The Lord of the Bible?

[littlemanpoet]

I missed this post earlier.

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

[Tolkien's] world is corrupted with evil in a way that goes beyond the traditional Christian view. It is a bleaker, more fatalistic place than that proposed in the Bible, whether because of certain influences from his beloved pagan myth or an intentional desire to portray Arda in a strikingly different light.

Just look at the creation story. The biblical story does not have any of the fallen angels actively participating in the creation of the world. Yet this is what Tolkien does. Morgoth's music is intertwined within the very fabric of Eru's world. To me, that is a very important distinction. It makes Arda laden with evil in a way that is not true of the Judaeo/Christian world where evil was introduced by the personal choices of two individuals. In the biblical paradigm, we are fighting against the evil impulses within our own soul. In the context of middle-earth, we must not only fight our personal impulses but contend with an evil that was woven into the fabric of the physical world from before the dawn of time. This makes the "long defeat" even longer! And because of this unique aspect of creation, I sometimes get the general feeling (a la Shippey) that Tolkien has presented us with an evil in middle-earth that is a great deal more substantial than the traditional Judaeo-Christian view of evil as the simple negation of good. Pretty heavy stuff, considerably bleaker than the orthodox story of creation as itirated in the bible.

Actually, it depends upon whether you follow the primary, demythologized (and overly 'scrubbed') theological tradition, or the the more mythical, biblical-story reading.

(Herein lies another example of Greek "hardening of the categories" that has rendered Christian understanding of its own faith and history frankly moribund.)

The more mythical and biblical-story reading has to do with fallen angels mating with humans, the giants (nephilim) that resulted from such unions, and the filling of Canaan with these giant enemies of the Promise ... the sun and moon standing still for a day ... we're talking mythic power treated as history.

I italicized "simple negation of good" because it's an interesting point. First, is it an accurate reading of the biblical-mythic story? Second, even if it is (which I don't think), is it really that simple?

Originally Posted by Child

Why is this? Why did Tolkien change this critical aspect of the creation story? He could have had Morgoth fall before the beginning of time and drop away from the group, yet still used the other Ainur to help him fashion the music. Why did he permit evil to be woven into the core of creation in a way that is very different than the biblical story? Perhaps if we knew the answer to this, it would help us understand how and why Tolkien used symbols and stories from the bible, but somehow changed them to create a world which is not exactly the same as ours.

Perhaps Tolkien instinctivley knew that the way he presented his myth was in fact closer to the reality than the antiseptic theological renderings of the Greeky-clean theological tradition of the church.

EDIT: Littlemanpoet -- Sorry, we crossposted so my post doesn't take your excellent point on Frodo and Sam under consideration. I do think the Shire has to be considered in any attempt to weigh good and evil.

Thanks. Immediately after I had written that about Sam and Frodo, I was reminded of your interest in how the journey of Frodo and Sam affected the two, especially Frodo.