The Lord of the Bible?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

In the Bible, Satan sends evil into the world by tempting Adam and Eve who had previously been Good and lived in Paradise. He is the cause of The Fall - or you could argue that Adam and Eve are. Either way, the world was inherently Good and then Satan brought Evil into it with The Fall. In Tolkien's cosmology however, our 'Satan' is there causing trouble before any people inhabit Arda. There is no period of Good. Melkor adds his own theme to the Music and thus the world is created complete with inherent evil. It suffuses everything, even the land itself, and the Elves! Letter 286 goes into this. So right away, Melkor is a different kettle of fish.

I'd posted in a very similar thread that Middle Earth could not be a pre-Christian or more specifically a pre-Abrahamic world. Posts on this thread have made me think more about the parallels and so I've come up with a new answer. Possibly, Arda could be Earth preNoachian Flood. Previously I stated that Earth did not go 'downhill' or become ungood until Adam and Eve sinned. Up to that point, creation was good.

But what about Lucifer?

In the first book of John (Christian Bible) Satan is said to be sinning from the beginning, and so we can see him to be like Melkor in that both were rebelling against Eru's/YHWH's will before the creation of humankind. So that fits. We could posit that somewhere in the east, before the tribes of men came to the western part of Middle Earth (Beleriand?), that there existed Adam et al. Also, I think that the Sil states that Morgoth went amongst men when the children of the sun first appeared, and maybe to one he appeared as a snake (dragon perhaps?).

The remainder of the Bible, even the New Testament, could then be considered to have taken place not in Middle Earth but elsewhere, and the revelation of Christ had not yet reach the northwestern shores by LotR. For that, though, we would have to assume that Noah's flood was either local or a retelling of the fall of Numenor.

Please note that I mean not to offend or defend, but just saw that, with a little thought, one could align the Sil and the Christian Bible. Also note that one may have to interpret some of the Bible differently, and some demoninations may interpret otherwise.

[Lalwendë]

Morgoth affects the very fabric of Arda before its even created, by giving his own 'tune' to the Music (I think it might be like some of that Hard House you hear banging out of barely legal modded Novas ), whereas yes, Satan might be bad from the beginning, but the world is created at least before he gets a chance to go and corrupt anything. So in The real World under Christian thought, the world itself is a good place, it's Satan and humans who are the 'sinners'; whereas in Arda, everything has the potential to be bad. You can see examples of this where Tolkien even describes flowers and animals which are 'evil'!

Hmm, wouldn't this be forcing it to fit though? Although there are so many interpretations of the Bible I'm sure it would fit at least one sect or faith? Come to think of it, this whole thread has proved one thing at least that The Bible and Tolkien's work have in common - both can be turned inside out and interpreted any number of imaginable ways!

Originally Posted by Raynor

And if we do agree that LotR reflects a Norse Light, what kind of Light is that, where men are sacrificed to gods? It looks more like un-light to me

Ah, but this Light would be, as Tolkien said to Milton Waldman:

It should possess the tone and quality that I desired, somewhat cool and clear, be redolent of our 'air' (the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe: not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East)

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Morgoth affects the very fabric of Arda before its even created, by giving his own 'tune' to the Music (I think it might be like some of that Hard House you hear banging out of barely legal modded Novas ), whereas yes, Satan might be bad from the beginning, but the world is created at least before he gets a chance to go and corrupt anything.

I don't know the Bible well enough to agree or disagree. Think that one might interpret Job 38:4-7 as meaning that the angels were singing while the Earth was being created, and so to me that would put their creation prior to Earth's. And maybe someone with a Sil handy could provide the Music quotes, as from memory I thought that at least the first few bars/chords weren't in discord. Anyway, maybe the argument could be made that at first Melkor/Lucifer were not ungood, then shortly after creation and during the shaping of the world started whistling their own tunes.

So in The real World under Christian thought, the world itself is a good place, it's Satan and humans who are the 'sinners'; whereas in Arda, everything has the potential to be bad. You can see examples of this where Tolkien even describes flowers and animals which are 'evil'!

I see the difference and admit that some extra effort may be needed with the shoehorn. Before Adam and Eve fall, there are no thorns or fangs. On the other hand, these two are driven out of Eden, which, if the whole world were affected by mankind's sin, then what would be the point of driving them from a specific place (except to keep them from the tree of life)? Did Eden stay good and, like Melian's Girdle, exclude the thorns and fangs which already roamed elsewhere?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

I see the difference and admit that some extra effort may be needed with the shoehorn. Before Adam and Eve fall, there are no thorns or fangs. On the other hand, these two are driven out of Eden, which, if the whole world were affected by mankind's sin, then what would be the point of driving them from a specific place (except to keep them from the tree of life)? Did Eden stay good and, like Melian's Girdle, exclude the thorns and fangs which already roamed elsewhere?

But in Christianity its the actions of the first two humans which causes evil to enter the world; if they had resisted then we must presume it would not have happened. Whereas in Arda, the peoples (peoples because I'm including Elves and Dwarves) are blameless. Rather than resisting the evil/sin that's become inherent in human nature, they must resist the evil/sin that's in the very fabric of the world.

I'm not sure why we would want to force it though; there are a fair few interesting avenues to pursue with regard to Christianity such as Grace, free will vs fate etc, and in essence the good/evil fight is in accord with a Christian morality (but not just a Christian one ).

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But in Christianity its the actions of the first two humans which causes evil to enter the world; if they had resisted then we must presume it would not have happened. Whereas in Arda, the peoples (peoples because I'm including Elves and Dwarves) are blameless. Rather than resisting the evil/sin that's become inherent in human nature, they must resist the evil/sin that's in the very fabric of the world.

Note that previously I'd stated exactly your point, as that's how it would seem. But when I'd read that, from the beginning, Satan was sinning, it made me consider this again. Now I doubt that there are answers out there, but wouldn't it seem that, if from the beginning, Satan were evil and were present in whatever form in the Garden of Evil, that, basically, one could state that evil were already in the world before Adam and Eve took their first bite of the same? It almost seems a legal technicality to be argued before a jury.

Now, one might counter that evil may have existed in the universe prior to Adam/Eve's sin, and that it was their willful choice of it that brought it into the world (tangent - if there is God and Free Will, sin would exist simply because one could chose 'not God.').

Anyway, I do like, as you state, that in Tolkien's world not everything is born with stain (there's a nappy joke in there somewhere), but with the choice to embrace or resist it. That may be why a 'works' theology (as opposed to grace) is popular even outside of Middle Earth - you feel like you're doing something, whether adding negative or positive chits, but that, in your beginning, you start out with a zero balance and not in debt.

[Raynor]

As I previously quoted from the Atrabeth and Myths Transformed, Tolkien's world is actually good, unless evil is stirred [after all, Eru's secret fire burns at the heart of it].

Concerning the timing of Ea and our world, he noted this in letter #211:

I hope the, evidently long but undefined, gap* in time between the Fall of Barad-dur and our Days is sufficient for 'literary credibility', even for readers acquainted with what is known or surmised of 'pre-history'.

*I imagine the gap to be about 6000 years : that is we are now at the end of the Fifth Age, if the Ages were of about the same length as S.A. and T.A. But they have, I think, quickened; and I imagine we are actually at the end of the Sixth Age, or in the Seventh.

Originally Posted by Lal

Ah, but this Light would be, as Tolkien said to Milton Waldman:

I am genuinly puzzled about what you are trying to say. [If you are reffering to the dedication of his myths to Englad, he admited this was something he attempted ("once upon a time") and amusingly asks the reader not to laugh at that - and ends by calling the whole enterprise as "absurd". But we have been through this already.]

[Raynor]

Sorry for double posting, things are moving at a fast pace here:

But in Christianity its the actions of the first two humans which causes evil to enter the world; if they had resisted then we must presume it would not have happened.

What about the snake? Was he wholly good? And isn't evil something of a moral quality? If so, how could Adam and Eve create it? How could they possibly amend God's creation in such a fundamental way? At most, they made an evil choice, possibly the first (most likely the second, considering the snake), but that is a far cry from amending God's creation.

Whereas in Arda, the peoples (peoples because I'm including Elves and Dwarves) are blameless.

How blameless were the Men that succumbed to Melkor's temptations? In the begining, he offered them gifts - and Eru promised them he would take care of them, should they call on to him - I really have to quote this, its an all time favorite:

Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time ye will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you

Was the temptation higher than they could handle - such as Frodo's temptation? In fact, they knew of Eru's power and assistance, but still fail to call on Him, they didn't mind about him - I have little if any doubt Eru would have kicked Melkor from one end of Ea to the other, should he have been supplicated. But no, Men failed and fell - in the end, to the glory of Eru.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Sorry for double posting, things are moving at a fast pace here:
What about the snake? Was he wholly good? And isn't evil something of a moral quality? If so, how could Adam and Eve create it? How could they possibly amend God's creation in such a fundamental way? At most, they made an evil choice, possibly the first (most likely the second, considering the snake), but that is a far cry from amending God's creation.

Was the temptation higher than they could handle - such as Frodo's temptation? In fact, they knew of Eru's power and assistance, but still fail to call on Him, they didn't mind about him - I have little if any doubt Eru would have kicked Melkor from one end of Ea to the other, should he have been supplicated. But no, Men failed and fell - in the end, to the glory of Eru.

Who knew of it? Men in LotR didn't know of it, it's only in the Athrabeth, in this it's stated as a kind of tradition, not as a current 'faith', there's no hint that the Men in LotR knew of it. It's up to these Men to work out what's right and wrong for themselves; and indeed part of the 'mission' of the Istari is to guide them (but not push them) towards good choices.

I'd like to see something that proves Eru would have kicked Melkor from one end of Ea to the other had Men called on him. It took Eru long enough to do something about him when the Elves sought help - and then he has simply been chained in the void, not destroyed, and his works go on right into the 4th age and beyond. "No-one can change the music in my despite" is what Eru says, so the fate of Arda is set out in the Music and it can't be altered; Melkor is chained in the Void until the end comes, though I've no doubt he might get a whupping at that point!

Back to Genesis...the serpent is not evil, the serpent simply suggests to Adam and Eve another way of doing things - the point about The Fall is surely that it is all Adam and Eve's choice. They can say no and simply obey (or trust), but they don't. Evil was only a potential possibility (as in Pandora's Box) and it was their actions alone which released it.

Originally Posted by Alatar

Anyway, I do like, as you state, that in Tolkien's world not everything is born with stain (there's a nappy joke in there somewhere), but with the choice to embrace or resist it. That may be why a 'works' theology (as opposed to grace) is popular even outside of Middle Earth - you feel like you're doing something, whether adding negative or positive chits, but that, in your beginning, you start out with a zero balance and not in debt.

That's the way i look at the world and morality anyway - that everyone must work towards doing good and doing the right thing ('moral credit at hole in the wall', as Radiohead say) and people are born good. I think in the Christian sense, the world itself is not evil, but people are born right from the beginning with the 'evil stain' and it must be fought against - Original Sin. In Tolkien's world, the world itself is evil, but people are not necessarily born that way, and they must work to avoid falling into the trap that the very world itself presents. This actually fits better with the world we see in Tolkien where we can even have evil trees, whereas the Christian view focusses on people not on flora and fauna.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Who knew of it? Men in LotR didn't know of it, it's only in the Athrabeth, in this it's stated as a kind of tradition, not as a current 'faith', there's no hint that the Men in LotR knew of it. It's up to these Men to work out what's right and wrong for themselves; and indeed part of the 'mission' of the Istari is to guide them (but not push them) towards good choices.

This is a loooooong quote from letter #156:

But in a kind of Noachian situation the small party of the Faithful in Numenor, who had refused to take pan in the rebellion (though many of them had been sacrificed in the Temple by the Sauronians) escaped in Nine Ships under the leadership of Elendil and his sons, and established a kind of diminished memory of Numenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth – inheriting the hatred of Sauron, the friendship of the Elves, the knowledge of the True God, and (less happily) the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs – their only 'hallows': or almost so. But the 'hallow' of God and the Mountain had perished, and there was no real substitute. Also when the 'Kings' came to an end there was no equivalent to a 'priesthood': the two being identical in Numenorean ideas. So while God (Eru) was a datum of good Numenorean philosophy, and a prime fact in their conception of history he had at the time of the War of the Ring no worship and no hallowed place. And that kind of negative truth was characteristic of the West, and all the area under Numenorean influence: the refusal to worship any 'creature', and above all no 'dark lord' or satanic demon, Sauron, or any other, was almost as far as they got. They had (I imagine) no petitionary prayers to God ; but preserved the vestige of thanksgiving. (Those under special Elvish influence might call on the angelic powers for help in immediate peril or fear of evil enemies. ) It later appears that there had been a 'hallow' on Mindolluin, only approachable by the King, where he had anciently offered thanks and praise on behalf of his people; but it had been forgotten. It was re-entered by Aragorn, and there he found a sapling of the White Tree, and replanted it in the Court of the Fountain. It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Luthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard. But there would be no temple of the True God while Numenorean influence lasted.

It does speak for itself, doesn't it?

It took Eru long enough to do something about him when the Elves sought help - and then he has simply been chained in the void, not destroyed,

Then again, "the indestructibility of spirits with free wills, even by the Creator of them, is also an inevitable feature, if one either believes in their existence, or feigns it in a story" (cf letter #211), so your alternative isn't appropiate.

the serpent is not evil, the serpent simply suggests to Adam and Eve another way of doing things - the point about The Fall is surely that it is all Adam and Eve's choice

The serpent was not evil? He "beguiled" Eve, inducing rebellion against God's words. And I think it is interesting to see his words:

Originally Posted by Genesis 3:5

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Since they are so similar to Sauron's:

Originally Posted by Of the rings of power and the third age, Silmarillion

Alas, for the weakness of the great! For a mighty king is Gil-galad, and wise in all lore is Master Elrond, and yet they will not aid me in my labours. Can it be that they do not desire to see other lands become as blissful as their own? But wherefore should Middle-earth remain for ever desolate and dark, whereas the Elves could make it as fair as Eressea, nay even as Valinor? And since you have not returned thither, as you might, I perceive that you love this Middle-earth, as do I. Is it not then our task to labour together for its enrichment, and for the raising of all the Elven-kindreds that wander here untaught to the height of that power and knowledge which those have who are beyond the Sea?

If the serpent was not evil, how come he was punished then?

Originally Posted by Alatar

Anyway, the answer regarding the Hobbits, whether there was a Flood, or whether the flood was local or happened before the Shirefolk existed is that, I think, there's a mention that in Frodo's time some of the Hobbits began getting a little bigger.

There is a quote, I can't remember the source, where Tolkien states that they will slowly diminish in numbers, getting very stressed with finding food and forgetting their lore. Rather depressing.

[littlemanpoet]

I've always considered the Atlantis/Numenor sinking to be tied up with the Noachian worldwide flood. But maybe the Noachian comes later (if you want to play this game) and may be considered the last worldwide (or major) calamity.

You don't have to have LotR happening as late as you're suggesting for the whole thing to fit.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I've always considered the Atlantis/Numenor sinking to be tied up with the Noachian worldwide flood.

I'm with you there, at least part way. One may think that Plato, when speaking of Atlantis, really meant Numenor. Or that the sinking of Numenor was, as the facts became blurred over the years and retellings added to the tale, Noah's flood. Surely one can find some comparisons between the two (Noah's flood and the drowning of Numenor) to make a case for a common ancestor (as you say, if we agree to play that game).

But maybe the Noachian comes later (if you want to play this game) and may be considered the last worldwide (or major) calamity.

Agreed. You either have a local flood or a global flood that happens after the beginning of the Fourth Age (prior to that, you'd think that the Elves would have recorded such an event, should they have survived it).

You don't have to have LotR happening as late as you're suggesting for the whole thing to fit.

I think that we're agreeing here. LotR could have happened prior to Noah's building of the Ark.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

LotR could have happened prior to Noah's building of the Ark.

Intriguing possibilities being considered here, alatar. Would this suggest that hobbits, along with unicorns, were not brought onto the ArK? Did they start hiding away from the big people even before Noah was seeking his two by twos for the trip? And were orcs wiped out in the Flood? So many points to consider!

EDIT: And perhaps Noah had such difficulty trying to recognise a female dwarf that he unfortunately chose two male dwarfs?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Intriguing possibilities being considered here, alatar. Would this suggest that hobbits, along with unicorns, were not brought onto the ArK?

Are there unicorns in Middle Earth? Anyway, the answer regarding the Hobbits, whether there was a Flood, or whether the flood was local or happened before the Shirefolk existed is that, I think, there's a mention that in Frodo's time some of the Hobbits began getting a little bigger. You may have part of the group becoming more adept at hiding, and so eventually become completely hidden from 'human' sight - so much so that we bulldoze over their villages and wipe them out . The other part of the group becomes more and more 'man-like,' and eventually are subsumed into the race of Man. You can see today (sit for a while at any mall) and you'll see various sizes and shapes of people, which obviously demonstrates the presence of Hobbit, orc, elf, maia and other genes in the mix.

Regarding Noah's Ark, (again, if we're playing that game) is entirely possible for the nearly invisible Hobbits to have stowed aboard. Or to have missed the boat completely, which would explain their absence today.

[littlemanpoet]

I'm quite certain that there must have been Hobbits hidden aboard the Ark.

And I've seen Dwarves (not talking about midgets here, two different things); they insist that they're human, and with their beards shaven, they do resemble Dwarvish looking humans. But you and I know what they really are....

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Are there unicorns in Middle Earth?

Well, seeing as they aren't fell beasts, there's less need to mention them in LotR in order to maintain the gothic aura of the story. It doesn't mean they weren't there.

Although, I am sure that some of our enterprising RPGers could well come up with an explanation which would explain their absence from the story. Could it be that the steeds of the Black Riders were unicorns who were pressed to the dark side, thereby losing their horns?

In the Prologue to LotR, we are told that hobbits developed the art of disappearing swiftly and silently to such a degree that it seems a property of magic. We aren't told that they no longer exist, just that they choose to avoid us. However, the same Prologue also says that

Originally Posted by Prologue LotR

It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves.... but what our relationship is can no longer be discovered.

So, I suppose that this does imply the hobbits did in fact survive the flood and were, as lmp suggests, hiding on the Ark. It isn't clear that there may at some time have been miscegenation between men and hobbits.

[littlemanpoet]

That which follows is the opinion of this poster. Anything said should be understood to be prefaced with "In my opinion..." or "I think that..." ... etc.

From the sixth paragraph of the Foreword:
"As for any inner meaning or "message", it has in the intention of the author none."

From a rather famous Letter Tolkien wrote:
"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. However that is very clumsily put and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little;"

Is there contradiction between the two texts? Only in part: "consciously in the revision". But Tolkien qualifies the nature of that consciousness in revision: "the religious element is absorbed into the story and symbolism". Tolkien is probably right that that this was clumsily put.

Before we try to resolve this issue, another piece must be brought to our attention: In paragraph eight of the Foreword, Tolkien says,
"I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one [application] resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other [allegory] in the purposed domination of the author."

I believe that we are talking about neither allegory nor application when "opining" that there is a Christian undercurrent in LotR. We are talking about something that the author did not intend, but could not help but do. Could he be unable to keep himself from it and still be conscious of it? He was not trying to keep himself from it. 'Consciously Catholic' is not a matter of intended, or unintended, meaning, but of world view. That which Tolkien believed about reality, formed the basis, the underpinnings, on which he constructed LotR. So there is no contradiction. Tolkien has not attempted to infuse LotR with Christian meaning, nor has he inserted any allegory. Nor is Christian content in LotR merely application by the reader. Rather, the Christian reader recognizes in LotR that which s/he has come to understand as deep reality precisely because the author wrote what he understood to be reality, into LotR.

One additional comment: Tolkien's work is just as infused with the content of the North, which he loved very much. I'm glad he did.