to me that he was devising – from within it – a fearful weapon against his own creation.

The "real" creation, at least to Tolkien, is religious, religious as in Christian. I doubt he would try to depict something which is bereft of what he thinks is the central part, i.e. the christian part of it - or to depict it in such a way that it was unrecognisable. To emphasize my point, I also reffer to perhaps the most famous qoute of Humphrey's biography:

Originally Posted by "He had been inside his language", Part Four, JRRT A biography

We have come from God (continued Tolkien), and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic ‘progress’ leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil.

His work evolved around mythmaking - which point to Truth. There is no doubt to my mind that he had but the deepest of respect for other religions, but the Truth, to him, is the one writen in the Gospels - the one he tried to convey, in his on way. After all, he did call the Gospels the greatest fairy story of them all...