Of another world

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

If Tolkien hadn't written the Athrabeth, or more precisely, if CT hadn't published it, we'd have no reason to believe that Men Fell at all. Of course, we can't ignore the Numenoreans. But they were a relatively small group, & there is no sense that the Rohirrim Fell, or the Dalemen, or even the Dunlendings.

Right....

So, we can take it then, that you believe that people can become evil, that they can do horrible things, live in cultures that do not respect life, limb, or the weak, and yet remain Unfallen?

Would you call the Dunlendings as generally seen, or Herumor, Fuinur, or any of their Black Númenorean-allied Haradrim, or the Witchking, or corrupt King Fengel of Rohan, or Dorlas of Tol-Brandir, or Ulfang and his kin, or the Master of Esgaroth as Unfallen?

Unfallen in Tolkien's world means the primordial state of the race, as intended by Eru. Evil, in any form, is a sign of a Fall, unless imposed from without. Any evil that comes from within a person is a sign of that person's fall, as well as the fall of his or her entire race. Fëanor's fall was his, and his alone, but all of the Exiles fell with him, even those who had no evil intent, such as Galadriel or Finrod.

I think it a very rash and opinionated statement to say that there would be no reason to believe that Men had Fallen without the Athrabeth.

[Lalaith]

Legolas, let me explain. What Mith meant is that you were wrong in stating that Catholics are "in some aspects a derivation of" Christianity. They are not in any way a "derivation". The Roman Catholic church is a Christian church, entirely and unequivocally, and one of the oldest Christian Churches in existence. Furthermore, it is the world's largest Christian Church, over half the world's Christians belong to it.


This is important to get straight, as this is a Tolkien site and Tolkien was a Catholic.

[Legolas in spandex]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Legolas, let me explain. What Mith meant is that you were wrong in stating that Catholics are "in some aspects a derivation of" Christianity. They are not in any way a "derivation". The Roman Catholic church is a Christian church, entirely and unequivocally, and one of the oldest Christian Churches in existence. Furthermore, it is the world's largest Christian Church, over half the world's Christians belong to it.


This is important to get straight, as this is a Tolkien site and Tolkien was a
Catholic.

Okay, thank you. I stand corrected.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legolas in spandex

And that falls under whether you believe wisdom and intelligence to be the same thing.

Noun 1. wisdom - accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment
cognitive content, mental object, content - the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned
abstrusity, profoundness, profundity, reconditeness, abstruseness - wisdom that is recondite and abstruse and profound; "the anthropologist was impressed by the reconditeness of the native proverbs"
2. wisdom - the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight
wiseness
trait - a distinguishing feature of your personal nature
judiciousness, sagaciousness, sagacity - the trait of forming opinions by distinguishing and evaluating
knowledgeability, knowledgeableness, initiation - wisdom as evidenced by the possession of knowledge; "his knowledgeability impressed me"; "his dullness was due to lack of initiation"
statecraft, statesmanship, diplomacy - wisdom in the management of public affairs
discernment, discretion - the trait of judging wisely and objectively; "a man of discernment"
folly, foolishness, unwiseness - the trait of acting stupidly or rashly
3. wisdom - ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight
sapience
astuteness, profoundness, profundity, depth - the intellectual ability to penetrate deeply into ideas
sagaciousness, sagacity, discernment, judgement, judgment - ability to make good judgments
know-how - the (technical) knowledge and skill required to do something
4. wisdom - the quality of being prudent and sensible
wiseness, soundness
goodness, good - that which is good or valuable or useful; "weigh the good against the bad"; "among the highest goods of all are happiness and self-realization"
advisability - the quality of being advisable; "they questioned the advisability of our policy"
reasonableness - goodness of reason and judgment; "the judiciary is built on the reasonableness of judges"

Originally Posted by Formendacil

So, we can take it then, that you believe that people can become evil, that they can do horrible things, live in cultures that do not respect life, limb, or the weak, and yet remain Unfallen?

Depends on your definition of 'Fallen', I suppose.

Would you call the Dunlendings as generally seen, or Herumor, Fuinur, or any of their Black Númenorean-allied Haradrim, or the Witchking, or corrupt King Fengel of Rohan, or Dorlas of Tol-Brandir, or Ulfang and his kin, or the Master of Esgaroth as Unfallen?

I think they can just be seen as people who do nasty, selfish things - which most people do now & then. If you're using 'Fallen' to mean simply unpleasant then you're leaving out the spiritual dimension - ie the Biblical requirement of a spiritual choice being made to reject God's will/commandments. There's no equivalent to that in the Legendarium.

Unfallen in Tolkien's world means the primordial state of the race, as intended by Eru. Evil, in any form, is a sign of a Fall, unless imposed from without. Any evil that comes from within a person is a sign of that person's fall, as well as the fall of his or her entire race. Fëanor's fall was his, and his alone, but all of the Exiles fell with him, even those who had no evil intent, such as Galadriel or Finrod.

Whether that was in Tolkien's mind is not the question. The question is whether the reader picks up on that - ie whether its specifically stated in the story, whether its necessary to hold that concept in mind in order to understand the story. Christians may explain the Primary world in terms of a Fall but most non Christians do not. In other words, just as the Fall of Man is not necessary in order to account for the Primary world, neither is it necessary in order to account for the Secondary one - you can bring the concept in if you wish, but you don't need it.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Now that's a very fine distinction. I'm not sure it holds up as in effect it means exactly the same thing as Jesus' words. Mithras says 'if you don't do X you won't be saved' Jesus says 'if you do X you will be saved'. Same thing as far as I can see.

He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.

This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. This cup is the new covenant of My blood, which is shed for you.

Mithras is setting a condition for salvation, essentially salvation by works. Jesus is not; he is offering himself as a gift to be received without condition other than acceptance of said gift.

Legolas errs, I think, in labeling intelligence as the cause of the Fall. The cause of the Fall was pride. Seeking forbidden knowledge in despite of the command was merely the particular act that was emblematic of the root of sin which was pride.

Originally Posted by davem

A clever theory, & one that liberated both Tolkien & Lewis to use Myth & fairystory in their subcreation, but one for which a great leap of faith is required, there being absolutely no evidence for it.

There's plenty of evidence for it. .... part of which you would call reading the myths backwards, but what I call reading them in the context of the Old and New Testaments. It doesn't matter if the myths predated the writing of these texts by millenia, because their author created the humans who subcreated the myths.

Originally Posted by davem

In short, the Legendarium is not a 'Christian' work at all

You haven't proven this assertion, and cannot.

In other words, just as the Fall of Man is not necessary in order to account for the Primary world, neither is it necessary in order to account for the Secondary one - you can bring the concept in if you wish, but you don't need it.

That depends upon whether one accepts Jesus' words that he is the resurrection and the life, that no one comes to the Father but by him. If he is speaking the truth with these words, than there must have been something from which we need saving. And Jesus was most certainly part of the Primary world.

Wisdom and intelligence are most certainly not the same thing.

[alatar]

To ride the fallen horse a bit longer, when we say fallen in regards to Christianity, we are talking about a decision that plunged the entire universe! into a completely different state. As an example, and I'm no theologian, but weren't preFall lions purportedly vegetarians?

In Genesis God declares His creation very Good, meaning that there is no stain, no decay (no entropy!), no ungood. When Adam and Eve fall, everything changes. And in making a mate for Adam, God provides him a companion. In Arda Elves can (though rarely) serve the same purpose.

As I stated posts ago, find please this Fall in Arda. You might have evil, compare Satan to Melkor, but Arda was already running amuck before humans showed up.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Mithras is setting a condition for salvation, essentially salvation by works. Jesus is not; he is offering himself as a gift to be received without condition other than acceptance of said gift.

Ok, now that's cleared up we can move on to Angels & pins....

Legolas errs, I think, in labeling intelligence as the cause of the Fall. The cause of the Fall was pride. Seeking forbidden knowledge in despite of the command was merely the particular act that was emblematic of the root of sin which was pride.

Well, telling a couple of innocent 'children' not to touch the big expensive vase on the mantlepiece & then going away & leaving them in the room with it is asking for trouble. Any parent knows exactly what their kids wold do in that instance, because kids are curious & always want to know 'what will happen if they do 'x'. The very intelligence they needed in order not to behave like children had been denied them, & the only way they could attain that level of intelligence was by doing the very thing they had been told not to do. Catch 22 or what?

]There's plenty of evidence for it. .... part of which you would call reading the myths backwards, but what I call reading them in the context of the Old and New Testaments. It doesn't matter if the myths predated the writing of these texts by millenia, because their author created the humans who subcreated the myths.

Sorry, but 'reading the myths backwards' is not 'evidence' - its just something you can do if you want. I can put on red tinted glasses & see everything coloured red, but that in no way constitutes 'evidence' that everything is red.

You haven't proven this assertion, and cannot.

It is certainly a work by a Christian, but there is nothing in the work which requires a knowledge of, or belief in, Christianity to make it understandable. To claim its a Christian work just because a Christian wrote it is equivalent to claiming that if a Christian kicks an old Coke can down the street its a Christian act because a Christian did it.

That depends upon whether one accepts Jesus' words that he is the resurrection and the life, that no one comes to the Father but by him. If he is speaking the truth with these words, than there must have been something from which we need saving. And Jesus was most certainly part of the Primary world.

Lot of qualifications there...

Wisdom and intelligence are most certainly not the same thing.

Of course they aren't - they're spelled differently for one thing....


Finally, in support of Alatar's point on the Fall I can only quote Tolkien's words:

I suppose a difference between this and what may be perhaps called Christian mythology is this. In the latter, the Fall of Man is subsequent to and a consequence (though not a necessary consequence) of the ‘Fall of the Angels’; a rebellion of created free will at a higher level than Man, but it is not clearly held (and in many versions not held at all) that this affected the ‘World’ in its nature: evil was brought in from outside, by Satan. In this [i.e. Tolkien’s own] Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the world (Ea); and Ea has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken. The Fall, or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. (Letters 286-87)

Flieger has commented:

Tolkien borrowed from the myths of northwestern Europe for the flavor of his stories, and much has been written about his debt to existing mythologies from Scandinavia to Sumer. Nevertheless, he wrote to father Robert Murray that The Lord of the Ringswas “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work” (Letters 172), and one might assume the legendarium as a whole would contradict that. Rather surprisingly, a quick comparison between the two reveals some fundamental differences, and not just on the level of doctrine or creed. Tolkien’s is a far darker world than that envisioned by Christianity, and falls short of the promise and the hope that the older story holds out. Unlike the Judaeo-Christian mythos with which it is so often compared, and which tells of a world fallen through human willfulness and saved by sacrifice, Tolkien’s mythos as a whole begins with a fall long before humanity comes on the scene. Thus original sin (if one may borrow that term) enters the world in the very process of its coming to be, when the melodic theme that is the metaphor for creation is distorted by the clamorous and discordant counter-theme of the rebel demiurge Melkor. The resultant Music sets the tone for all that is to follow. The supreme godhead, Eru/Il uvatar, who both proposes the theme and conducts the Music, is neither the Judaic God of Hosts who alternately punishes and rewards his people, nor the traditional Christian God of love and forgiveness. Rather, he is a curiously remote and for the most part inactive figure, uninvolved, with the exception of one cataclysmic moment, in the world he has conceived. The lesser demiurgic powers, the Valar, have only partial comprehension of the world they have helped to make. The primary heroes, the Elves, are gifted beings caught in a web of pride, power, and deceit—largely of their own weaving—that hampers and constrains every effort they make to get free of it. The secondary heroes, Men, are courageous but shortsighted blunderers with but little sense of history and even less comprehension of their place in the larger scheme of things.

Flieger 'A Cautionary Tale

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, telling a couple of innocent 'children' not to touch the big expensive vase on the mantlepiece & then going away & leaving them in the room with it is asking for trouble. Any parent knows exactly what their kids wold do in that instance, because kids are curious & always want to know 'what will happen if they do 'x'. The very intelligence they needed in order not to behave like children had been denied them, & the only way they could attain that level of intelligence was by doing the very thing they had been told not to do. Catch 22 or what?

You seem to have missed the point. It wasn't about intelligence, nor knowledge, nor curiosity; those were just the "accidents". It was pride, not curiosity, that was the motivator for Adam-she to pick the fruit and give it to Adam-he, both eating. Adam-they had experienced the surpassing wonder of sharing their evenings with the One who had made them and gave them all their meaning. They chose to throw that away in exchange for the promise of a questionable assertion from a serpent, whose words were directly contrary to those of the One they knew and loved and trusted. Why would anyone do such a thing? Pride. I could go on but I imagine that would only irritate some of you further.

Sorry, but 'reading the myths backwards' is not 'evidence'

By itself, no. You are quite correct. But I'm not going to offer the evidence here as it doesn't pertain to this thread, nor do I detect any interest.

It is certainly a work by a Christian, but there is nothing in the work which requires a knowledge of, or belief in, Christianity to make it understandable. To claim its a Christian work just because a Christian wrote it is equivalent to claiming that if a Christian kicks an old Coke can down the street its a Christian act because a Christian did it.

Nor would I make hay of such petty issues. The particular Christian author of whom we speak, himself said that his revision of LotR was consciously Christian. To call his statement into question requires little effort, but to prove it requires either unquestionable logic or an undeniable demonstration.

alatar, well said. You've shown me something I had not seen before.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

You seem to have missed the point. It wasn't about intelligence, nor knowledge, nor curiosity; those were just the "accidents". It was pride, not curiosity, that was the motivator for Adam-she to pick the fruit and give it to Adam-he, both eating. Adam-they had experienced the surpassing wonder of sharing their evenings with the One who had made them and gave them all their meaning. They chose to throw that away in exchange for the promise of a questionable assertion from a serpent, whose words were directly contrary to those of the One they knew and loved and trusted. Why would anyone do such a thing? Pride. I could go on but I imagine that would only irritate some of you further.

Firstly, I'm not irritated by any of this. If I was I'd just do something else. I see no instance of 'pride' in the Genesis account, which is symbolic as far as I'm concerned. What I see is curiosity. God required them to remain in ignorance. If they had either we as humans would not have existed or we would have remained in ignorance as a species. Why put the damn tree in the Garden in the first place? Why allow the Serpent in? It was a 'test', & whether they passed or failed depends on your perspective. For all the undoubted sufferings of humanity over the millenia I'm glad we had the chance to grow up & stand on our own feet & make our own mistakes & become everything we're capable of becoming.

Nor would I make hay of such petty issues. The particular Christian author of whom we speak, himself said that his revision of LotR was consciously Christian. To call his statement into question requires little effort, but to prove it requires either unquestionable logic or an undeniable demonstration.

The evidence is in the texts themselves - there is nothing in the later drafts of LotR that is more 'Christian' than the later ones (or than in the published version). He also said that LotR was 'mere' entertainment with no deeper meaning -

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none

is that correct in your opinion? And he did not say it was a 'Christian' work he said:"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

If there is a significant difference in the later drafts it is in Frodo's behaviour on returning to the Shire. In the early draft he returns as a hero & in fact slays the chief ruffian in hand to hand combat. But I don't see how Frodo's ultimate fate in the published version is specifically 'Christian'.

For anyone who is interested
this article shows the desperate ends Christians have gone to in their efforts to 'prove' LotR is a 'Christian', specifically a Catholic, work. I think any objective reader will admit that the author's 'proofs' are merely similarities at best & silly at worst ('Did I mention that Aragorn looks like Christ?' the author of the article says at one point - I mean puh-leese!).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Firstly, I'm not irritated by any of this.

Oh. I must have been reading sarcasm where you didn't intend it.

I see no instance of 'pride' in the Genesis account, which is symbolic as far as I'm concerned.

Symbolic or not, it is still a story of mythic power. In that light at the very least:

And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will know good and evil."

Oops! I mis-quoted that! There are three additional words that make all the difference:

"you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

So yes, there is indeed a desire for wisdom that is used as the bait to lure the woman into the temptation, but it's only the bait. There are three words in the text that the serpent didn't have to say: "be like God". If he had not said them, your contention would stand. However, those three words are there, and they are indicative of pride.

God required them to remain in ignorance.

No. God wanted them to remain faithful to him, and if they had done so, he would have given them more wisdom than they could possibly have hoped for by eating the fruit of that one tree. You'll have to trust me on that, because I've experienced it myself.

Why put the damn tree in the Garden in the first place?

Because it served God's purpose which was sabotaged by the disobedience of Adam.

Why allow the Serpent in? It was a 'test'

Yes.

whether they passed or failed depends on your perspective.

Actually, it depends on God's perspective since He was the one who designed the test. Believe it or not, He wanted Adam (both he and she) to pass the test, and would have rewarded them (and by inheritance us) with the benefits of both the trees of life and knowledge of good and evil. But Adam did not pass the test. However, Jesus did, and that has made all the difference.

For all the undoubted sufferings of humanity over the millenia I'm glad we had the chance to grow up & stand on our own feet & make our own mistakes & become everything we're capable of becoming.

But we haven't grown up. And this is one of Tolkien's major emphases in LotR and the entire legendarium, that we are fighting the long defeat left on our own. We're no better than any other generation, except through the gift of Jesus. I'd be interested to learn (not having HoME) if the long defeat is a consistent theme in the early drafts?

The evidence is in the texts themselves - there is nothing in the later drafts of LotR that is more 'Christian' than the later ones (or than in the published version). He also said that LotR was 'mere' entertainment with no deeper meaning - is that correct in your opinion?

I believe you're referring to Letter # 208? ...

As for 'message': I have none really, if by that you mean the conscious purpose in writing The Lord of the Rings, or preaching, or of delivering myself of a vision of truth specially revealed to me! I was primarily writing an exciting story in an atmosphere and background such as I find personally attractive. But in such a process inevitably one's own taste, ideas, and beliefs get taken up. Though it is only in reading the work myself (with criticisms in mind) that I become aware of the dominance of the theme of Death.

Or were you referring to another letter? This particular one doesn't seem to contradict anything I've contended.

What I do find interesting is that Tolkien's statement in Letter #142 ...

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision

... is stated before publication. Just in case my implication isn't obvious, this means that Tolkien's statement was not a reaction to critics, for no critics had yet read the book. The only critics were those of his own choice, fellow Roman Catholics, who wrote according to the editor's notes "that the book left him with a strong sense of 'a positive compatibility with the order of Grace". So it is two Catholics talking to each other about this work about whom we are 'flies on the wall'.

And he did not say it was a 'Christian' work

Since Catholic is Christian, I have no argument with this.

If there is a significant difference in the later drafts it is in Frodo's behaviour on returning to the Shire. In the early draft he returns as a hero & in fact slays the chief ruffian in hand to hand combat. But I don't see how Frodo's ultimate fate in the published version is specifically 'Christian'.

I'm not sure that this change is necessarily Catholic/Christian, but I see how it could be so construed. What it shows to me is Tolkien's artistic 'nose' for the best turn of plot.

For anyone who is interested...

Thanks for the link. I do notice that the article is entitled "Ways..." rather than "Proofs...." Again, we're flies on the wall overhearing a group of Catholics talking to each other. I shouldn't wonder that you, not seeing the world they do, find some of it objectionable.

davem's assertion of curiosity versus pride drove me to some research, and I found something interesting.

How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of the morning!
You are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
'I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the gathering
On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.'
Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the recesses of the Pit.

The reference to pride is what brought me to this text. What I find interesting is the linkage to Melkor in this, which in Isaiah's writings is understood to be a prophecy with a double audience of both the king of Babylon temporally, and Lucifer eternally. The reference to the north is one thing that caught my eye. Another is how he is cut to the ground. Over time, Melkor lost power until he was chained to a body and wounded with wounds that would not heal.

But back to Legolas' initial inquiry, which I don't think ever got addressed: What about the Elves?

Were they Angels?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

There are three additional words that make all the difference: So yes, there is indeed a desire for wisdom that is used as the bait to lure the woman into the temptation, but it's only the bait. There are three words in the text that the serpent didn't have to say: "be like God". If he had not said them, your contention would stand. However, those three words are there, and they are indicative of pride.

How can the sin of pride exist before the first sin? That's something I'd have a tough time wrapping my head around. How could Adam disobey when he did not know good from evil?

And here are 2X three words that to me absolve Adam and Eve, as they were created "in our image, in our likeness" (that would be God speaking). Like Aulë, weren't Adam and Eve just trying to be like their Father, not mocking him or pridefully hoping to gainsay him, but simply hoping to just be like him. My daughter, helping me with her toy screwdriver, is not acting with pride, but love. The serpent states that A&E will be more like their Father if they do something they ought not. Like the Dwarves who cringed when Aulë made to smash them, is it necessary for life to go outside the bounds set by its creator, to do something new?

My kids attest to this (and they would have accidently broken the vase ). On the other hand, having children does make one tend to believe in original sin...

In a lame attempt to tie back into the thread, I say again that I do not see certain religious images within Arda when I peer beneath the surface.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by alatar

How can the sin of pride exist before the first sin? That's something I'd have a tough time wrapping my head around. How could Adam disobey when he did not know good from evil.

Before the Original Sin, other "sins" were not sinful, persay- or so I would read it. In much the same was as nudity was not immodest before eating the apple. The apple was expressly forbidden. Pride, while it goeth before the Fall, was not.

Consequently, what was a risky trait before the Fall was a Sinful trait thereafter, for the entire nature of God/Man relationships had changed.

At least, that's the simple explanation, anyway. After all, there is perfectly legitimate pride in things that one has done right, done well, or has the capability to do. It is not sinful to know that one is accomplished, and be pleased with that fact.

[davem]

No. God wanted them to remain faithful to him, and if they had done so, he would have given them more wisdom than they could possibly have hoped for by eating the fruit of that one tree. You'll have to trust me on that, because I've experienced it myself.

Ah, but would they (we) have gotten that wisdom through experience or just through word of mouth?

Actually, it depends on God's perspective since He was the one who designed the test. Believe it or not, He wanted Adam (both he and she) to pass the test, and would have rewarded them (and by inheritance us) with the benefits of both the trees of life and knowledge of good and evil. But Adam did not pass the test. However, Jesus did, and that has made all the difference

This is the 'humans as lab rats' theory of religion I suppose. What kind of parent decides to run 'tests' on his children anyway - & then punish them for failing? And if Jesus succeeded where Adam failed I'd say Jesus had the advantage over Adam seeing that Jesus was the one who made everything in the first place (including Adam). I still say that if you leave innocent kids alone in a room with a box of matches which you've gone to a lot of trouble to point out to them & leave easily accessible while knowing that weird cousin Cletus (the one with pyromaniac tendencies) is visiting for the weekend & could wander in on the little cherubs at any time, then not only are you asking to come home & find the whole place a big pile of ashes & dust (My Precious) but you will have to accept most of the moral responsibility for the incident - you being the responsible adult after all. If you were then to go ahead & punish the children by throwing them onto the streets to fend for themselves, well......

Just in case my implication isn't obvious, this means that Tolkien's statement was not a reaction to critics, for no critics had yet read the book. The only critics were those of his own choice, fellow Roman Catholics, who wrote according to the editor's notes "that the book left him with a strong sense of 'a positive compatibility with the order of Grace". So it is two Catholics talking to each other about this work about whom we are 'flies on the wall'.

Well, yes - as that article I linked to shows, LotR is not incompatible with Catholicism, but I don't see that its a specifically Catholic work in any sense. Its not a 'not-Catholic' work. Mostly it doesn't contradict Catholic teaching, but, yes, there are even parts of it that can be compared to bits of the Bible (Why, Aragorn does have long hair & a beard & so did Jesus!). I wasn't 'offended by the article' - actually I found the author a bit desperate to prove his points & the whole exercise a bit silly.

I'd be interested to learn (not having HoME) if the long defeat is a consistent theme in the early drafts?

The 'Long Defeat' (as Tolkien himself so ably demonstrated in the Beowulf lecture) was a theme running through Pagan Northern writings & so cannot be put forward as specifically Christian.

Tolkien made some contradictory statements regarding LotR - he states at one point that all references to organised religion have been 'cut out' - now I've read the early drafts & I can tell you such references were not 'cut out' because the only ones in we find in the early drafts actually remained or were added - to clarify: in 'The Road Goes Ever On' he points out the hymns to Elbereth & states 'These & other references to religion in LotR are frequently overlooked'! So, he's saying on the one hand that he has deliberately 'cut out' references to religion, but on the other chiding his readers for not seeing the references to relligion which are in the book.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Before the Original Sin, other "sins" were not sinful, persay- or so I would read it. In much the same was as nudity was not immodest before eating the apple. The apple was expressly forbidden. Pride, while it goeth before the Fall, was not.

Why nudity was shameful after the Fall is a bit disturbing as these two beings were made in the image of God, and there were no others by which they could be embarassed.

And why an apple? Is that what the Bible states, or it that a tradition? Were apples native to the region? Did you ever notice that many depictions of Jesus are not of a Middle Eastern person? And yet...

My son now wants to wear his hair long like Aragorn. Like others have posted, one could say that Aragorn looks somewhat like Jesus. There was a time when long hair on men was taboo, as was seen as a sign of rebellion. Back in that day I loved hearing the verbal pretzels regarding the reasoning why Jesus could wear his hair long yet no man in the congregation could.

[Lalaith]

"my hair like Jesus wore it, hallelujah I adore it, Mother Mary loved her son, why don't my momma love me..."
I think that's how it went....

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

And why an apple? Is that what the Bible states, or it that a tradition? Were apples native to the region? Did you ever notice that many depictions of Jesus are not of a Middle Eastern person? And yet...

Genesis states it was a fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil. It certainly doesn't mention apples at all. Certainly the apple was a fruit with strong Pagan associations, among the Greeks/Romans & among the Celts (the Celtic Paradise, Avalon in the Arthurian tradition is derived from Ynys Avallach, the Isle of Apples). The Christian approach was to denigrate the Pre-Christian traditions they encountered by presenting them in as negative a form as possible - the form the devil usually takes in Christian iconography: horns, cloven hooves, etc is actually the form of the Pagan Horned God Pan/Cernunos - so the likely explanation for the 'forbidden fruit' being depicted as an apple is probably down to this. The physical elements of Paganism like statues, temples, sacred groves, could be destroyed, but the symbols had to be twisted & made fearsome to ensure a 'clean break' with the past.

This was a deliberate policy on behalf of the church. In Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the english Church & People we find the following letter from Pope Gregory:

CHAP. XXX. A copy of the letter which Pope Gregory sent to the Abbot Mellitus, then going into Britain. [601 A.D.]

The aforesaid envoys having departed, the blessed Father Gregory sent after them a letter worthy to be recorded, wherein he plainly shows how carefully he watched over the salvation of our country. The letter was as follows:

"To his most beloved son, the Abbot Mellitus; Gregory, the servant of the servants of God. We have been much concerned, since the departure of our people that are with you, because we have received no account of the success of your journey. Howbeit, when Almighty God has led, you to the most reverend Bishop Augustine, our brother, tell him what I have long been considering in my own mind concerning the matter of the English people; to wit, that the temples of the idols in that nation ought not to be destroyed; but let the idols that are in them be destroyed; let water be consecrated and sprinkled in the said temples, let altars be erected, and relics placed there. For if those temples are well built, it is requisite that they be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God; that the nation, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may remove error from their hearts, and knowing and adoring the true God, may the more freely resort to the places to which they have been accustomed. And because they are used to slaughter many oxen in sacrifice to devils, some solemnity must be given them in exchange for this, as that on the day of the dedication, or the nativities of the holy martyrs, whose relics are there deposited, they should build themselves huts of the boughs of trees about those churches which have been turned to that use from being temples, and celebrate the solemnity with religious feasting, and no more offer animals to the Devil, but kill cattle and glorify God in their feast, and return thanks to the Giver of all things for their abundance; to the end that, whilst some outward gratifications are retained, they may the more easily consent to the inward joys. For there is no doubt that it is impossible to cut off every thing at once from their rude natures; because he who endeavours to ascend to the highest place rises by degrees or steps, and not by leaps. Thus the Lord made Himself known to the people of Israel in Egypt; and yet He allowed them the use, in His own worship, of the sacrifices which they were wont to offer to the Devil, commanding them in His sacrifice to kill animals, to the end that, with changed hearts, they might lay aside one part of the sacrifice, whilst they retained another; and although the animals were the same as those which they were wont to offer, they should offer them to the true God, and not to idols; and thus they would no longer be the same sacrifices. This then, dearly beloved, it behoves you to communicate to our aforesaid brother, that he, being placed where he is at present, may consider how he is to order all things. God preserve you in safety, most beloved son.

"Given the 17th of June, in the nineteenth year of the reign of our most religious lord, Mauritius Tiberius Augustus, the eighteenth year after the consulship of our said lord, and the fourth indiction."

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

The physical elements of Paganism like statues, temples, sacred groves, could be destroyed, but the symbols had to be twisted & made fearsome to ensure a 'clean break' with the past.

This was a deliberate policy on behalf of the church. In Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the english Church & People we find the following letter from Pope Gregory:

I'm with you in all of that, and I think that in Machiavelli's The Prince it states that that's how you win arguments and make friends.

Actually, now that I've thought about it more, my point is again that people see that which they are used to seeing. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all of that. Tinúviel always looked like a girl I idolized in my past, not Liv Tyler. If you think that Eden had an apple tree, all well and good, but is that because you could not imagine an orange tree, having lived your life just below the Arctic Circle? If one sees a Christ-like figure in Aragorn, or Gandalf, or Frodo, what does it tell us of the viewer?

So if we have a person who lives in Middle Earth, what then can he/she see? You might see one thing, but he/she may be limited to the ideas and items in that world. One would think that if Biblical history were concurrent with Middle Earth's history, being one and the same but just concerning different regions, you might hear or read characters making references to the things in the other 'history.'

So again, Middle Earth has no Second Adam as it never had the first, no matter what you might see.

Middle Earth does, however, have apples.

[Lalwendë]

What interests me is that not only did the Normans virtually cut off Anglo Saxon culture, but the coming of Christianity to Britain virtually cut off the culture of the Britons. And then Tolkien attempted to write a mythology he could dedicate to England?

I think it is clear that he recognised and tried to recover something of the pre-Christian England as it is there in his work. He speculates on what Barrows might have been used for, creates characters from the tree spirits of the Wild Wood, creates mysterious remains of ancient civilisations in Rohan, makes Goldberry and the River Woman from tales of water goddesses. Numenor has a direct line from ancient British legends of lost lands - possibly an echo in real British legends of the time when the seas rose to form the English Channel. He even makes use of language to recover some of this lost History. The Elves in particular have echoes of Faerie, and Faeries may be the lost Britons who went to the edges of the islands, together with their rich culture.

What is fascinating is that even after over 1,000 years the old Britain is not totally lost. Speaking for myself, I am one of those who was woken up by Tolkien to go and find it again.

[Kath]

Mithras is setting a condition for salvation, essentially salvation by works. Jesus is not; he is offering himself as a gift to be received without condition other than acceptance of said gift.

lmp's point here is a fair one davem. The difference is small but important. The pagan religion is akin to the Old Testament view of religion, in that followers must meet demands and conditions in order to ensure their salvation, whereas the New Testament view is that salvation will occur via love and grace. The seemingly nit-picky difference in words, whether the phrase is said negatively or positively, is also important. A negative phrasing relates to a vengeful God, whereas a positive phrasing relates to a loving one.

To go back to Legolas' original question, yes you can see parallel's between Christianity and Tolkien's created world and myths but, as davem said, it is more based on the myths of old than the Bible, if it is accepted that the myths came first and the writers of the Bible (and here the fundamnetalist view must be ignored) twisted them to fit their own uses. Also, the parallel's may be drawn in order that a reader can find something they recognise within the stories. A tale is subject to the interpretation of it's readers, so that whether Tolkien intended his tale to be Christian or not, even if he had fundamentally and categorically stated with no previous or later contradictions that it was or was not, either way there would still be people who read different things into it.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

How can the sin of pride exist before the first sin? That's something I'd have a tough time wrapping my head around. How could Adam disobey when he did not know good from evil?

Here I must disagree slightly with Formendacil. Pride was the first sin. Taking and eating of the fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, was the second sin of disobedience resulting from the first. There is an innocent pride and there is a sinful pride. The innocent is that which Formendacil describes. The sinful pride is that by which humans place themselves in the place of God.

Originally Posted by alatar

And here are 2X three words that to me absolve Adam and Eve, as they were created "in our image, in our likeness" (that would be God speaking). Like Aulë, weren't Adam and Eve just trying to be like their Father, not mocking him or pridefully hoping to gainsay him, but simply hoping to just be like him.

But in doing so they were choosing to accept the word of the serpent rather than the word of the One with whom they had already shared so much with, and from whom they had received so much.

Like the Dwarves who cringed when Aulë made to smash them, is it necessary for life to go outside the bounds set by its creator, to do something new?

No. It is in fact necessary to choose to be within the will of God in order to grow into the next wisdom He has waiting for us. "But isn't the will of God too narrow?" No, it is not. It is to set aside my own agenda and accept His, because His is based on a better and more loving knowledge of me than I have of myself. Talk about a wise investment!

On the other hand, having children does make one tend to believe in original sin...

Originally Posted by davem

...would they (we) have gotten that wisdom through experience or just through word of mouth?

They would have experienced direct communion with God, through which they would have received grace and wisdom, and more knowledge of good and evil than they already had.

Originally Posted by davem

This is the 'humans as lab rats' theory of religion I suppose.

No. It is humans as children of God who must learn to walk in His will before they can learn to run in it.

What kind of parent decides to run 'tests' on his children anyway - & then punish them for failing?

It was the same kind of 'test' parents 'run' on their children when they release them to try to walk ... forward. To follow the analogy, God set up the test such that Adam (both he and she - - - she was not named Eve until after the Fall) could walk forward, that is, into His will; but they chose to walk backward, that is, against His will, and thus Fell. (If this analogy suffers in some way, any analogy is limited; this one serves this purpose.)

And if Jesus succeeded where Adam failed I'd say Jesus had the advantage over Adam seeing that Jesus was the one who made everything in the first place (including Adam).

Jesus wasn't in competition with Adam. He was in a rescue operation, and had every intention of succeeding because his motivation was love, not "beating" Adam at God's little game.

I still say that if you leave innocent kids alone in a room with a box of matches which you've gone to a lot of trouble to point out to them & leave easily accessible while knowing that weird cousin Cletus (the one with pyromaniac tendencies) is visiting for the weekend & could wander in on the little cherubs at any time, then not only are you asking to come home & find the whole place a big pile of ashes & dust (My Precious) but you will have to accept most of the moral responsibility for the incident - you being the responsible adult after all.

A fascinating analogy, but flawed from the get-go. The forbidding of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil was not akin to leaving a box of matches in plain sight for children to find. Children faced with a box of matches, and a parent's directive to leave them alone while the parents are gone, have already inherited sin from their parents. Adam (both he and she) had not. They had not sinned, and had just as much likelihood of staying away from the tree as eating of it. In my experience of passing the tests of growth in Christ, I have found the tests I've been faced with to be quite difficult (being myself a sinner), but once achieved, I've not had to look back and face the same test again; it has been time to move on and up.

If you were then to go ahead & punish the children by throwing them onto the streets to fend for themselves, well......

Quite. But that is not what God did in regard to Adam.

Originally Posted by alatar

Why nudity was shameful after the Fall is a bit disturbing as these two beings were made in the image of God, and there were no others by which they could be embarassed.

This is a cause of confusion. They knew that they were naked. This expresses negative self-consciousness. "Nakedness" refers to the symptom of the deep rooted state of Adam and Eve having cut themselves off from communion with God, realizing that their disobedience had caused their shame. They had stained the image of God in themselves, and they had unleashed in themselves the seed of every evil known to humanity. Sexual desire had been corrupted into lust, which is wanting to take without giving the requisite commitment that such taking entails in God's order. Et cetera.

Originally Posted by davem

The Christian approach was to denigrate the Pre-Christian traditions they encountered by presenting them in as negative a form as possible - the form the devil usually takes in Christian iconography: horns, cloven hooves, etc is actually the form of the Pagan Horned God Pan/Cernunos - so the likely explanation for the 'forbidden fruit' being depicted as an apple is probably down to this.

It's a shame that the Church was reduced to this, which showed the spiritual powerlessness to which it had allowed itself to be reduced. The turning point for this was the advent of Constantine, who took over the church and killed the counsels, which had successfully served the Church for a good 300 years. Had it stayed uncompromised, it would have held onto those means by which it had flourished for the first three hundred years, namely the power of the Word of Christ and the power of the Spirit. So I think there has been in the last century a healthy reconnection to things that never should have been lost.

The strategy from the quote of Pope Gregory is known as "accomodation", and is in my belief inadequate. It's all outward and does not deal with the heart, where the Spirit of God does the real work. Had that been the key to Gregory's strategy, who knows how things might have gone better over the last 1500 years?

And for myself, getting back to the original question, I am most interested in (1) Tolkien's use of Elves in reference to the Atlantis legend, and (2) the many legends of sea-faring peoples who came from advanced cultures to northern Europe and delivered their wisdom and culture to the indigenous. There are the Milesians who came to Ireland, which may be the inspiration for that old Historia Britonum (please correct me someone, I know I just murdered it) which has the Trojans establishing Britain. In like manner, Tolkien has the Numenoreans come from the sinking Isle to establish their culture in Gondor and Arnor. What grabs my attention is the disconnected legends of the Irish and the known history we have of Asia Minor, giving us on one hand the folkloric "Milesians" and on the other, the citizens of Miletus, just a hundred or so miles south of Troy, which surely was just as affected by the fortunes both good and ill that befell Troy, and sent whole citizenries to their ships to find harbor in far-off ports anywhere from Carthage to Asturia to Brittany to Ireland to the Shetlands. And then there is the legend of the Fomori from the north ... there's that thing of the north again ... which puts me yet again in mind of Tolkien's choice of Morgoth in northern Thangorodrim. But now I'm wandering all over the folkloric map.....

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kath

lmp's point here is a fair one davem. The difference is small but important. The pagan religion is akin to the Old Testament view of religion, in that followers must meet demands and conditions in order to ensure their salvation, whereas the New Testament view is that salvation will occur via love and grace. The seemingly nit-picky difference in words, whether the phrase is said negatively or positively, is also important. A negative phrasing relates to a vengeful God, whereas a positive phrasing relates to a loving one.

I'm not so sure. If we look at Jesus' words (John 6 52-58) we find:

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Mithras says 'No salvation unless & so does Jesus

[alatar]

Originally Posted by lmp

This is a cause of confusion. They knew that they were naked. This expresses negative self-consciousness. "Nakedness" refers to the symptom of the deep rooted state of Adam and Eve having cut themselves off from communion with God, realizing that their disobedience had caused their shame. They had stained the image of God in themselves, and they had unleashed in themselves the seed of every evil known to humanity. Sexual desire had been corrupted into lust, which is wanting to take without giving the requisite commitment that such taking entails in God's order. Et cetera.

Nice post, lmp. You answer my question and point out yet again what I'm seeing. Living in a culture where persons are typically dressed modestly, you have people thinking about Adam and Eve and how crazy it was when they realized that there weren't wearing the latest in fig fashion. This is how these persons see the text as they do not look through the eyes of Adam or Eve, but through the eyes of their own experience. Would eyes from a more primitive culture see this? I think that you rightly state that it was more of a spiritual nakedness that was the cause of shame, but your understanding of the text is more mature and thoughtful.

And I can understand when you say that life must live on the path set by an omniscient Creator, as what else can it do, but as 1/3 of the angels fell, as Adam and Eve fell, I question if God does not want at least some of His creations to take the road less travelled.

Eru was generous to Aule.

[Lalaith]

I don't think that Tolkien did, other than perhaps in Tom Bombadil's comment about "the dark when it was fearless", portray a prelapsarian Arda. (Of course, I'm going by the Sil here and he may well have written other versions, so maybe HoME readers can prove me wrong) But in the Sil, Arda was marred by Melkor before any sentient life appeared.
I always assumed the Maia who joined Melkor = Fall of the Angels.

Atlantis/Numenor, of course, but what about parallels between Numenor and the Flood?
(I must say, I agree with the reservations davem and others have expressed about Adam and Eve and the serpent, but what I find really difficult getting to grips with, is the Flood. Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?)

Re Tolkienian deluges, it's not just Numenor of course. The breaking of Arda during the Valar-Melkor battle must have involved thousands of innocents perishing.

[Kath]

Mithras says 'No salvation unless & so does Jesus.

Perhaps, davem, this is more fact than promise.

[Aiwendil]

Perhaps, davem, this is more fact than promise.

Fact or promise, one could say the same things about Mithras. If you read Jesus's statement as a "fact" and Mithras's as a "promise", that is you, not the texts.

[Kath]

Fact or promise, one could say the same things about Mithras. If you read Jesus's statement as a "fact" and Mithras's as a "promise", that is you, not the texts.

Indeed but this very argument is based on opinions and how you read it. I don't actually think that, it's just an opinion and I was welcoming opposing ones.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Atlantis/Numenor, of course, but what about parallels between Numenor and the Flood? (I must say, I agree with the reservations davem and others have expressed about Adam and Eve and the serpent, but what I find really difficult getting to grips with, is the Flood.

You read about a local 'flood' and see the Noachian deluge. Númenor was wiped out by a tsumani-like wave. Survivors escaped on a multitude of ships, not an Ark, and they did not have to carry all species of fauna back to Middle Earth. There was no mountaintop landing, no dove, no waiting for waters to recede. No rainbow at the end of the road.

And yet you, me and others see Genesis 6 in the Akallabêth.

Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?)

Animals are under man's dominion, and so I guess are of no consideration. They are not infilled with souls like we see in Arda. And at least in Arda babies are born 'not guilty.'

Re Tolkienian deluges, it's not just Numenor of course. The breaking of Arda during the Valar-Melkor battle must have involved thousands of innocents perishing.

Like I said, at least in Arda there are true innocents. I leave the last words to Eowyn and her quote regarding dying on swords.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

And for myself, getting back to the original question, I am most interested in (1) Tolkien's use of Elves in reference to the Atlantis legend, and (2) the many legends of sea-faring peoples who came from advanced cultures to northern Europe and delivered their wisdom and culture to the indigenous. There are the Milesians who came to Ireland, which may be the inspiration for that old Historia Britonum (please correct me someone, I know I just murdered it) which has the Trojans establishing Britain. In like manner, Tolkien has the Numenoreans come from the sinking Isle to establish their culture in Gondor and Arnor. What grabs my attention is the disconnected legends of the Irish and the known history we have of Asia Minor, giving us on one hand the folkloric "Milesians" and on the other, the citizens of Miletus, just a hundred or so miles south of Troy, which surely was just as affected by the fortunes both good and ill that befell Troy, and sent whole citizenries to their ships to find harbor in far-off ports anywhere from Carthage to Asturia to Brittany to Ireland to the Shetlands. And then there is the legend of the Fomori from the north ... there's that thing of the north again ... which puts me yet again in mind of Tolkien's choice of Morgoth in northern Thangorodrim. But now I'm wandering all over the folkloric map.....

Where would Tolkien's mythology be without a Great Flood? Most mythologies seem to have flood stories, so why should his be any different? Perhaps all these Great Floods originate from ancient memory of real floods, of Tsunami, of previous meltings of the polar ice caps and maybe times when meteorites have struck the earth and caused massive global flooding? I'm sure that there is something in the idea that British Atlantis myths such as Lyonnesse spring from the time the islands were cut adrift by the creation of the English Channel. There are also stories that in Roman times, the Scilly Isles were once one big island, which may even have been joined to Cornwall at some point.

There seem to me to be some direct parallels between the Tuatha De Danaan and the Elves. The land of Tir Na Nog could be reflected in Valinor, although this could also be an underground kingdom according to Irish folklore.

Apparently the Milesians are not the same as the Greek/Aegean people. These incomers to Ireland may have come from Spain. Although new archaeological evidence has shown that Ireland did not suffer from waves of invasion as some of the histories and myths state; in the main, Irish DNA has remained unchanged for millenia. This has also dispelled the myth that the Celts were invaders from Europe; it seems that Celtic culture spread, but not the people. Maybe a lot of the Irish tales of 'invaders' go incredibly far back, right to the times when farming cultures took over from hunter/gatherers, maybe even to when modern Man took over from Neanderthals?

I'm often uncomfortable with tales that ancient Greeks 'founded' British cultures. Evidence does not prove this in any way, and I often wonder if it was an attempt by scholars to impose a Classical 'nobility' onto the history of the Britons and Celts. All the evidence to suggest that these islands had a rich culture anyway are there for all to see in the huge amounts of Megalithic remains to be found all over the islands.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

(I must say, I agree with the reservations davem and others have expressed about Adam and Eve and the serpent, but what I find really difficult getting to grips with, is the Flood. Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?)

I feel the same! I can only accept a God who is Good. But Tolkien's personal view of God and his works was of a very cruel God. He himself lived through scenes of slaughter and senseless killing, and it does seem that he indeed struggled to come to balance his Faith with his experiences during the 1920s. From his writing it does become apparent that he accepted a God who did allow people to die needlessly, one who demanded blood sacrifices. In that respect, I think Tolkien would have accepted the biblical Flood as simply God's work.

[davem]

I suppose the interesting thing about the Flood from a Tolkienian perspective is not the Biblical connection (which was most probably inspired by the Gilgamesh story), but Tolkien's own 'Atlantis' complex, which was also 'inherited' by one of his sons - Michael?

This is fascinating to me - the concept of an inherited 'dream'/fantasy. Tolkien uses the idea in his time-travel stories. It doesn't seem to have any personal reference - though I suppose a Jungian could put forward a theory along the lines of him being overwhelmed by the contents of the Collective, or Mythic, Unconscious.

Its a powerful image, but not a Biblical one (Alatar has pointed out the significant differences). This makes me wonder about the Biblical inspiration behind Tolkien's Legendarium generally. Tolkien could have had a Great Flood in his work which matched the Biblical account, but he didn't - instead he went for the 'Pagan' version - 'Atlantis' destroyed by an angry Deity.

Its another example of Tolkien being able to tie his Legendarium more closely into Biblical 'history' but choosing not to. Only Numenor is annihilated, not the whole of Middle-earth. Its as if he is deliberately avoiding Biblical parallels. If his theory that Myths are 'distored' versions of Biblical Truth why would he do this?

Of course, the easy answer would be that he was creating a Myth himself & because all Myths are 'distortions' he felt his own Myth should be as 'distorted' as all the others. Yet we know that his approach was to try & discover 'what really happened'. So the problem arises - if he was attempting to tell the 'real' Truth of the ancient past, is writing about a devastating flood which changed the whole world, why doesn't his account echo the Biblical account more precisely?

Unless we are to understand that there were really two (or possibly more) floods - but then how come the Bible only mentions one - & of a totally different sort ? What we seem to have is an account of a flood which rather 'confirms' the 'truth' of the various Pagan versions of the Myth - Plato's in particular.

Odd....

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'm often uncomfortable with tales that ancient Greeks 'founded' British cultures. Evidence does not prove this in any way, and I often wonder if it was an attempt by scholars to impose a Classical 'nobility' onto the history of the Britons and Celts. All the evidence to suggest that these islands had a rich culture anyway are there for all to see in the huge amounts of Megalithic remains to be found all over the islands.

My comments here are quite tangential to the main argument. Concommitant with this tale of classical source was the British sense that they are the 'new chose people', the new Israelites.

Dash me if I can find all the sources to support this claim now. Memory tells me it is part and parcel of Milton's works but I've lent out my (personally annotated) copy of Paradise Lost. Possibly the idea arose from the story that Joseph of Arimathea brought the Holy Grail to England. (no, no, not to be confused with the Da Vinci Code.) Then there is Blake's quietly affirming hymn about Jerusalem being refounded on England's green and pleasant land.

Anyhow, I guess I am simply pointing out that a group of people can create many different myths of origin, many of which bear little resemblance to the historical fact of the peoples who 'founded' the societies which tilled the land and hunted the animals and timbered the forests and left the barrows for others to discover.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not so sure. If we look at Jesus' words (John 6 52-58) we find ...
Mithras says 'No salvation unless & so does Jesus

They are indeed similar. I grant it. You have brought out one of the most mysterious passages of the Bible, one that I'm still uncertain how to understand. I could see it as metaphor, but I think Jesus is saying something more fundamental than that. To say it's a spiritual meaning is to say something too general, as the term needs to be qualified before real understanding can be had. I need to think and pray about this one more.

Originally Posted by alatar

I can understand when you say that life must live on the path set by an omniscient Creator, as what else can it do, but as 1/3 of the angels fell, as Adam and Eve fell, I question if God does not want at least some of His creations to take the road less travelled.

Eru was generous to Aule.

He was. Another passage worth considering is that of Abraham asked by God to sacrifice Isaace to him. It has to be one of the most heartwrenching and profound stories in the Bible. Abraham, a fallen sinner, believed God and obeyed. His obedience was richly rewarded.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I always assumed the Maia who joined Melkor = Fall of the Angels.

Me too.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Atlantis/Numenor, of course, but what about parallels between Numenor and the Flood? Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?

You know how to ask the hard questions. It's not understood from Scripture that animals had moral sense. My thought is that God saw the loss of the animals as tragic. It's an aspect that I don't understand as well as I would like to.

As to great floods on record or legend, there are reports that there are remains of civilization at the bottom of the Black Sea, suggesting that at one time it was an area that though below sea level, was dry .... until some kind of rather large disaster (which literally means 'undo-star') .... filled the basin with water. And then there is the legend of Broceliande, which it has been suggested was an actual forest that spanned from the edge of the Plain of Salisbury across the valley between, to modern day Brittany..... and is now under the waters of the English Channel. Both things suggest that the mean sea level may have at one time been much lower than it is in our own day. Pure speculation.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

There seem to me to be some direct parallels between the Tuatha De Danaan and the Elves.

In my reference to the Milesians earlier, that legend had it that the Milesians taught the folk, but over time hid themselves below ground and became known as the Tuatha De Danaan. I'm quite convinced that these are akin if not the same as Tolkien's Elves.

The story I read did have the Milesians coming from Spain. It was my awareness of the seaside city of Miletus that caused me to make the connection. For them to have come from Aegea by way of Spain seems not too great a reach.

You're quite right, Lalwendë, that it was the same impulse in Virgil as it was for the later writers to find cultural roots in Classical Greece. .... all of it quite untrue.

I too accept a God who is only good. However, I also understand that I am a mere human who can't comprehend the vastness of God's purposes, or I'd be God. I know that God is good and loves all of his creation; that's the basis for all my understanding. Whatever I don't understand, I admit it and try to learn based on what I already know. What I don't do is decide that God can't exist, or is cruel, or is evil, on the grounds that I can't understand how something evil fits into a good God's plan. That would be quite presumptuous of me.

Originally Posted by davem

...probably inspired by the Gilgamesh story

Unless it really happened.

Originally Posted by davem

the concept of an inherited 'dream'/fantasy ... not a Biblical one

Actually, this is quite biblical. God's words to Adam, Eve, and the serpent are resplendent with references to 'seed'. Our modern words are 'inheritance' and 'genetics'. Just as sinfulness passes down through genetics, so can mental capacities such as dreams.

Originally Posted by davem

Its as if he is deliberately avoiding Biblical parallels. If his theory that Myths are 'distor[t]ed' versions of Biblical Truth why would he do this?

Why not? I don't see that Tolkien's (assumed) understanding of myths as distorted versions of Bilbical truth, forces his hand to write everything imitatively of the Bible.

So the problem arises - if he was attempting to tell the 'real' Truth of the ancient past, is writing about a devastating flood which changed the whole world, why doesn't his account echo the Biblical account more precisely?

Again: why must it? One will find the true echoes not in the details, which one would hope are different, but in the themes.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

You know how to ask the hard questions. It's not understood from Scripture that animals had moral sense. My thought is that God saw the loss of the animals as tragic. It's an aspect that I don't understand as well as I would like to.

Not sure that I see that God sees the loss of animals as "tragic." Though He may not forget sparrows (Luke 12:6) and knows when one of these 'pennyworth' birds hits the ground (Math 10:29), He also states that he is grieved that He created men and animals (Gen 6:7), and in the Flood wipes them all out (Gen 7:212-23). Adam sinned, yet the animal kingdom is also cursed for his disobedience.

Animals to me seem better treated in Arda.

And if you'd like a harder question, in the same vein as above, well...Let's assume that God had just cause to wipe out everything that breathed air on the planet. He's God, He has a reason for killing off the animals as well as mankind, okay. Later, when the Hebrews are moving to the Promised Land, they are called to wipe out a peoples, men, women and children (Deuteronomy 2, 3 and especially 1 Samuel 15:1-3). The common apologetics that I hear is that these people were very evil, and like a cancerous tumor, must be excised completely to protect others from being infected. Presumably even the infants were so genetically evil that sparing even these babes was a danger, as they would grow up to pollute the community.

That's a bit hard to accept.

Worse, to me, is that God did not call down fire or whatever to terminate these people in a humane fashion. He had them butchered, which is bad, but worse is that He used other humans as His sword. Can you even imagine what it would be like to be in Saul's army, having just exterminated a city, men, women and children? What does that do to one's soul, and if that's to be to the greater glory of God...

And with that, I'll end by pointing to Jonah 4:10, where suddenly God has pity on a city and its cattle.

At least orcs are not humans, and maybe that's why I don't feel for them when they are obliterated. Is that why ME and Eru is more palatable?

As to great floods on record or legend, there are reports that there are remains of civilization at the bottom of the Black Sea, suggesting that at one time it was an area that though below sea level, was dry .... until some kind of rather large disaster (which literally means 'undo-star') .... filled the basin with water.

Saw a documentary of the same thing. It's interesting that so many cultures have a Flood story (even Middle Earth ), and one wonders of the event that sparked the story, back when humans were all together in one central location.

Why not? I don't see that Tolkien's (assumed) understanding of myths as distorted versions of Bilbical truth, forces his hand to write everything imitatively of the Bible.

Again: why must it? One will find the true echoes not in the details, which one would hope are different, but in the themes.

While citing the Biblical quotes above, I noted (yet again) that in Genesis the river Tigras in mentioned as a boundary of Eden. Who then has not looked at a map and played the 'where's Eden' game? You can find the Tigris, but have to speculate from there. Is there more entertainment value when we are given only seeds and not the full-blown tree? Like the other game where one looks at the maps of the Third Age and wonders if Belfalas were...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Its a powerful image, but not a Biblical one (Alatar has pointed out the significant differences). This makes me wonder about the Biblical inspiration behind Tolkien's Legendarium generally. Tolkien could have had a Great Flood in his work which matched the Biblical account, but he didn't - instead he went for the 'Pagan' version - 'Atlantis' destroyed by an angry Deity.

Its another example of Tolkien being able to tie his Legendarium more closely into Biblical 'history' but choosing not to. Only Numenor is annihilated, not the whole of Middle-earth. Its as if he is deliberately avoiding Biblical parallels. If his theory that Myths are 'distored' versions of Biblical Truth why would he do this?

Of course, the easy answer would be that he was creating a Myth himself & because all Myths are 'distortions' he felt his own Myth should be as 'distorted' as all the others. Yet we know that his approach was to try & discover 'what really happened'. So the problem arises - if he was attempting to tell the 'real' Truth of the ancient past, is writing about a devastating flood which changed the whole world, why doesn't his account echo the Biblical account more precisely?

Whilst surfing the Net this morning I came upon a reference to this very point of the Legendarium's parallels with Christianity. I don't have HoMe X, so I can't verify the context and idea.

The relevant passage:

Originally Posted by Damien Casey, fn 12

In constructing his mythology Tolkien was concerned not to paralleled the Christian biblical story too closely lest his tale parody Christianity . Commenting upon an imaginative dialogue between an elf and a woman on the nature and destiny of human beings Tolkien questions whether it is already "(if inevitably) too like a parody of Christianity. Any legend of the Fall would make it completely so?" J.R.R. Tolkien, Morgoth's Ring. The History of Middle Earth Volume 10, edited by Christopher Tolkien, (London: Harper Collins, 1993) 354.

This I find fascinating, for it suggests that Tolkien had a poetics of parody in his head even if he did not articulate it on paper. (Oh what would he say of REB?) He also clearly was aware of how similar or not to make his work to the Bible.

Perhaps those who have HoMe X can elaborate?

The article I was reading: The Gift of Ilùvatar: Tolkien's Theological Vision

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

And if you'd like a harder question, in the same vein as above, well...Let's assume that God had just cause to wipe out everything that breathed air on the planet. He's God, He has a reason for killing off the animals as well as mankind, okay. Later, when the Hebrews are moving to the Promised Land, they are called to wipe out a peoples, men, women and children (Deuteronomy 2, 3 and especially 1 Samuel 15:1-3). The common apologetics that I hear is that these people were very evil, and like a cancerous tumor, must be excised completely to protect others from being infected. Presumably even the infants were so genetically evil that sparing even these babes was a danger, as they would grow up to pollute the community.

That's a bit hard to accept.

Worse, to me, is that God did not call down fire or whatever to terminate these people in a humane fashion. He had them butchered, which is bad, but worse is that He used other humans as His sword. Can you even imagine what it would be like to be in Saul's army, having just exterminated a city, men, women and children? What does that do to one's soul, and if that's to be to the greater glory of God...

And with that, I'll end by pointing to Jonah 4:10, where suddenly God has pity on a city and its cattle.

At least orcs are not humans, and maybe that's why I don't feel for them when they are obliterated. Is that why ME and Eru is more palatable?

Well, yes. More palatable to people like us who seem to have developed a different mindset toward such things than those who lived as late as the 17th century. Not that I agree with people of pre-18th century! But to the answer. This is going to seem somewhat off-beat in terms of traditional Christian apologetics, but so be it. It has to do with Genesis 6 and references following thereupon. Perhaps you're familiar with the famous passage about the sons of God producing offspring with the daughters of Man? ... and how this seems to have been a direct cause of the Flood? Well, there are two theories (I'm aware of) as to what this was about. (1) The sons of God refers to the descendants of Seth, Adam and Eve's surviving son, such that this is about the morally pure line of Seth corrupting itself by mixing with unclean sinners. I think that this particular reading is incorrect (spurious tripe, really). (2) The sons of God are fallen angels who have taken bodily form .... and the Hebrew being patriarchal, it glosses over the likelihood that there were probably "daughters" of God and 'sons' of Man. Now, the theory is that Satan and his fallen angels's purpose is to sabotage the the prophecy of God in Genesis 3, and the way to do that is to corrupt the seed of all humanity. And we are told in Genesis 6 that only Noah's family remained pure. Thus, all other humans must die off so as to protect the prophecy so that the seed of the woman can bring forth Jesus. So the Flood. That, however, was not the last of this attempt to corrupt the seef of humanity. Look for references to the Nephilim and the Rephaim, and (instead of rolling your eyes at references to Giants) consider that the people who populate Canaan when the Hebrews arrive there are in fact completed corrupted by the seed of fallen angels. Thus, they must be destroyed if this is to be the promised land where the promised savior is to be born, for how can the line remain uncorrupted if Satan's efforts to destroy its purity have such a strong foothold in the very "land of promise"? Whether you accept this or not is your call, of course, but it seems to take the most of those weird, odd, inexplicable passages, into account, and gives a more believable and understandable context for the "genocide" commanded by God in Canaan.

As an aside, I've always found it intriguing that Grendell in the Beowulf story is supposed to be from the lineage of Cain. Not entirely to the point, but not completely unrelated.

[The Saucepan Man]

Elempi, if you don’t mind me saying so, you seem to be going through some fairly tortuous paths to explain some of these passages from the Bible. And, as you appear to accept, they are merely theories, designed no doubt to make the unpalatable more acceptable to those who regard the Bible as fact but are uneasy about the rather “fire and brimstone” aspects of the Old Testament God. (Which are, incidentally, quite out of keeping with his portrayal in the New Testament – did he, like many new fathers, undergo a personality change with the birth of his son? )

Not being a Biblical scholar, I was unaware of much of the detail of some of these stories, but was aware of course of the more “popular” tales, such as the Flood. I share the unease that others have expressed over this. But the story of Abraham and his son has always struck me as quite horrific. God asked him to sacrifice his son – and he was just about to do it! OK, so God had no intention of Abraham actually killing his son, but even to ask him to do so is unpardonable in my view. Especially since he was merely seeking to test Abraham’s faith. He was effectively saying: “I am not sure if you believe in me, so kill your son to prove that you do”. Doesn’t that seem rather vain? My own reaction would undoubtedly have been: “Well, if that’s the kind of God that you are, I’d rather not believe in you, thank you very much”. And so, off to Hell with me simply because I was unwilling to kill my son (surely a sin in God’s eyes anyway). That just doesn’t seem right.

Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). You see, I accept that there are many great things that the Church can and does achieve, and that there are many useful messages that one can take from the teachings in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. But I do not accept the Bible as historical fact. I see it as a myth, probably based loosely in parts on historical events. And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.

Which all boils down to one question for me, and here I will try to drag this post back vaguely back on to topic. Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God? I am aware that there are some who have, in recent times, taken a more “flexible” approach to the Bible (regarding, for example, the stories of Creation and Eden are allegorical, rather than factual, in nature) but they, I believe, are in the minority.

If one believes that The Lord of the Rings is an inherently “Christian” work and that it we can extract good and worthwhile messages from it, yet nevertheless can accept it as a work of fiction, why cannot one apply similar reasoning to the Bible? There is, of course, a major difference in that the Bible is expressly set in our world and incorporates elements which may be viewed as historical events. But the principle is surely the same. As I see it, they are both, in their different ways, myths. Ones from which we can perhaps learn much. But myths nevertheless. And accepting that fact surely does n ot in itself mean that one must relinquish one's belief in God.

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God?

In a way you answered your question yourself. Faith - being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1). If everything is believable, tangible, and undeniably true without a shadow of a doubt, what's the use of calling it "faith"?

To drag this on a little more, Christians who are foolish enough (from the world's point of view) to have faith in God find themselves seeing the reality of the Bible in their own lives. That's as far as I can go - it is rather difficult to explain to someone who does not believe. That's like describing the color purple to a blind person.

Sorry if I come off too harsh, that's not my intention.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Perhaps you're familiar with the famous passage about the sons of God producing offspring with the daughters of Man? ... and how this seems to have been a direct cause of the Flood?

Yes, I'm familiar with it as with the opposing argument. How do angels mate with humans, one creature being completely spirit while the other material? Sucubi/incubi perhaps? Or do fallen angels have some kind of inherent physicality? My understanding always has been that any angel or devil is permitted only that which God allows. And again, if this isn't so, then one can then question Christianity's keystone, the Resurrection, as any angel or devil could easily mascarade as the Christ. He could live out a life, get crucified, seemingly die then come out of the grave, as he's a spiritual/material being hybrid of some kind?!?

Though you may simply be stating what others have said, I agree that it's a bit convoluted and makes God seem less omnipotent as He must rely on human agents to execute peoples so that His plan will succeed. And what of the livestock? Are these too somehow infected with fallen angels? And just how does one destroy spiritual beings by breaking the material bodies? Wouldn't it have been loverly if only the physical body of Satan could have been so broken so that he could not thwart so many godly plans?

Can't help but noting that we again have a peoples labeled as 'subhuman' (which is interesting as they purportedly are superhuman) so that their extermination can be justified. Orcs.

Eru has it otherwise, stating that despite everyone's best efforts Its will will be done. On the other hand, Maia can mate with elves who can mate with humans...

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

[B]
Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). You see, I accept that there are many great things that the Church can and does achieve, and that there are many useful messages that one can take from the teachings in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. But I do not accept the Bible as historical fact. I see it as a myth, probably based loosely in parts on historical events. And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.

Which all boils down to one question for me, and here I will try to drag this post back vaguely back on to topic. Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God? I am aware that there are some who have, in recent times, taken a more “flexible” approach to the Bible (regarding, for example, the stories of Creation and Eden are allegorical, rather than factual, in nature) but they, I believe, are in the minority.

.

Those planets must be in alignment sinceI am largely in agreement with Spm!! Except that there is rather more external historical evidence than he supposes and I think there are many Christians who haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater and accept a creator while taking the story of Adam and Eve as allegory. Also who realise that the books of the bible are not contemporary accounts and are open to interpretation. In such a mainstream Cof E church was I raised not particularly recently!!! and I know people who successfully reconcile their careers as scientists with sincere Christian beliefs which would be hard to do if they took the bible literally.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lhuna

In a way you answered your question yourself. Faith - being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see ...

But surely one can have faith (and the attendant absence of proof) without taking everything in the Bible as literal (as Mithalwen has pointed out, there are those who adopt this approach). Indeed, if one accepts the Bible as a factual account then it rather proves the existence of God, and so obviates the need for faith.

But my main (on-topic) point was that, if one can perceive God's message in a story like LotR, which is clearly a fictional account, why can one not accept that God's principal message may successfully be conveyed in an account which, while historically relevant, is nevetheless not strictly literal?

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I think there are many Christians who haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater and accept a creator while taking the story of Adam and Eve as allegory.

True. And this apppoach to faith I find easier to accept and understand. Yet there is also the problem associated with any faith that requires one to adhere to a particular doctrine or face eternal damnation. I recall once speaking to someone who was convinced that she would not see her parents in the afterlife since, although they were decent enough people, they did not share her faith and her particular beliefs and were therefore (in her mind) slated for a one-way trip to Hell. It rather put me off Christianity, or that particular doctrinal approach at least, for life.

I think it was you, Mith, who brought up the distress caused to Tolkien's wife by his insistance that she convert to his faith. Have I got that right? If so, I presume that his insistance was grounded in a similar approach.

[drigel]

Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God?

and I know people who successfully reconcile their careers as scientists with sincere Christian beliefs which would be hard to do if they took the bible literally.

This discussion has been circling around a subject that I have been contemplating. The theology of the author and the works are the subject of many essays, books, and this thread, but as I read all of this (great article, Beth), I become more and more appreciative of the author, and his serious treatment of the actual, literal history of Britain (or western Europe), with the conscious acknowledgement (and historical implications) of Christianity. Incoporating themes that are universal, Christian, and humanity oriented, that are as subtle as they are - is really quite impressive. Especially being Catholic, when one regards the history involved in the early years of the church through the middle ages and into recent history.

It's a subject of reconciliation of our past, a validation - perhaps even a justification, yet still within the realm of the canon of Catholisism, and Christianity. One can debate the flood, literal interpretation, and etc, I think that the real gem is the ability of the author to fold in our ancestor's pre-Christ reality in to the historical context that the dimension Christianity brings to our history. The inhabitants of Europe that lived and struggled and died all those many years before Christ had a place in the Plan (if one subcribes to the idea), or a movement in the Song. Or, the concepts of forgiveness and salvation for an entire culture and people who had not yet heard the word of Christ. That subject very few people are compelled to approach.