The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Announcements and Obituaries > Haudh-en-Ndengin
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-30-2002, 03:52 AM   #201
Estel the Descender
Haunting Spirit
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 55
Estel the Descender has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via Yahoo to Estel the Descender
Sting

<span style="text-decoration: none;">

[Disclaimer: I am glad at the development of this thread. We who post here seems to have disproved the notion that the LotR is somehow an allegory of the Bible. I hope that instead of finding hidden meanings in the LotR, we examine Tolkien’s work in comparison with the Bible. In short, I hope that we can get into actual textual criticism. Furthermore, I hope that what follows will not be taken as a form of ‘appropriation’ of the LotR by a Christian in the sense that ‘If you believe that only Christians (of all denominations) can truly appreciate LotR, or - inversely - that if you appreciate LotR, that somehow proves or validates the ultimate truth of specific Christian tenets ... this is appropriation.’ You do not need to be a Christian in order to know proper hermeneutics. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]]

littlemanpoet,

Quote:
Your evidence, my friend, would be very persuasive in a court of law - until scholars representing other schools of thought were brought in and put on the witness stand and given their chance to interpret your evidence according to their own lights. Then the jury would be left with the task of forming an opinion based on their own lights.

Which means that all your evidence really serves to give credence to my main point, since that which you presented as fact is, actually, the opinion of scholars of a certain school of thought regarding your evidence. Other scholars will point out quite as demonstratively that it "should be obvious to anybody with any sense" (quoting Thomas Cahill here) that the Pentateuch is a compilation of numerous writings from numerous periods of time, organized for the best and most useful presentation.
<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>
I wonder what Cahill meant by ‘anybody with any sense?’ Hmm– did he mean, ‘To anybody who would interpret the Torah as “myth” and not “history” would see that the “Pentateuch is a compilation of numerous writings from numerous periods of time, organized for the best and most useful presentation”.’ But this characterization is a bit unfair, after all

Quote:
. . . the Pentateuch is a collection of oral tradition stories whose errors actually often help prove that they are based in reality, compared to most of 'myth'. [emphasis mine]
<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>
I take it then that you do believe that the Torah is ‘historical myth’, or as Tolkien would say, ‘Legend and History have met and fused.’ Thus, when the Torah says that Moses parted the Red Sea, this event actually took place. The only thing we seem to disagree on is the date of writing of the actual manuscript. But what exactly do you mean by ‘errors’. Did you mean ‘typographical errors’, the errors in copying? Or did you mean ‘reportage errors’

Quote:
. . . [R]eportage–though it may no doubt contain errors–pretty close up to the facts. . . [emphasis mine]
<div align=right>– C.S. Lewis</div>
If either of the above is what you mean by ‘errors’ then I am in a position to agree with you. Typographical errors are easy to deal with: just find other copies of the same manuscript and make a comparison. Reportage errors help prove that the manuscripts are eyewitness accounts, written immediately after the event or in hindsight by the eyewitnesses themselves or their ‘interviewers’.

But if what you mean is ‘historical errors’, that all those miracles, the Creation of Humanity, the Great Flood, the Ten Plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the giving of the Decalogue, the Fall of Jericho, all else in the Torah are nothing more than non-literal, symbolical myths that impart some allegorical truth.

This begs the question: what do you mean by myth? Do you mean it in the same way as the ancient Greeks, myth being the literal true history of their gods, or do you mean it in that it means a story that is not literally true? Or is it somewhere in between?

Quote:
If you deem it necessary to cast aspersions on the faith of the scholars of schools of thought other than that to which you adhere, I imagine they would take great umbrage and say as courteously as they know how that you speak out of a (sometimes called 'fundamentalist') triumphalism that they find ignores too much of the evidence; and then they would insist that their faith in Jesus is every bit as legitimate as yours, regardless of their opinions concerning the Scriptures.
<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>
Am I to understand, given your use of the terms ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘triumphalist’ that your belief about myth is decidedly ‘non-literal?’ As to the appellations

Quote:
We are not fundamentalists.
<div align=right>– C.S. Lewis</div>
What evidence do I ignore? It seems to me that, with all due courtesy and respect, that they are the ones who ‘[ignore] too much of the evidence’. How can I say this with a straight [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] face? Letsee–

Quote:
. . . I find in these theologians a constant use of the principle that the miraculous does not occur. Thus any statement put into Our Lord’s mouth by the old texts, which, if He had really made it, would constitute a prediction into the future, is taken to have been put in after the occurrence which it seemed to predict. This is very sensible if we start by knowing that inspired prediction can never occur. Similarly in general, the rejection as unhistorical of all passages which narrate miracles is sensible if we start by knowing that the miraculous in general never occurs. Now I do not here want to discuss whether the miraculous is possible. I only want to point out that this is a purely philosophical question. Scholars, as scholars, speak on it with no more authority than anyone else. The canon ‘ If miraculous, unhistorical’ is one they bring into the study of the texts [eisegesis], not one they have learned from it [exegesis]. If one is speaking of authority, the united authority of all the Biblical critics in the world counts here for nothing. On this they speak simply as men; men obviously influenced by, and perhaps insufficiently critical of, the spirit of the age they grew up with.
<div align=right>– C.S. Lewis</div>
What he meant of course was that those ‘scholars’ were influenced by their logical positivist-skepticist philosophies that doubts everything from reason to Shakespeare

Quote:
. . . I have learned in other fields of study how transitory the ‘assured results of modern scholarship’ may be, how soon scholarship ceases to be modern. The confident treatment to which the New Testament is subjected is no longer applied to profane [Lewis means ‘secular’] texts. There used to be English authors who were prepared to cut up Henry VI between half a dozen authors and assign his share to each. We don’t do that now. . . Even the belief of the ancient Greeks that the Mycenaeans were their ancestors and spoke Greek has been surprisingly supported.
<div align=right>– C.S. Lewis</div>
These ‘modern scholars’ ignore the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which shows that the Old Testament as we know it today was already known then before Christ. Only the caves that were dated after the 1st century CE had any ‘apocryphal’ writings.

Let us reconstruct! Supposing we were in Middle Earth at around the 7th Age. We meet several scholars from Gondor who says that The Hobbit, or There and Back Again could not have been written by Bilbo Baggins. ‘Why, we know how present Halflings dislike travel and adventure. Furthermore, the book has been written in the third person: if it was a personal recollection, it should have been written in the first person.’ About the Red Book of Westmarch: Thain’s Copy: ‘It is impossible for the Book to have been written by untravelled Halflings. Furthermore, it is riddled with errors. There could not have been an historical Gandalf: he was merely a Patriarchal construct. And as for the Elves: how do we know that they are immortal? We see very little of them and about the only time we see them is when they go over the Sea. How do we know that there is a “Faerie” to where they go to? Our explorers find no trace of this “Faerie”. Furthermore, there are conflicting accounts as to the location of “Faerie”: is it to the West of Endor or is it actually located in the valley formerly known as Lothlorien? What if the elves actually go to the Sea in order to die in secret? We know that Queen Arwen died when she failed to “go over the Sea”. It is probable that elves have a similar life-span as we humans do: elves being just another race of humans. And dwarves? They must have been a race of Halflings who were hairier than usual: they are not a separate race as portrayed in the Thain’s book. As for the descendants of Numenoreans having a longer lifespan than most humans–that is nothing more than myth, legends that the redactors inserted in order to justify racism among the Edain. Besides, there is no evidence that Amar was ever flat!’

Quote:
Why include the second letter of Peter?
<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>
Supposing in our ‘reality’ but in the 51st century, we find scholars who say, ‘The Silmarillion is obviously not written by JRR Tolkien. For one thing, the style of the work differs from his attested works, the original Hobbit (not the spurious “corrected” version) and the LotR Trilogy. You must realise that in the last half of the 20th century and the early quarter of the 21st century was engaged in that phenomena which was the writing of “Fan-fics” (fiction based on Tolkien’s LotR). The Silmarillion was one of these, evidently based on the Appendices of The Return of the King. The name of both John and Christopher Tolkien was merely inserted later in the 22nd century in order to give the Silmarillion ‘respectability’ as part of the canon and was probably composed by Walter Hooper. But modern scholarship now knows that the Quenta Silmarillion is actually a form of “Fan-fic”. Furthermore, the LotR was actually a joint writing by Tolkien and the Inklings. The Black Speech, based on Gaelic, was no doubt the invention of fellow Fantasy writer, the Irish C.S. Lewis. Sindarin was probably created by a Welsh student of Tolkien as a part of a college thesis. . .’

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
</span>

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]
__________________
Qui desiderat pacem, præparet bellum.
E i anîra hîdh, tangado an auth.
Estel the Descender is offline  
Old 06-30-2002, 03:39 PM   #202
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Pipe

Gryphon:

I make no claim to being a great debater. I usually can be beaten into the ground in a debate. It's because I'm not interested in debating for debating's sake, unlike some of the people who thoroughly wallop me in that venue. I am seeking truth, which, I have found over the years, is a whole lot harder to be sure of than I had believed when younger.

To answer your question, I have never read the Pentateuch straight through from beginning to end, but I have read virtually all of it at different times, and some of it so many times I can't keep count. It's called devotions at dinner or in the morning, readings from the pulpit, what-have-you. I studied the Pentateuch at a Bible College I attended for three years. So yes, I know what I'm talking about.

As to whose leap of faith, anybody's. Either a person simply accepts without question what s/he has been taught to believe, or examines her/is beliefs and is forced to acknowledge that s/he chooses to believe what s/he does because any alternatives are unacceptable for whatever reasons.

As for 'what evidence', I could go into all of that but I don't see the point. It would only become more fodder for debate, endless debate, which is useless, as the Teacher in Ecclesiastes hints for us.

I'll write off your sarcastic tone to the intensity with which you hold your opinions, no harm done or taken.

Estel, Cahill didn't see the Torah as myth and not history. He saw it as oral tradition of a real history passed down over many generations and compiled at a point in the history of the Jewish people when they had become literate. Cahill's main thesis is, in fact, that the Jews changed the way we think and feel from the 'cyclic wheel' where nothing changes (the Hindu understanding of life) to a historic line in which actual people and actual events change the course of peoples' lives, making the most crucial event of history possible for humans to even apprehend and comprehend, that of Jesus' saving humanity from death by his own death and resurrection. So he writes as a believer in Jesus who happens to not accept that the Torah was dictated to Moses by God.

I do not remember the specific instances Cahill remarks on of errors, but they were indeed Reportage errors for the most part. One other thing Cahill mentions is more an error of modern filmmaking misconception: The Sea of Reeds is a better translation than The Red Sea, and the water that was parted was probably not fathoms deep, but perhaps a few inches to a foot or so. Of course, Cahill takes it further and says that the tale probably grew in the minds of the tellers until after so many generations they convinced themselves that water actually did part. That is, of course, surmise on his part, no more or less legitimiate than surmise that it did actually happen.

'compared to most of myth': this particular usage refers to most mythologies, such as Gilgamesh, Achilles, the hindu, the celtic, you name it. Again, these adhere to the cyclic wheel paradigm of human life experience, whereas the 'myth' of the Jews has broken away from that because YHWH caused it to happen by telling Avram to leave Ur of the Sumerians (of the Chaldeans is an error, so there's one for you).

To try and tie this post back into Tolkien, as Gryphon and Estel so aptly do, JRRT takes his cue from the Jews by writing a legendarium thoroughly based in the paradigm of persons and events changing the course of history. The evidence is overwhelming for this. I'm not even going to touch your hypothetical arguments regarding the historicity of Tolkien having written the Tolkien legendarium. Argumentum ad absurdum.

Seeking truth, lmp.
littlemanpoet is offline  
Old 07-07-2002, 11:24 PM   #203
Talking Hawk
Pile O'Bones
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: California
Posts: 23
Talking Hawk has just left Hobbiton.
Silmaril

To put it briefly...

Frodo - Jesus or David (as in David and Goliath..)
Sauron - If Frodo were David, he would most certainly be Goliath (especially in the movie..he's HUGE!)
Sam - Paul of the Twelve Apostles (you know how in the Garden of Gethsename, he cut off that guy's ear to protect Jesus, and Jesus scolded him for being violent?...I can see that happening with Frodo and Sam...)
Boromir - If you're one of those people that view Boromir as a traitor, then he would most likely be seen as the one apostle who betrayed Jesus (I forgot his name...). However, I don't really see Boromir as a "bad guy," so I don't know who he's like...
Gandalf - Possibly the one prophet who was around during Paul and Davids' reign...Simon, I think.
Gollum - A leper! Okay, just kidding.. =)

That's my two bits, even though this thread is over a year old... :rollseyes: Just my luck...
__________________
Merry shrugged his shoulders. “It could be a love triangle. Like about a week ago, I was in love with Angela AND Estella, but then I decided to break it off with Angela…” He sighed dreamily, but Pippin lifted an eyebrow. “Angela thought your name was Timothy,” he pointed out innocently, and Merry glared at him. “It could happen to anybody…” - Excerpt from my "Three Blind Spies" story (see fanfic section)
Talking Hawk is offline  
Old 07-12-2002, 07:55 PM   #204
Estel the Descender
Haunting Spirit
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 55
Estel the Descender has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via Yahoo to Estel the Descender
Sting

Quote:
The Sea of Reeds is a better translation than The Red Sea, and the water that was parted was probably not fathoms deep, but perhaps a few inches to a foot or so. Of course, Cahill takes it further and says that the tale probably grew in the minds of the tellers until after so many generations they convinced themselves that water actually did part. That is, of course, surmise on his part, no more or less legitimiate than surmise that it did actually happen.
<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>
I'm glad you made that clear [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Of course, you probably are aware that Cahill was, to use Bultmann's term, demythologising. This kinda implies that, although Cahill did not say it, that Cahill sees the Red [Reed] Sea incident as, well, 'myth'. At the very least, however, he did not Disneyfy the account (no Little Mermaid [Disney version] or any cameos by Sebastian [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ).

Quote:
'Then the prophecies of the old songs have turned out to be true, after a fashion!' said Bilbo.

'Of course!' said Gandalf. 'And why should not they prove true? Surely you don't disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself? You don't suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You are a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!'
Quote:
Frodo - Jesus or David (as in David and Goliath..)
Sauron - If Frodo were David, he would most certainly be Goliath (especially in the movie..he's HUGE!)
Sam - Paul of the Twelve Apostles (you know how in the Garden of Gethsename, he cut off that guy's ear to protect Jesus, and Jesus scolded him for being violent?...I can see that happening with Frodo and Sam...)
Boromir - If you're one of those people that view Boromir as a traitor, then he would most likely be seen as the one apostle who betrayed Jesus (I forgot his name...). However, I don't really see Boromir as a "bad guy," so I don't know who he's like...
Gandalf - Possibly the one prophet who was around during Paul and Davids' reign...Simon, I think.
Gollum - A leper! Okay, just kidding.. =)
<div align=right>-- Talking Hawk
</div>
[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] Wha--wot-the!!!

--uhh, St. [Simon] Peter had the sword. . .

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]
__________________
Qui desiderat pacem, præparet bellum.
E i anîra hîdh, tangado an auth.
Estel the Descender is offline  
Old 07-13-2002, 06:31 AM   #205
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Pipe

Your quote from The Hobbit is quite apt, Estel. And yes, I was trying to distinguish between Cahill's historical revision in terms of the Sea of Reeds versus Red Sea and its depth, as over against his surmise that the actual parting could never have happened therefore the Jews must have convinced themselves. Along the same lines, another theologian and bible scholar, N.T. Wright, argued through the likelihood of Jesus' resurrection, and being a 1st century specialist, knowing all he knows, and communicating it, his conclusion was that every explanation to the counter is insufficient, thus, inexplicably, the only reasonable conclusion is that the resurrection must have happened - so what if we don't know how?
littlemanpoet is offline  
Old 08-09-2002, 08:51 AM   #206
Estel the Descender
Haunting Spirit
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 55
Estel the Descender has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via Yahoo to Estel the Descender
Sting

Quote:
Along the same lines, another theologian and bible scholar, N.T. Wright, argued through the likelihood of Jesus' resurrection, and being a 1st century specialist, knowing all he knows, and communicating it, his conclusion was that every explanation to the counter is insufficient, thus, inexplicably, the only reasonable conclusion is that the resurrection must have happened - so what if we don't know how?
<div align=right>-- littlemanpoet</div>
[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I have a few quotes from a related thread called (Lack of) Religion in LotR:

Quote:
Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its `færie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.
For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary `real' world. (I am speaking, of course. of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days.)... ~letter 131
Quote:
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like `religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. ~letter 142 ]
<div align=right>-- letters of Tolkien quoted from Fingolfin of the Noldor
</div>
__________________
Qui desiderat pacem, præparet bellum.
E i anîra hîdh, tangado an auth.
Estel the Descender is offline  
Old 08-09-2002, 09:23 AM   #207
gayare'dion
Haunting Spirit
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: pennsylvania
Posts: 75
gayare'dion has just left Hobbiton.
Sting

boromir kinda reminds me of peter, how he rejected the deed of the fellowship, as peter rejected jesus, and then tried to fight to show them he was still true, like how peter cut off a roman guards ear, to try and save jesus before his arrest
__________________
i like pants!
gayare'dion is offline  
Old 08-18-2002, 10:47 AM   #208
galadwen29
Animated Skeleton
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: england
Posts: 30
galadwen29 has just left Hobbiton.
Pipe

i believe the trilogy is in a way based on some of the stories in the bible. the main theme of the whole book is the fight against evil. frodo who has to carry this burden this sacrifice could be a jesus figure who i believe would've had great diffuculty coming to terms with the fact that he is the son of god. frodo does not want to do this quest but has to for it is his destiny.
could the fellowship represent the disciples? and boromir represent judas?
the temptation of the ring to frodo thoughout the book could represent jesus' battle with the devil in the desert.
there are too many parallels between the bible and the trilogy to list here so tolkien must have thought that the stories in the bible could be told in a different way but with the same morals.
__________________
"i don't know half of you as well as i should like; and i like less than half of you half as well as you deserve"

"TOSS ME!"
galadwen29 is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 07:32 PM   #209
MallornLeaf
Haunting Spirit
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: who cares?
Posts: 76
MallornLeaf has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via AIM to MallornLeaf
Silmaril

<font color="violet">It seems like I say this all the time. I haven't read over all of the posts, there's just too many. So I don't know what points of view you are all taking. But I do know that Tolkien hated allegories...

<font color="white">But that doesn't mean that the trilogy and the Bible are unrelated...

<font color="violet">After starting to write the trilogy, Tolkein realized that some of it COULD be taken as witchcraft, etc. So he went back and revised it... not only taking out things that could be misinterpreted, but also replacing them and adding things that would give the books a Christain undertone.

<font color="aqua"> So if you are trying to relate characters in LOTR to characters in the Bible--you won't succeed. If tolkein hated allegories, why would he write one?

If you want me to go into detail as to how LOTR has christian undertones, I'd be happy too... but for now I think this says enough.
__________________
". . . All we must decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

"I pass the test, I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel."
MallornLeaf is offline  
Old 09-01-2002, 07:19 AM   #210
Estel the Descender
Haunting Spirit
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 55
Estel the Descender has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via Yahoo to Estel the Descender
Sting

Quote:
After starting to write the trilogy, Tolkein realized that some of it COULD be taken as witchcraft, etc. So he went back and revised it... not only taking out things that could be misinterpreted, but also replacing them and adding things that would give the books a Christain undertone.
[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
__________________
Qui desiderat pacem, præparet bellum.
E i anîra hîdh, tangado an auth.
Estel the Descender is offline  
Old 10-06-2002, 03:59 PM   #211
TolkienGurl
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 637
TolkienGurl has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via ICQ to TolkienGurl Send a message via AIM to TolkienGurl
Sting

Disclaimer: As a Christian, this is merely my interpretation of the characters in LOTR. In no way is this meant to be treated as fact, nor is it what Tolkien intended!

Aragorn reminds me of Jesus Christ. Both were Kings, but were scorned because they did not "look" like Kings.

Also, Gandalf (representation of Jesus) fell into the abyss (hell) and fought the balrog (the devil) and returned as from the dead (Easter) dressed in white (the transfiguration).

~TolkienGurl~

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]
__________________
Hopes fail. An end comes. We have only a little time to wait now. We are lost in ruin and downfall and there is no escape.
-Frodo
My Livejournal
TolkienGurl is offline  
Old 12-01-2002, 03:25 AM   #212
Estel the Descender
Haunting Spirit
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 55
Estel the Descender has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via Yahoo to Estel the Descender
Sting

I found this article at http://www.users.cts.com/king/e/erik...n/gdfchrst.htm
entitled, Did Tolkien Intend for Gandalf
to Represent Christ?
. I post a copy of it here:

Quote:
Did Tolkien intend Gandalf's Death and Return to represent Christ and the Ressurection?

Heavens, no! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

This would have represented a too literal embodiement of Christian ideal, which Tolkien thought undesirable in a story. He specifically stated this while commenting on the Arthurian tales:

"{i}t is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion. For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy- story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary `real' world."LETTER #131

This is not to say that he didn't like the Tales; he did, but his feeling was that such a direct connection between one of his characters and Christ was allegorical - which he utterly disliked.

Further, in one of his letters, he flatly denies this type of allegory (which he avoided in his stories and repeatedly denied):

"Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees." LETTER #181

However, Tolkien's work is religious and consciously admitted by Tolkien to be so. While he disliked "allegory" he still embodied his religious ideals and beliefs into his work by making them "symbolical", if you will. Gandalf's death and return is meant to "symbolize" that the sacrifice of one's self for a worthy purpose can be changed and enlarged to another and higher purpose.
In another article I found here at http://www.users.cts.com/king/e/erik...n/jrrtcrst.htm
titled Was Tolkien a Christian? excerpts from Tolkien's letters regarding his Christianity:

Quote:
From Letter #131:
...Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its `faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.
For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary `real' world. (I am speaking, of course. of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days.)... In the cosmogony there is a fall: a fall of Angels we should say. Though quite different in form, of course, to that of Christian myth. These tales are `new', they are not directly derived from other myths and legends, but they must inevitably contain a large measure of ancient wide-spread motives or elements. After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of `truth', and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear.

From 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. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like `religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

From Letter #165:
It is not `about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular, or topical, moral, religious, or political. The only criticism that annoyed me was on that it `contained no religion' (and `no Women', but that does not matter, and is not true anyway). It is a monotheistic world of `natural theology'. The odd fact that there are no churches, temples, or religious rits and ceremonies, is simply part of the historical climate depicted. It will be sufficiently explained, if (as now seems likely) the Silmarillion and other legends of the First and Second Ages are published. I am in any case myself a Christian; but the `Third Age' was not a Christian world.

From Letter #195:
Actually I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect `history' to be anything but a `long defeat' - though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.

From Letter #213:
...I object to the contemporary trend in criticism, with its excessive interest in the details of the lives of authors and artists. They only distract attention from an author's works (if the works are in fact worthy of attention). and end, as one now often sees, in becoming the main interest. But only one's guardian Angel, or indeed God Himself, could unravel the real relationship between personal facts and an author's works. Not the author himself (though he knows more than any investigator), and certainly not so-called `psychologists'. ...I was born in 1892 and lived for my early years in `the Shire' in a pre-mechanical age. Or more important, I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic. The latter `fact' perhpas cannot be deduced; thou one critic (by letter) asserted that the invocations of Elbereth, and the character of Galadriel as directly described (or through the words of Gimli and Sam) were clearly related to Catholic devotion to Mary. Another saw in waybread (lembas)=viaticum and the reference to its feeding the will (vol. III, p. 213) and being more potent when fasting, a derivation from the Eucharist. (That is: far greater things may colour the mind in dealing with the lesser things of a fair-story.)

From Letter #269:
With regard to The Lord of the Rings, I cannot claim to be a sufficient theologian to say whether my notion of orcs is heretical or not. I don't fell under any obligation to make my story fit with formalized Christian theology, though I actually intended it to be consonant with Christian thought and belief, which is asserted elsewhere.

From Letter #310:
...So it may be said that the chief purpose of life, for any one of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all the means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks. To do as we say in the Gloria in Excelsis:...We praise you, we call you holy, we worship you, we proclaim your glory, we thank you for the greatness of your splendour.

From Letter #320:
...I think it is true that I owe much of (the character of Galadriel) to Christian and Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary....
[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Well, so much for that!

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]
__________________
Qui desiderat pacem, præparet bellum.
E i anîra hîdh, tangado an auth.
Estel the Descender is offline  
Old 12-01-2002, 09:29 AM   #213
Kalessin
Wight
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earthsea, or London
Posts: 175
Kalessin has just left Hobbiton.
Sting

Estel, good to hear you [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

This is an excellent post and you have highlighted what I believe to be the core issues, that I will attempt to summarise thus -

1. Undoubtedly art reflects the artist, and the intent and act of creation is not solely willed and conscious, therefore allowing that all the sensibilities of the artist as a human being will be to some extent a presence in the work ... but Tolkien himself disliked the diminishing of (his) art that categorising it by a simple, superficial portrait of the creator implies(examples - Orwell = committed leftwing, QED all Orwell's work is leftwing propaganda, Joyce = repressed Catholic, QED all Joyce's work is repressed Catholic psychobabble, PG Wodehouse = nazi sympathiser, QED all Wodehouse's work etc.), and saw preciseley the danger of personality cult or caricature and so on that almost inevitably result. Hence his, and my, contention that art does not solely embody the artist, but equally stands in embodiment in and of itself.

2. A reader can confer 'allegory' to a work for their own purposes, just as many other personal interpretations are part of their own valid experience. Yet Tolkien himself (as your Lembas example illustrates), acknowledged that once readers became self-conscious in this kind of interpretation and began to analyse narrative for symbolism that met their own expectations, all the elements of the work would be reduced to a technical context, and regardless of narrative importance the reader would simply be concerned (in a somewhat postmodern way) with the mechanics of (their own inferred) literary device.

3. We, I, you, Tolkien - are contradictory and complex beings ... we change our minds, our view of self shifts, we re-invent our persona and artefacts, we make mistakes, we are inconsistent and unpredictable, we rise above our own expectations, and so on. Your list of irreconcilable comments by Tolkien simply demonstrates that, and his work itself does too - was LotR revised from a specific religious agenda, or in response to other pressures, and if it was consciously 'revised' in Christianity, was the earlier manuscript deeply flawed by the omissions (obviously not, since much of the crucial narrative and characterisation maintained). Tolkien was a devout Catholic when he wrote the first edition - had his Catholicism changed by the time he came to revise? It is NOT the Bible, it is a human book by a human author and not the verbatim dictated words of God (unless through divine determinism you posit that all actions are willed by God - and even if you do, is there no difference between the inspiration of the Gospels and Tolkien's own subcreation?) ...
we should acknowledge, cherish and celebrate the humanity, the contradictions, the subtelty and variety of form, meanings and message in LotR, that is it's true and lasting triumph.

Estel, I hope, or think, our areas of agreement are fundamental and any disagreements technical (I am not talking about personal religious convictions here [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]), and I say that with respect for your thoughtful and valuable contributions here and elsewhere, from which I quote -

Quote:
The LotR cannot be used as a Christian tome even though it has Christian elements in it.
I agree, and wonder why no-one else has said it so straighforwardly before (apart from me, as you know I am incapable of succinctness [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]).

Peace.

Kalessin

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]
Kalessin is offline  
Old 12-02-2002, 04:42 PM   #214
Tyler
Animated Skeleton
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 37
Tyler has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via AIM to Tyler
Tolkien

This post isn’t meant to offend anyone and if it does im sorry but this is what I think. I am a Christen and I don’t really thing LoTR was an allegory to the Bible

I really don’t see a Jesus figure. It goes into great depth on his birth. It was a very big deal. If someone was to be a Jesus figure there is not mention of something like that. Aragorn was born as a Numenorean which was a big deal due too having some aspects on an elf but nothing compared to Jesus. In the Bible Jesus did so much. I really don’t see any character doing anywhere as much as he did. There were people who did a lot such as Frodo just dealing with the ring. You could say this is like Jesus saving everyone. It was going to cost him his life but he knew that it had to be done. Just like destroying the ring had to be done. Also Frodo doesn’t die which makes the reader happy to see the hero win and live happily ever after. This makes a better story.

Gandalf killing the Balrog which in a since is like David vs. Goliath but not really due to Gandalf being very powerful with wisdom and immorality while David had his faith in God.

I find the idea about the good vs. evil being a Christian only moral wrong. That has probably been in every culture since the dawn of time. It was used to teach morals. Not to mention is makes a good story.

Now the creation of middle earth could be taken two ways. Eru was God and the Valar were angels as in the Christan way or you could say Eru was like Zeus and the Valar where more like demi gods. You take your pick.

Next we can deal with the devil issue (Morgoth and Sauron). In my mind they are too physically active. The devil in the Bible was more mentally active. Putting temptation in front of you not coming up to you and cutting off you head. They just have too much of an active role in the downfall of the people of middle earth.

God didn’t make one person better than the other. He created all men equal. People from South America don’t get to live forever while people from Europe are short miners. Elves were the only ones who had the chance to go join Eru.

There are many more points that I didn’t put down but that is all im going to put down for now. Feel free to tell me your comments, feeling, or snack ideas.
__________________
Not all who wander are lost.
-Tolkien
Tyler is offline  
Old 12-06-2002, 08:04 PM   #215
Estel the Descender
Haunting Spirit
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 55
Estel the Descender has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via Yahoo to Estel the Descender
Sting

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Hello, Tyler!

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Don't worry man, no one is offended
. Besides, if any of us wrote an offensive post, either the post gets deleted by the dread Barrow-wight (and no Tom Bombadil to the rescue!) or the the thread mysteriously closes. Since that hasn't happened yet, well, then everything is still okay!

Quote:
I really don’t see a Jesus figure. It goes into great depth on his birth. It was a very big deal. If someone was to be a Jesus figure there is not mention of something like that. Aragorn was born as a Numenorean which was a big deal due too having some aspects on an elf but nothing compared to Jesus. In the Bible Jesus did so much. I really don’t see any character doing anywhere as much as he did. There were people who did a lot such as Frodo just dealing with the ring. You could say this is like Jesus saving everyone. It was going to cost him his life but he knew that it had to be done. Just like destroying the ring had to be done. Also Frodo doesn’t die which makes the reader happy to see the hero win and live happily ever after. This makes a better story.
Well said! Nothing anyone in the LotR did can even compare to the work of Jesus Christ. I think that comparing Jesus to Frodo, Aragorn, or Gandalf is like comparing a bonfire to the sun.

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Good to hear from you too, Kalessin!

Quote:
Tolkien himself disliked the diminishing of (his) art that categorising it by a simple, superficial portrait of the creator implies. . .
<div align=left> --Kalessin </div>
I see that we understand Letter #213 the same way.

Quote:
A reader can confer 'allegory' to a work for their own purposes, just as many other personal interpretations are part of their own valid experience.
<div align=left> --Kalessin </div>
Quote:
I dislike Allegory--the conscious and intentional allegory--yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be accepted just as a story.)
<div align=left> --From Letter #131 </div>
The more 'realistic' a story the more people find meaning in the story, hence the tendency to allegorise. It is funny that the deliberate allegory Starship Troopers is seen more as sci-fi literature rather than a philosophical work.

Quote:
Tolkien was a devout Catholic when he wrote the first edition - had his Catholicism changed by the time he came to revise? It is NOT the Bible, it is a human book by a human author and not the verbatim dictated words of God (unless through divine determinism you posit that all actions are willed by God - and even if you do, is there no difference between the inspiration of the Gospels and Tolkien's own subcreation?)
<div align=left> --Kalessin </div>
I quite agree that the LotR is not like the Bible in the sense of Divine Inspiration. As an Evangelical Christian I would affirm the uniqueness of the Scriptures in this matter. I however am not like most believers in Divine Inspiration: I am not a determinist but a person who affirms the doctrine of Free Will. (Don't worry, I took no offense nor do I intend to give any [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] .) I do not believe that all actions are willed by God, definitely not those done against his known will.

Quote:
Estel, I hope, or think, our areas of agreement are fundamental and any disagreements technical (I am not talking about personal religious convictions here [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ). . .
<div align=left> --Kalessin </div>
[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I HOPE so, too, Kalessin. But, hey! differences are a given. What would life be like if all of us had the same face, same sex, same age, same everything? Where others see contradiction I see harmonic counterpoint. But like any 'classically' trained musician, I do enjoy harmonic resolution.

Advanced Happy Holidays, People of the Downs!

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] A ná merye i turuhalmeri ar alya i vinya loa!
__________________
Qui desiderat pacem, præparet bellum.
E i anîra hîdh, tangado an auth.
Estel the Descender is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 06:37 PM   #216
InklingElf
Shade of Carn Dûm
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 421
InklingElf has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via AIM to InklingElf
Tolkien

Quote:
[Disclaimer: I am glad at the development of this thread. We who post here seems to have disproved the notion that the LotR is somehow an allegory of the Bible. I hope that instead of finding hidden meanings in the LotR, we examine Tolkien’s work in comparison with the Bible. In short, I hope that we can get into actual textual criticism. Furthermore, I hope that what follows will not be taken as a form of ‘appropriation’ of the LotR by a Christian in the sense that ‘If you believe that only Christians (of all denominations) can truly appreciate LotR, or - inversely - that if you appreciate LotR, that somehow proves or validates the ultimate truth of specific Christian tenets ... this is appropriation.’ You do not need to be a Christian in order to know proper hermeneutics.]
You're cool Estel the Descender [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img], and now that I confirm my beliefs I will post on this wonderful thread.

Quote:
I dislike Allegory--the conscious and intentional allegory--yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be accepted just as a story.)

--From Letter #131
Given Tolkien's stated distaste for allegory—his main motivation for writing was storytelling, not the exploration of a literary theme.

Quote:
It is NOT the Bible, it is a human book by a human author and not the verbatim dictated words of God
Yes, I definitley agree. Though the books do somehow tie with some references in the Scripture.

BTW:Estel the Descender:I am also a fellow Evangelical Christian.
InklingElf is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:54 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.