The Lord of the Bible?

[mark12_30]

Lal, you baffle me.

My last serious post on this thread was (A) in answer to two specific questions and (B) provided extensive detail for those answers. My answer to Sharon was geared entirely towards (my grasp of) Sharon's worldview and how it would contrast between Tolkien's pre-incarnation worldview. Hence the extensive comparison/contrast between the OT worldview and the NT pre-incarnation worldview, explaining the difference in terms I hoped would resonate with Sharon and provide the contrast I thought she was looking for.

However, instead of responding to the difference between the two worldviews, or questioning my presentation of the information and processing it, and challenging the provided aspects of (New Testament, Christian) pre-incarnation hope and post-incarnation hope versus the Old Testament (Hebrew) aspects of hope-- challenging the information given on its own merit-- I was simply accused of proseletyzing, and otherwise the discussion ignored everything I had said in the post. I can hardly refrain from adding, that except for the comment about sheep and goats which was intended for humor, I did not claim "This is what I believe, and it is clearly true and all else is false." (Some others on this thread have, with impunity.) I simply presented my arguments regarding hope in context of the Christian worldview, supported by the texts, as thoroughly as I could.

Before it was over, I was rebuked for my textual support, and Sharon was rebuked for her question. I find this extremely unfortunate, since I thought Sharon had asked one of the most challenging questions on this thread so far.

Level of detail has been a point of contention on this thread. The repeated accusation is that those arguing in favor of Christian/ biblical influences offer only guesses and no proof. How are we suupposed to offer any proof for our points when as soon as we offer concrete textual support of our points we are accused of proseletyzing?

If my discussion had been about the Norse worldview and I had discussed the Eddas, providing textual quotes and summaries of ideas and worldviews, would anyone have complained?

I hope you'll pardon my skepticism, but in light of your reaction to my detailed answer to Sharon's question, I find your statement "Keep 'em coming if you like" a bit hard to trust. What are you looking for?

An afterthought, directed toward those who hold an 'anti-biblical-influence' stance or a neutral stance: -- what is it that you would like to see? Textual support? Summaries of overarching principles? One-liner, unsupported opinions? If I'm going to put real time and energy into this thread (as yet undecided) I'd like some indication.

[mark12_30]

Sharon-- please allow me to cast the worldview argument in an entirely different light, that of eucatastrophe.

Tolkien's view (stated in On Fairy Stories, Ballantine paperback p.88, 89; and also in Letters 89, page 100-101) was that the incarnation was the eucatastrophe of Man's history (for the pre-incarnation world, or the BC era) and the resurrection was the eucatastrophe of the story of the incarnation.

A eucatastrophe assumes a catastrophe-- does it not?

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.

Does that make sense?

Further edit: I think the Norse worldview plays into this, rather than opposes it. I'd be happy to discuss that thought further-- but RL calls.

[The Saucepan Man]

Helen, I rather hoped that I had already addressed this point:

Originally Posted by me

There is a fine line between stating Biblical text (or any other religious source) to justify a particular point (for example, in the context of this thread, a personally drawn Biblical parallel) and "sermonising" to others involved in the debate. The latter can come across as aggressive and cause offence, which is why I expressed my hope earlier in this thread that those who might be inclined to indulge in it would refrain from doing so.

Mark12_30 was answering a specific question that had been raised and was at pains to point out in her original post that she had no intention of causing offence. Nevertheless, and particularly in threads like this, a reasonable degree of sensitivity to the feelings and beliefs of others is required (on all "sides" of the debate). This may not be a matter of changing the content of what you want to say, but considering the manner in which you express it. Generally, personal beliefs should be expressed as just that - personal beliefs - rather than as assumed realities.

I hope that clarifies the position and would ask that all involved in this discussion bear these points in mind, since continued Mod and Admin intervention is both disruptive of the ongoing debate and time-consuming for the Mods/Admins involved.

As I recall, there was no criticism of Sharon for raising the question. Nor was there any issue about whether it was a proper question to raise and discuss. My own view was that your initial response erred on the side of pure biblical discussion, as opposed to discussion of possible biblical influence on Tolkien's works, but I had no issue with your edited post.

If people make clear (whether by words, tone, content or whatever) that a particular point is either a personal opinion/reaction/interpretation or that it involves speculation as to Tolkien's intent/approach (in which case, it would be sensible to provide supporting material), then I would hope that this thread can stay on track.

I trust such optimism is not misplaced.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen -

We are reading this differently. I did not feel earlier that I was being rebuked by anyone for the question I raised.

Now on to the second post.....

First, regarding my "take" on Tolkien's world view. My words on Satan's domination were poorly chosen. On catastrophe and eucatastophe, I would agree that, as a Catholic and the outside author, Tolkien sometimes viewed things in the way that you are describing. However, even here there were differences. It's difficult to see the small, stubborn optomism of the Shire as part of a world totally engulfed in catastrophe. Does your equation allow for this?

In certain other respects, however, I feel the author paints with an even blacker brush than you are seeing. His world is corrupted with evil in a way that goes beyond the traditional Christian view. It is a bleaker, more fatalistic place than that proposed in the Bible, whether because of certain influences from his beloved pagan myth or an intentional desire to portray Arda in a strikingly different light.

Just look at the creation story. The biblical story does not have any of the fallen angels actively participating in the creation of the world. Yet this is what Tolkien does. Morgoth's music is intertwined within the very fabric of Eru's world. To me, that is a very important distinction. It makes Arda laden with evil in a way that is not true of the Judaeo/Christian world where evil was introduced by the personal choices of two individuals. In the biblical paradigm, we are fighting against the evil impulses within our own soul. In the context of middle-earth, we must not only fight our personal impulses but contend with an evil that was woven into the fabric of the physical world from before the dawn of time. This makes the "long defeat" even longer! And because of this unique aspect of creation, I sometimes get the general feeling (a la Shippey) that Tolkien has presented us with an evil in middle-earth that is a great deal more substantial than the traditional Judaeo-Christian view of evil as the simple negation of good. Pretty heavy stuff, considerably bleaker than the orthodox story of creation as itirated in the bible.

Why is this? Why did Tolkien change this critical aspect of the creation story? He could have had Morgoth fall before the beginning of time and drop away from the group, yet still used the other Ainur to help him fashion the music. Why did he permit evil to be woven into the core of creation in a way that is very different than the biblical story? Perhaps if we knew the answer to this, it would help us understand how and why Tolkien used symbols and stories from the bible, but somehow changed them to create a world which is not exactly the same as ours.

EDIT: Littlemanpoet -- Sorry, we crossposted so my post doesn't take your excellent point on Frodo and Sam under consideration. I do think the Shire has to be considered in any attempt to weigh good and evil.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Why is this? Why did Tolkien change this critical aspect of the creation story? He could have had Morgoth fall before the beginning of time and drop away from the group, yet still used the other Ainur to help him fashion the music. Why did he permit evil to be woven into the core of creation in a way that is very different than the biblical story? Perhaps if we knew the answer to this, it would help us understand how and why Tolkien used symbols and stories from the bible, but somehow changed them to create a world which is not exactly the same as ours.

Interesting that you see it that way. I would say that Middle Earth/Arda is less bleak than the Christian world. In Arda I assume that I would not be born to evil, but could choose to follow that road, or not. In the Christian view I'm born already on the wrong road.

I may have asked this before, but in the Christian creation view, when is Lucifer and the other angels who follow him cast from heaven? My assumption, having not being able to find anything definitive, is that this takes place before Day 6 of Creation; before Man, but that could be completely wrong. I guess that as the Snake does not appear until after Eve that Satan could have been cast out after the creation of Adam/Eve. Any help?

My point here is that if Lucifer rebels pre-Creation or during Creation, then it may be closer to Arda than thought. And think that I may have included the Biblical verse previously where it states that Satan was sinning from the beginning.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

My point here is that if Lucifer rebels pre-Creation or during Creation, then it may be closer to Arda than thought. And think that I may have included the Biblical verse previously where it states that Satan was sinning from the beginning.

Hmm. It all depends on which 'Satan' one ascribes to. The Satan we know in popular culture is inherited from Milton. (And we ought to recall that Milton's Paradise Lost is/was on the Vatican list of proscribed books for its doctrinal irregularities, so we cannot automatically assume that Tolkien ascribed to a Miltonic Satan.) One very interesting, very different view of Satan is Elaine Pagel's The Origin of Satan

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.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Hmm. It all depends on which 'Satan' one ascribes to. The Satan we know in popular culture is inherited from Milton. (And we ought to recall that Milton's Paradise Lost is/was on the Vatican list of proscribed books for its doctrinal irregularities, so we cannot automatically assume that Tolkien ascribed to a Miltonic Satan.) One very interesting, very different view of Satan is Elaine Pagel's The Origin of Satan

Agree. Think that many think that Milton's work is in the Bible, word for word. Read Pagel's book, and it's interesting to see the 'evolution' of Satan.

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.

Did Melkor want to be like his father (assuming Eru is male) like Aule, but, from pride, not want to accept any criticism and so decided to become a 'spoiler,' not trying to add but to simply ruin the works and joy of others? Not big on the series, but isn't there a take in one the Anne Rice's (?) vampire books that describes things from the devil's side, where he takes the side of humans over God's plan, somewhat like Prometheus? In that version Satan rebels for the 'good' of mankind. Melkor cannot be confused with that version though, as by the time man arrives in Arda he's already well into his blackness.

[Lalwendë]

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.

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.

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.

[Child of the 7th Age]

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

I concur. As someone who has more familiarity with the older Hebrew texts than the Christian Bible, I can tell you that this is how Satan is still presented within the Jewish tradition. In the rabbinic tradition, there is far less emphasis on Satan as an external force and more emphasis on the struggle within the human soul between the yetzer hara, the so-called "evil inclination," and yetzer hatov, the "good inclination."

But neither of these entities in the soul are totally evil or good.... That would take a lengthy explanation which would not be directly relevent to this thread.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Cool insight. That, to me, is almost Christian as it's not by might or by a person's works (not including Frodo and Sam) that salvation is achieved, but by faith/grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).

[littlemanpoet]

I missed this post earlier.

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

[Tolkien's] world is corrupted with evil in a way that goes beyond the traditional Christian view. It is a bleaker, more fatalistic place than that proposed in the Bible, whether because of certain influences from his beloved pagan myth or an intentional desire to portray Arda in a strikingly different light.

Just look at the creation story. The biblical story does not have any of the fallen angels actively participating in the creation of the world. Yet this is what Tolkien does. Morgoth's music is intertwined within the very fabric of Eru's world. To me, that is a very important distinction. It makes Arda laden with evil in a way that is not true of the Judaeo/Christian world where evil was introduced by the personal choices of two individuals. In the biblical paradigm, we are fighting against the evil impulses within our own soul. In the context of middle-earth, we must not only fight our personal impulses but contend with an evil that was woven into the fabric of the physical world from before the dawn of time. This makes the "long defeat" even longer! And because of this unique aspect of creation, I sometimes get the general feeling (a la Shippey) that Tolkien has presented us with an evil in middle-earth that is a great deal more substantial than the traditional Judaeo-Christian view of evil as the simple negation of good. Pretty heavy stuff, considerably bleaker than the orthodox story of creation as itirated in the bible.

Actually, it depends upon whether you follow the primary, demythologized (and overly 'scrubbed') theological tradition, or the the more mythical, biblical-story reading.

(Herein lies another example of Greek "hardening of the categories" that has rendered Christian understanding of its own faith and history frankly moribund.)

The more mythical and biblical-story reading has to do with fallen angels mating with humans, the giants (nephilim) that resulted from such unions, and the filling of Canaan with these giant enemies of the Promise ... the sun and moon standing still for a day ... we're talking mythic power treated as history.

I italicized "simple negation of good" because it's an interesting point. First, is it an accurate reading of the biblical-mythic story? Second, even if it is (which I don't think), is it really that simple?

Originally Posted by Child

Why is this? Why did Tolkien change this critical aspect of the creation story? He could have had Morgoth fall before the beginning of time and drop away from the group, yet still used the other Ainur to help him fashion the music. Why did he permit evil to be woven into the core of creation in a way that is very different than the biblical story? Perhaps if we knew the answer to this, it would help us understand how and why Tolkien used symbols and stories from the bible, but somehow changed them to create a world which is not exactly the same as ours.

Perhaps Tolkien instinctivley knew that the way he presented his myth was in fact closer to the reality than the antiseptic theological renderings of the Greeky-clean theological tradition of the church.

EDIT: Littlemanpoet -- Sorry, we crossposted so my post doesn't take your excellent point on Frodo and Sam under consideration. I do think the Shire has to be considered in any attempt to weigh good and evil.

Thanks. Immediately after I had written that about Sam and Frodo, I was reminded of your interest in how the journey of Frodo and Sam affected the two, especially Frodo.

[Bêthberry]

Today I happened upon a speech by Gandalf and the thought arose: how are readers to understand Gandalf's meaning here?

The passage occurs in the first interview of Denethor, Gandalf and Pippin. I'll quote first Denethor's observation and then Gandalf's.

Originally Posted by Denethor, Minas Tirith, Return of the King

"Yet the Lord of Gondor is not to be made the tool of other men's purposes, however worthy. And to him there is no purpose higher in the world as it now stands than the good o fGondor; and the rule of Gondor, my lord, is mine and no other man's, unless the king should come again."

Originally Posted by Gandalf, Minas Tirith, Return of the King

"Unless the king should come again?" said Gandalf. "Well, my lord Steward, it is your task to keep some kingdom still against that event, which few now look to see. In that task you shall have all the aid that you are pleased to ask for. But I will say this: the rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, thought Gondor should perish, if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in days to come. For I also am a steward. Did you not know?"

If Gandalf is a steward, who is his king? It strikes me that some readers may assume the answer to be Aragorn--and they would be correct--while others will interpret a different one--and they also would be correct. Their interpretation would be based upon the collocation of words in these passages, words such as king and kingdom, which have a meaning beyond simply the political one here, given Gandalf's reference to those who might survive the night. Both readings are equally possible here.

I offer this as one example of a passage in LotR which can legitimately sustain two interpretations. Is this a passage which Tolkien niggled at?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Today I happened upon a speech by Gandalf and the thought arose: how are readers to understand Gandalf's meaning here?

The passage occurs in the first interview of Denethor, Gandalf and Pippin. I'll quote first Denethor's observation and then Gandalf's.

[quote snipped (see above)]

If Gandalf is a steward, who is his king? It strikes me that some readers may assume the answer to be Aragorn--and they would be correct--while others will interpret a different one--and they also would be correct. Their interpretation would be based upon the collocation of words in these passages, words such as king and kingdom, which have a meaning beyond simply the political one here, given Gandalf's reference to those who might survive the night. Both readings are equally possible here.

I offer this as one example of a passage in LotR which can legitimately sustain two interpretations. Is this a passage which Tolkien niggled at?

I expect Tolkien niggled at every passage in the entirety of the book. So yes. And both interpretations do seem to me valid, and not in the least mutually exclusive; how could they be? Nice one, Bb.

[littlemanpoet]

Exhibit #5: Sam Believes

Toward the beginning of Shadows of the Past, Sam Gamgee's character is established by comparison to Ted Sandyman. The section we're looking at is that which begins with "Sam Gamgee was sitting in one corner near the fire.....", and ends with "He walked home under the early stars through Hobbiton and up the Hill, whistling softly and thoughtfully."

Sam is trying to have a conversation about "queer tales". Ted will have none of it. First he refuses to even listen on the grounds that they're just hearth stories and children's tales thus not worth listening to (we are put in mind of On Faerie Stories in which Tolkien criticizes this view). Sam insists that there's truth in them, such as dragon stories. But Ted will have none of that either, for he'd heard of them when younger (maybe from Bilbo?) but "there's no call to believe in them now".

Sam lets him have his point but brings up tree men - giants - that have been seen on the North Moors. Namely Hal has seen them. Ted suggests that Hal's either a liar or "seeing things that ain't there", et. al., hallucinating. Sam provides more detail: "big as an elm and walking seven yards to a stride". Ted bets it was an elm tree, and stationary. This is worth quoting:

'Then I bet it wasn't an inch. What he saw was an elm tree, as like as not.'
'But this one was walking, I tell you; and there ain't no elm tree on the North Moors.'
'Then Hal can't have seen one,' said Ted. There was some laughing and clapping: the audience seemed to think that Ted had scored a point.

By this point our sympathy is with Sam (if it wasn't before) because Ted is arguing with such bad logic (if any at all) that it's downright confounding for poor Sam. To make sure the reader doesn't miss what has just happened, Tolkien includes authorial commentary that Ted actually had scored no point at all. In fact, Ted had actually made Sam's point for him; but Ted and the hobbits are so sure that there 'ain't no such things as tree men' even if there ain't no such things as elms on the North Moors.

But it would take more intellectual ability than Sam can muster to untangle Ted's confoundment, so Sam insists on what can't be denied: queer folk crossing the Shire or being kept out of it. On this Ted makes no interruption or denial. Then Sam speaks elegaically of Elves; Ted merely laughs, saing it has nothing to do with hobbits, and asserts that no hobbits have seen Elves moving through the Shire. Not this is telling. Ted denies the existence of dragons (which the reader knows is wrong), then denies the existence of Ents (which the reader knows nothing about yet), then all but denies the passage of Elves through the Shire, implying that Elves don't exist either!

Why is Ted so adamant? How can he be so certain? Well, it's because such things are not part of the normal experience of hobbits; therefore they can't exist. This is bad logic, obviously, and begins to sound like the attitude of a philosophical naturalist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: 'if you can't perceive it with your senses, it can't be real'.

So both Sam's and Ted's characters are being laid out for the reader. Tolkien will draw our attention back to Ted toward the end of the entire story, where Ted's bankrupt attitude toward the things Sam believes results in moral bankruptcy, working with Sharkey's ruffians. Nevermind Ted's illogic; his stubborn cussedness undermines Sam's efforts to put forward his case effectively.

Sam's response to Ted's doubts on Elves is to bring in his trump cards: Bilbo and Frodo for whom Sam already has deep respect and a high opinion (and as we learn later(in A Conspiracy Unmasked) , Sam already knows about the Ring). Ted dismisses them as 'cracked and becoming cracked'. With this final dismissal of Sam's arsenal of evidence, Ted leaves noisily. Sam soon leaves too, quietly and thoughtful. The pairing makes Ted's noisy leavetaking the more glaring for its failure of thoughtfulness.

What do we make of this exchange? Sam believes in dragons, tree men, Elves, and Bilbo and Frodo, and has reason to; supporting evidence. Ted refuses to believe, contrary to the evidence, and does not even care to consider the evidence. He simply doesn't want such things to be part of his life at all, without examination.

What difference this makes will unfold as we take a look at more of the story.

[Groin Redbeard]

Great literature according to Aristotle, did not explicitly draw attention to the themes that one sought to explain. Rather, they were subtley concealed within the text so that the reader, through reason, could draw them out.
Such themes abound in LOTR. Simple examples include the character of Gandalf. He is a pure spiritual being - an Istari - who choses to become incarnate in order to combat evil. If this does not in part reflect a Christocentric theme what does. Also, in his fight with the Balrog in Moria, Gandalf dies, but returns to earth, no longer as Gandalf the Grey, but rather Gandalf the White. His powers are increased and all are awed in the revelation of his glory in Fangorn forest. Can one not envision the parallel to the glorified Christ after the Resurrection.

Then there is the Lembas - the Elf bread - which sustains the members of the Fellowship through their journeys. What more specific example of the Catholic view of the Eucharist does one need.
One final example is the date chosen for the destruction of the Ring - March 25th. In the Catholic liturgical calendar, this is the date of the feast of the Incarnation - the date when Christ became incarnate in the womb of Mary and the saga of the Redemption of Man began. What other event can one identify more closely with the Christian understanding of the destruction of evil than this.

But the overall key to Tolkein's LOTR is not that it is a specifically Christian work, but rather a work of myth that is infused with a Christian spirit. Let me explain another way. We each have are everyday activities. We go to work, take care of our families and tend to social duties. These are rather mundane secualar activities for the most part and seem far removed from God and Church. But that is the drama of the Christian life - to take the ordinary, and transform it into a work done for God. Much as Christ lived an ordinary life as son and carpenter, transforming this life into the extraordinary, so Tolkein harkens us to this image. The image that all human activities, from the drama of Helm's Deep, to the simple daily lives of hobbits, can be transformed into something truly dramatic in Christ. This is the meaning of a Sanctifying Myth and also the meaning of our lives as Christians (Catholics and Protestants)- to sanctify the ordinary.

[littlemanpoet]

Actually, Helen, I'm not sure I agree with all your points (below)

Originally Posted by mark12_30

A eucatastrophe assumes a catastrophe-- does it not?

I think it would be more accurate to say that a eucatastrophe assumes the potential and seeming inevitability of a catastrophe, or worse, a dis-catastrophe (another word Tolkien coined on the same page as 'eucatastrophe').

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?

Yes.

Therefore it is pre-eucatastrophe.

No. Such a reading assumes a one-to-one correlation between, on the one hand, eucatastrophe, and on the other, incarnation and resurrection. That would reduce eucatastrophe to allegory.

So by Tolkien's definition, the LOTR world is in a catastrophic state.

Not by definition perhaps, but it is readily apparent through his narrative description that much of the time Middle Earth is in a state of catastrophe; but much of the time it is not.

Why should [Tolkien] 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.

This is esepecially the case since those who are in the middle of the struggle are not even hoping for a eucatastrophe (Aragorn: "We shall have to do without hope"). They are struggling through because it's the right thing to do, even at the expense of their lives.

Further edit: I think the Norse worldview plays into this, rather than opposes it. I'd be happy to discuss that thought further-- but RL calls.

I agree. There is a mixture of 'mere' sense of duty as opposed to pushing forward because one hopes for the best. It seems to me that these two aspects are characterized by Frodo (duty) and Sam (hope). I hope I'm not oversimplifying, but Frodo is the one who most often speaks words of despair whilst Sam speaks words of hope.