The Lord of the Bible?

[Raynor]

The story itself - the battle of little people against big baddies - is the Christian element.

Then again, what moves the battle to its happy ending is the Christian pitty, the one who saves Frodo and the world.

But the knots he ended up tying himself into over Galadriel at a later stage proved that some things, such as trying to 'build in' Mary Myth to his story weren't working; that whole struggle could even be why he never got round to finishing the Silmarillion, which began as a very pagan work, but which grew more and more thorny as he tried to 'Christianise' it.

I am not sure, to what problems of Galadriel are you reffering to? If you mean whether her staying in ME in the Third Age is self-choice or a valar ban, then this isn't related to our issue. As for the later part of your statement, I agree; what started initially subconsiously as Christian, he would later emboss in his work even more evidently, should he had had the time.

Originally Posted by davem

My own feeling is that once the 'Christian' elements have been absorbed into the story (assuming of course the 'absorption' is successful ) they lose any specific Christian aspect & become a part of the Secondary world. Hence, they are no longer 'Christian'. To the extent that they are still identifiably Christian they have not been properly absorbed & the Secondary world is not truly self contained.

We need to consider the fact that Tolkien tried _really_ hard to make his creation like our world. I mean, he try so hard that he almost destroyed his creation. This is true either concerning the phisical level:

Originally Posted by Myths Trasnformed, HoME X

It is at any rate clear, for he stated it unambiguously enough, that he had come to believe that the art of the 'Sub-creator' cannot, or should not attempt to, extend to the 'mythical' revelation of a conception of the shape of the Earth and the origin of the lights of heaven that runs counter to the known physical truths of his own days: 'You cannot do this any more'. And this opinion is rendered more complex and difficult of discussion by the rise in importance of the Eldarin 'loremasters' of Aman, whose intellectual attainments and knowledge must preclude any idea that a 'false' astronomy could have prevailed among them. It seems to me that he was devising – from within it – a fearful weapon against his own creation.

The "real" creation, at least to Tolkien, is religious, religious as in Christian. I doubt he would try to depict something which is bereft of what he thinks is the central part, i.e. the christian part of it - or to depict it in such a way that it was unrecognisable. To emphasize my point, I also reffer to perhaps the most famous qoute of Humphrey's biography:

Originally Posted by "He had been inside his language", Part Four, JRRT A biography

We have come from God (continued Tolkien), and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic ‘progress’ leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil.

His work evolved around mythmaking - which point to Truth. There is no doubt to my mind that he had but the deepest of respect for other religions, but the Truth, to him, is the one writen in the Gospels - the one he tried to convey, in his on way. After all, he did call the Gospels the greatest fairy story of them all...

[davem]

This is all a bit vague, though, & hardly specifically Christian. Pity, mercy, compassion are all essential to Buddhism, for instance. What is often cited as 'Christian' themes in these arguments are actually much more universal. Tolkien certainly found them in Christianity, but he could equally well have found them in other faiths. I think a Jew or a Muslim could equally well have written LotR, or a Buddhist or Hindu or Sikh. I'm also pretty sure that any readers of LotR who followed those faiths would have no issues with the philosophical underpinnings of the work or feel they were at all strange.

The specifics of Christianity (Incarnation, Sacrifice of God for the salvation of the World, Resurrection, etc) are absent from the story.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am not sure, to what problems of Galadriel are you reffering to? If you mean whether her staying in ME in the Third Age is self-choice or a valar ban, then this isn't related to our issue. As for the later part of your statement, I agree; what started initially subconsiously as Christian, he would later emboss in his work even more evidently, should he had had the time.

The problems over her motivation, over why she chose to do what she did. Tolkien's tinkerings with her in letters and later notes, adding elements of the Mary myth to her persona only serve to make her seem flat and one-dimensional, and deeply un-womanly, as though she is reduced to a mere cipher or symbol than a real character. Yet if we simply take the Galadriel we see in LotR she becomes a much more fascinating character, imbued with power and a desire for power. She has failings. What's more she has a more fascinating back story, with Celebrimbor's love for her, the idea of her rebellion etc.

It's not only Galadriel who got him into knots though, it was the Orcs too. He later agonised over whether it was 'moral' to have slaughtered so many Orcs. And he seems to have become alarmed when people saw the huge amount of pagan symbolism in the work (inevitable to me, that a Catholic writer's work would come across in such a way when deliberately avoiding religious allegory, considering that Christianity was built on the foundations of paganism); as a result he used his letters to explore the Christian side of the work and often muddled issues which were established in the secondary world he had created.

Tolkien was the God of Arda, he was the only one who could create it and give it life, and that is what he did. With the letters, it's as though on the 8th day he opened the door and let some other God from another part of the void in, and we know what they say about too many cooks.

[Raynor]

Tolkien's tinkerings with her in letters and later notes, adding elements of the Mary myth to her persona only serve to make her seem flat and one-dimensional, and deeply un-womanly, as though she is reduced to a mere cipher or symbol than a real character.

Considering her deeds in the first age, no amount of later "tinkering" would make her one-dimensional (to me).

Tolkien was the God of Arda, he was the only one who could create it and give it life, and that is what he did. With the letters, it's as though on the 8th day he opened the door and let some other God from another part of the void in, and we know what they say about too many cooks.

Well, I am sure the professor would preffer the term sub-creator. In the On fairy-stories essay, he states that a work is believable and can produce "willful suspension of disbelief", or more accurately, secondary belief, only if it achieves inner-coherence, which is what he tried to do all the time with his work. If you are saying that what he did was the opposite, i.e. destroying an existing coherence between the form and essence of his work, I will have to politely disagree.

This is all a bit vague, though, & hardly specifically Christian. Pity, mercy, compassion are all essential to Buddhism, for instance. What is often cited as 'Christian' themes in these arguments are actually much more universal. Tolkien certainly found them in Christianity, but he could equally well have found them in other faiths. I think a Jew or a Muslim could equally well have written LotR, or a Buddhist or Hindu or Sikh. I'm also pretty sure that any readers of LotR who followed those faiths would have no issues with the philosophical underpinnings of the work or feel they were at all strange.

If what you imply is that if you want to make a christian/catholic work you must use only elements that are specific to this religion, then I disagree

The specifics of Christianity (Incarnation, Sacrifice of God for the salvation of the World, Resurrection, etc) are absent from the story.

Having those in the original form would have been as much as an allegory as you can possibly have. Of course, I could point out to the presence of the Gods who are Incarnate and whose eyes are not dimmed and whose hearts are not hardened; or to the foretold coming of Beren who descends into hell and brings out the light; to the sending of the imperishable flame at the heart of the world, making its foundations good and healing creation from inside; or to the second coming of Turin, who will slay Morgoth; or to the foretold coming of Eru himself, to heal all Creation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

. Of course, I could point out to the presence of the Gods who are Incarnate and whose eyes are not dimmed and whose hearts are not hardened; or to the foretold coming of Beren who descends into hell and brings out the light; to the sending of the imperishable flame at the heart of the world, making its foundations good and healing creation from inside; or to the second coming of Turin, who will slay Morgoth; or to the foretold coming of Eru himself, to heal all Creation.

As to Beren we have Orpheus/Orpheo, Innanna, Gilgamesh & others. Turin is hardly a 'Christ figure' (incest, murder, suicide). As to the Incarnation of Eru in Hinduism we have Krishna as the incarnation of Vishnu the Creator.

As far as the Flame Imperishable which enters into the Heart of the World, I don't at all see any similarity with Christian belief - unless you're referring to the fires of Hell....

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

As to Beren we have Orpheus/Orpheo, Innanna, Gilgamesh & others. Turin is hardly a 'Christ figure' (incest, murder, suicide). As to the Incarnation of Eru in Hinduism we have Krishna as the incarnation of Vishnu the Creator.

As far as the Flame Imperishable which enters into the Heart of the World, I don't at all see any similarity with Christian belief - unless you're referring to the fires of Hell....

Again, it seems to me that the main difference between us is that for you a Christian work is one in which there are refferences to only what is absolutely unique in Christianity - if the work would evolve solely around that, it would be rather barren. [Btw, IIRC, in hinduism, it is Brahma who is the creative aspect of God, not Vishnu]

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Again, it seems to me that the main difference between us is that for you a Christian work is one in which there are refferences to only what is absolutely unique in Christianity - if the work would evolve solely around that, it would be rather barren. [Btw, IIRC, in hinduism, it is Brahma who is the creative aspect of God, not Vishnu]

If the work contains equally strong elements of other faiths/beliefs (as it does, if anyone wishes to get into some alternative reader-resonse research) then can we still call it a Christian work? Shouldn't we really be calling it an Ecumenical or Universal work?

The fact still remains that the books do not contain that one major (in fact, pretty damn fundamental) aspect of Christianity. Christ.

Hmm, I wonder has anyone considered that perhaps Tolkien, as a devout Catholic, recognised that the Bible, as the Word of God, was the only definitive Christian text. Why would he have sought to demean the real Bible by attempting to create his own version? Wouldn't that be blasphemous?

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by davem

The whole point, which I made earlier, is that once an element is successfully absorbed into a Secondary World it becomes part of that world. The things Tolkien 'absorbed' into M-e are rather Religious universals, rather than specifics. If one didn't know he was Christian & had only the works I don't think - much as he might have hoped - anyone would be able to tell what religion, if any, he followed.

Hence, it is not a 'Christian' work.

Which has me thinking, what is a 'Christian' work?

If it is only something which contains christian specifics, in the plot, the characters or the symbolism, then Tolkien's works are not christian.

If it is something which contains christian themes and christian ethics, without solely consisting of them, then they are.
But since most works contain the ethics of their authors, and Tolkien's ethics were deeply influenced by christianity, this is not much of a surprise.

Is it a work which has a christian message?
This is a little difficult, since Tolkien's work does not have a specified message and everything depends on the individual application.
Can you apply Tolkien in a christian way? - obviously you can.
Can you apply Tolkien in a way that is not christian? - obviously you can.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Having those in the original form would have been as much as an allegory as you can possibly have. Of course, I could point out to the presence of the Gods who are Incarnate and whose eyes are not dimmed and whose hearts are not hardened; or to the foretold coming of Beren who descends into hell and brings out the light; to the sending of the imperishable flame at the heart of the world, making its foundations good and healing creation from inside; or to the second coming of Turin, who will slay Morgoth; or to the foretold coming of Eru himself, to heal all Creation.

Raynor, please elaborate. This is what the thread was about - in the first place.

Originally Posted by Raynor

What about the fire form that God assumed before Moses? Or the fire with which Jesus baptises and cleans? The pillar of fire which God assumed as a form, to lead Moses' people? The Holy Spirit as Holy Fire?

I always understood the Imperishable Flame as the source of the indepentent life, contrary to the lives of animals, the source of the fëar of elves, men and dwarves, making their fëar imperishable in Arda. Gandalf refers to it when he calls himself a servant of the secret fire and I see it as a symbol for Eru in this place, whom he serves via serving the Valar.
I cannot see a resemblance to this in your examples.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

This is all a bit vague, though, & hardly specifically Christian. Pity, mercy, compassion are all essential to Buddhism, for instance. What is often cited as 'Christian' themes in these arguments are actually much more universal. Tolkien certainly found them in Christianity, but he could equally well have found them in other faiths. I think a Jew or a Muslim could equally well have written LotR, or a Buddhist or Hindu or Sikh. I'm also pretty sure that any readers of LotR who followed those faiths would have no issues with the philosophical underpinnings of the work or feel they were at all strange.

He could-- if he was from another faith. But he was, as we know, a devout and focused Catholic; so why bring the other faith systems up at all?

The question at the beginning of the thread was whether Tolkien took material from the bible, not whether he took it from the Upanishads, the Koran, or any other text.

The specifics of Christianity (Incarnation, Sacrifice of God for the salvation of the World, Resurrection, etc) are absent from the story.

Of course they are absent from the war of the Ring; Tolkien said they were, and also he said why.

They showed up in his writings much later, in Athrabeth an Andreth.

Originally Posted by davem

As far as the Flame Imperishable which enters into the Heart of the World, I don't at all see any similarity with Christian belief - unless you're referring to the fires of Hell....

Denying connections between two works assumes you are familiar enough with both works to make the denial. Here, then, lies your greatest weakness in this whole argument-- ignorance of the main themes of Christianity. If you cannot see the Flame Imperishable within Christian theology and biblical exegesis-- even the simple phrase by itself, let alone the way Gandalf uses that simple phrase on the bridge!-- then your opinion that there are no connections loses its weight within this context.

[mark12_30]

You know, I'm cheered to see some of you making new discoveries and new associations; please don't let us old, wheezing geezers discourage you from setting out on your explorations.

I'm off to work shortly, and there alas I have no Barrow Downs access. But I'll toss this out for discussion among the newer set.

Picture Gandalf's last stand on the Bridge of Khazad Dum.

Think over the phrase, "Flame Imperishable."

Now-- free-association time; without fretting about reactions and other's opinions... biblically, what comes to mind?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Originally Posted by Mark12-30

biblically, what comes to mind?

Originally Posted by Judges I, 12

And Caleb said: He that shall take Cariath-Sepher, and lay it waste, to him will I give my daughter Axa to wife.

Perfect match.

[davem]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

They showed up in his writings much later, in Athrabeth an Andreth.

A great deal shows up in the later writings - much of it, if included in the Legendarium would cause major problems. Even if accepted we are only dealing there with an Elvish belief, not a fact.



Denying connections between two works assumes you are familiar enough with both works to make the denial. Here, then, lies your greatest weakness in this whole argument-- ignorance of the main themes of Christianity. If you cannot see the connection for the Flame Imperishable within Christian theology and biblical exegesis, then your opinion that there are no connections loses all its weight within this context.

A belief in 'Sacred' fire at the heart of the earth is hardly original to Christianity. The whole point, which I made earlier, is that once an element is successfully absorbed into a Secondary World it becomes part of that world. The things Tolkien 'absorbed' into M-e are Religious universals, rather than specifics. If one didn't know he was Christian & had only the works I don't think - much as he might have hoped - anyone would be able to tell what religion, if any, he followed.

Hence, it is not a 'Christian' work.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

A belief in 'Sacred' fire at the heart of the earth is hardly original to Christianity. The whole point, which I made earlier, is that once an element is successfully absorbed into a Secondary World it becomes part of that world. The things Tolkien 'absorbed' into M-e are Religious universals, rather than specifics.

I suspect Tolkien would reverse your logic. The elements are universal because they point to the one true myth.

If one didn't know he was Christian & had only the works I don't think - much as he might have hoped - anyone would be able to tell what religion, if any, he followed.

Hence, it is not a 'Christian' work.

I disagree that the second sentence followed from the first.