The Lord of the Bible?

[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?").