<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,

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

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’

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?

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

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–

What he meant of course was that those ‘scholars’ were influenced by their logical positivist-skepticist philosophies that doubts everything from reason to Shakespeare

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!’

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 ]

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.

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...

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] ).

[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] Wha--wot-the!!!

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

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]

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?

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

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

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 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.

<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.

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

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 ]

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:

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:

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Well, so much for that!

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]

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 -

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 ]

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.

[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!

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!

I see that we understand Letter #213 the same way.

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.

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.

[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!

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.

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

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.