I just don't want to see long posts filled with personal, subjective interpretations of religious texts. We all already know just how many interpretations there are to the Bible, that's why there are so many religions based on it, and the danger of such posts is that other readers take this as Word. Just as I like to see a proper quote made of anything from Tolkien's work, I also like to see a proper quote made of Biblical text. Perhaps what's at the root of this thread is the struggle between objectivity and subjectivity.
Anyway, back to business.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark12_30
By definition, using TOlkien's worldview as illustrated by his definition of the incarnation and resurrection as eucatastrophes, LOTR (and most of the legendarium) takes place in a pre-incarnation time period. Correct? Therefore it is pre-eucatastrophe. So by Tolkien's definition, the LOTR world is in a catastrophic state.
Why should he present such a world-- that is in need of a eucatastrophe-- in a hopeful light? The eucatastrophe IS the hope. Those present in that world are hoping for a eucatastrophe-- but by definition of an eucatastrophe, to those waiting for the eucatastrophe, until it arrives, all hope seems lost.
|
To begin with this would depend on whether you see Middle-earth as 'our' world or not. To me its clearly a secondary world because its simply a work of fiction (watch as hands are held up in horror and Downers are shaken out of their reverie!) and we know the world was not created in that way. There's no pre-incarnation and no post-incarnation as Jesus never did, never will and never would enter Arda, though he indeed came to Earth. I think that Tolkien sought out this kind of separation between a fictional and the Real world by a. not writing an allegory and b. trying to keep all mentions of religion absent.
Secondly it depends how we interpret what Tolkien says in the Athrabeth about any kind of Messiah. And to follow on from that, while we're all flinging ideas around from said text, it must be remembered that
Tolkien himself felt distinctly uncomfortable with the text as he felt it was almost a parody of Christianity, something he did not want.
Finally, I'm not sure how someone could hope for a eucatastrophe as the word itself means something wholly unexpected (so while I might hope to win the lottery, any
eucatastrophe I experienced would be something unimaginable happening to me). A eucatastrophe can surely only be seen in retrospect. And to follow on from that, to me, one of the most Christian ideals in the text is that all these incredibly powerful people, Kings, Wizards, Stewards, have only two little Hobbits in whom to place all their hopes, the most humble of people. That's one of those incredible moments where Christianity and Humanism come close. It must have been difficult for such powerful people to feel they could place their trust in two insignificant Hobbits (and indeed, only some of them do manage to do so), but that's the only little hope that they've got, and its a very humbling idea.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bethberry
Her thesis is that in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, the satan was merely an adversary of humans, doing God's will to challenge or test us but that as Christianity developed in the first century he was literally demonised to be the enemy within. Melkor is not simply an antagonist of the Children of Illuvatar, but one whose desire to sub-create challenges Eru's status as The One. In fact, perhaps it can be said that Melkor's rebellion arises from the original treatment of him as the enemy within who is demonised.
|
As far as I understand it, the Satan of early Judaism was indeed simply God's assistant who would work under God's direction to test people. At some point the Satan of Zoroastrianism was incorporated into Judaism and also taken over into Christianity.
One other notable difference between Satan and Melkor is that Satan is cast out for his rebellion and he walks the earth trying to tempt people from God's will. Melkor however, is allowed to sing his discordant tune, allowed to taint not only the vision of Arda but the real thing, which Eru goes ahead and creates even though he knows what Melkor has done, and furthermore he is allowed to freely enter Arda and wreak havoc for some time before he is eventually chained in the void. So Earthly evil is Satan's doing, but the Earth itself is not evil, whereas in Arda there is no Melkor to tempt anyone, but the fabric of the world itself is evil.