The Lord of the Bible?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Yet essentially they all serve the same purpose. Christ shows us that having pity for others is the right thing to do; fairytales tell us the same thing by simple cause and effect.

Imo, Christ's and Frodo's pity (and their burdens/suffering/peril due to it) are incomparable with those to which you reffered.

It's joy all the same.

I disagree; this joy "produces tears because it is qualitatively so like sorrow, because it comes from those places where Joy and Sorrow are at one, reconciled, as selfishness and altruism are lost in Love" (letter #89). Quite not all the same .

[littlemanpoet]

Exhibit #2.: Bilbo's Will is Not his Own

In A Long-Expected Party, after Bilbo has put on the Ring and disappeared from the party, he is confronted by Gandalf at Bag-End. Gandalf insists that he keep his promise and give up the Ring to Frodo (who is not there). Then this:

'Well, if you want my ring yourself, say so!' cried Bilbo. 'But you won't get it. I won't give my precious away, I tell you.' His hand strayed to the hilt of his small sword.

Gandalf's eyes flashed. 'It will be my turn to get angry soon,' he said. 'If you say that again, I shall. Then you will see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked.' He took a step towards the hobbit, and he seemed to grow tall and menacing; his shadow filled the little room.

Bilbo backed away to the wall, breathing hard, his hand clutching at his pocket. They stood for a while facing one another, and the air in the room tingled.

Gandalf's eyes remained bent on the hobbit. Slowly his hands relaxed, and he began to tremble.

'I don't know what has come over you, Gandalf,' he said. You have never been like this before. What is it all about? It is mine isn't it? I found it, and Gollum would have killed me, if I hadn't kept it. I'm not a thief, whatever he said.'

'I have never called you one,' Gandalf answered. 'And I am not one either. I am not trying to rob you, but to help you. I wish you would trust me, as you used.' He turned away, and the shadow passed. He seemed to dwindle again to an old grey man, bent and troubled.

Quite a few things happen here. Most are presented as facts, but two are presented as seemings. Let's take a deeper look at the action.

1. Bilbo insists on possessing the Ring and accuses Gandalf of wanting it for his own. In the passage just preceding the above quoted, it becomes apparent that as Bilbo possesses the Ring, so it possesses him. And now at the beginning of the quoted text, Bilbo is so far gone as to cast an aspersion upon the character of Gandalf; by doing so he mimicks Gollum. Where does Bilbo get the idea that Gandalf might possibly want the Ring for himself? He himself is his only indication of how another might think and be motivated. Thus, this is a very subtle and effective way of indicating that Bilbo is completely under the influence of the Ring, for he is reduced to thinking precisely how Gandalf later describes the thinking of Sauron: anybody who attempts to wrest the Ring from another must necessarily want to keep it for himself. That Bilbo is thinking this way shows that he is heavily under the influence of the Ring; of evil.

2. Bilbo's hand strays to his sword, to defend himself against Gandalf! This is either great bravery or very foolhardy; it is, in fact, foolhardy and shows just how in possession of Bilbo the Ring is.

3. Gandalf's eyes flashed. They don't seem to flash; they do flash. We can imagine what this looks like, seeing it as a flexing of the muscles around the eyes so that the whites are less covered and appear to be enlarged, then recede back under the eyelids; this indicates a mix of surprise and indignation. Or, perhaps, Gandalf's eyes literally flashed; indicating the same thing in either case. Neither way of imagining it is out of the question.

4. Gandalf warns Bilbo. So far Tolkien has used Gandalf as his means of telling the reader what's true. We are given no indication that it is different in this instance.

5. Gandalf seems to grow tall and menacing. This is the first seeming, and presents a different challenge to the reader. What appears to be happening may or may not be what really is happening. What is happening is necessarily related to what seems to be happening, for this is high poesis. The seeming has to do with height, which suggests authority; Gandalf's shadow fills the room, indicating great power.

6. Bilbo backs away, breathing hard, clutching at the pocket where the Ring is stowed. This is a defensive posture, but 'breathing hard' indicates that Bilbo is under great strain. From the Ring? No, he has already given himself up to the Ring. He is defending his possession of the Ring from Gandalf, indicated by how he is clutching at it.

7. As they face each other, Gandalf remains cloaked (for Bilbo has not repeated the onerous words thus there is no call), yet he is revealed as full of veiled power, for the air tingles. The air does not seem to tingle, but actually does so. How? We are not told. What we do know is that there are three sources of power in the room: Sting, the Ring, and Gandalf. Sting's only power is to turn blue in the presence of Orcs. The Ring's powers are well known, and causing tingling in a room is not listed among them. That leaves Gandalf. Is he making the air in the room tingle? Not directly; it is a by-product of something else that he is doing, which is to allow what he really is, to be experienced in the room, and by Bilbo. What does the reader know, at this point, about Gandalf? That he has magic powers, and that he is good (despite being menacing!). It will suffice for now.

8. Gandalf's eyes remain bent on the hobbit. This indicates a contest of wills. Gandalf's is of course the stronger.

9. Bilbo's hands slowly relax: one its grip on the Ring, the other on the sword, and he begins to tremble. Trembling could indicate various things. It could suggest fear, or weariness. In either case, Bilbo has lost the contest of wills.

10. And then Bilbo says that Gandalf is the one who is acting strangely, as if it's all Gandalf and not himself at all. This is self-deception. His next words are revealing: "I'm not a thief". His conscience has been bothering him on this point for a long, long time, and he is afraid that he did indeed steal the Ring despite the 'deal' he had made with Gollum. But Bilbo is wise enough to understand that since Gandalf is acting so menacing towards him instead of friendly, that it must somehow be important, because he does trust Gandalf.

11. Gandalf's words of reconciliation come not after, but before, he seems to dwindle. This is significant because he shows gentleness from a mien of menace and authority instead of from a worried old wizard-man.

12. Here again we have a seeming, in reverse of the previous one. We will keep watch on Tolkien's uses of 'seeming' with the understanding that Tolkien, niggler that he was, went over his word choices with a fine-tooth-comb, as it were, especially in crucial scenes like this one.

What can we summarize from Exhibit #2?

• That Bilbo is not in control of his own will; it takes Gandalf's will overpowering Bilbo's, for the hobbit to begin to come to his senses.
• That Gandalf is powerful and good; we have as yet no indication where his power comes from.

to be continued....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree; this joy "produces tears because it is qualitatively so like sorrow, because it comes from those places where Joy and Sorrow are at one, reconciled, as selfishness and altruism are lost in Love" (letter #89). Quite not all the same .

Well we'll have to agree to disagree here. I can honestly say that Christian joy does not have the monopoly on this kind of emotion, and many non-Christians will agree.

To take another literary example, in His Dark Materials, the scene where Lyra and Pantalaimon are almost parted in Bolvangar but are saved from the blade evokes exactly the same kind of feeling as the scene at Mount Doom. We are at once terrified, upset to the core, but at the same time elated and joyful that they have been saved. This is because we have been at a point where a perfect Love has almost been permanently severed and at the very last moment has been saved. Reading this you find yourself in tears, of both joy and sorrow.

lmp - this is a reading of the text from a particular perspective, in a way, trying to get to a point by breaking it down into statements. What I want to see is something which is unequivocally Christian symbolism which this is not. This passage can be read in any number of ways. A simple exercise in describing a face-off. As an example of supernatural horror. Even as an instance of sanwe. But all of them would be speculation and personal interpretations because all that this is about is trying to show how Bilbo has been 'captured' by the Ring and underlining its status as a dangerous magical object when previously Tolkien had written the object as a handy trinket useful for hiding from the neighbours (the contrast between The Hobbit and the more serious LotR which he had to bridge). The points made are all fair enough (give or take one or two that I'd read differently), but to then build any more onto that we enter the realms of speculation, and possibly into reading too much into the text.

[littlemanpoet]

Well, Lalwendë, I must object.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What I want to see is something which is unequivocally Christian symbolism which this is not.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I hope you're right that nobody is arguing that LotR is exclusively Christian!

Do you see the contradiction between these two statements? Just to make it perfectly clear what I see in these two posts: in the first you want to see something that is uniquely Christian, while in the second you hope no-one thinks that such a thing can be produced. You simply cannot have both.

The reason for the "exhibit" format I'm using is to build, as with stones, a tower of evidence, the complete edifice of which will show what the individual parts cannot precisely because they are only parts. To be quite honest, I can only make an educated guess at what we will find, because my process is to read the actual texts and discern to the best of my ability what Tolkien is saying. Surely no-one cares to object to that!?!

Actually, there are a few more summary points that could be added, which I will later, but the evidence is up until now too tenuous to put them out there.

Remember, the test is NOT "is this uniquely Christian", but "does this adequately reflect that which Christians understand about reality"? No one has objected to this statement of the test, and so I'll proceed accordingly.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Remember, the test is NOT "is this uniquely Christian", but "does this adequately reflect that which Christians understand about reality"? No one has objected to this statement of the test, and so I'll proceed accordingly.

I think it's safe to say that, of the many sources of influence that Tolkien used, Christianity is very probably one of them. By his own admission, God is in The Lord of the Rings (The One).

I think many people look at The lord of the Rings next to Narnia, the latter being a very overtly Christian work and the fact that, not only was Tolkien a friend of Lewis, but Tolkien contributed to Lewis' conversion, many are tempted to say that it is also a Christian work. I think it would be foolish to say that Christianity or at least Biblical principals were the only part of the 'soil of experience', as he calls it in the forward, for, as he also says, how the story germ uses these experiences is incredibly complex and our attempts to identify and define them are, at best, guesses.

I think I've probably made this point before, but I'll say it again to entertain, at least, my own satisfaction. Plus, I have a terrible memory.

[EDIT] Ah yes, one last thought.
If there were all these many different influencces Tolkien drew from, perhaps we should have a Topic, "The Lord of the Myths."

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

Do you see the contradiction between these two statements? Just to make it perfectly clear what I see in these two posts: in the first you want to see something that is uniquely Christian, while in the second you hope no-one thinks that such a thing can be produced. You simply cannot have both.

Erm, there is no contradiction. Firstly I hope that nobody wants to pinpoint LotR as an exclusively Christian text as its plainly many things to many people. And secondly, I had hoped that someone could come up with an instance of imagery from somewhere within the text that was as I said, unequivocally Christian (and by that not also something else). Having the second does not mean that the first is true, and the first not being true does not preclude the second from happening.

Methinks the purpose of the thread has subtly changed. It began with a lot of fire about Gandalf being Jesus etc and now it aims to be somewhere for Christians to share their personal impressions? Which in itself is a subtle way of forcing things into the conclusion that LotR is Christian. Now we know that for some already it is Christian, and that's fine of course, but we've still not had any of the hard evidence promised early on.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Erm, there is no contradiction.

Quite right. Sorry for my daftness. Unequivocal = 'leaving no doubt'. I'm not sure that's possible, precisely because belief and doubt are choices made by people. The best I can promise is evidence as clearly laid out as possible, and each person is intellectually responsible (to the rest of us for those who think that way, and to our Maker for those who think that way) to examine it and come to the best conclusions they can.

Okay: As to Bilbo and the Ring. The points I made before were:

• That Bilbo is not in control of his own will; it takes Gandalf's will overpowering Bilbo's, for the hobbit to begin to come to his senses.
• That Gandalf is powerful and good; we have as yet no indication where his power comes from.

To these should be added the following:

• Bilbo calls the Ring his own: he claims possession. This is a critical point, and we shall see (or already know) how it compares to Frodo and Sam.

This theme of possession is central to Tolkien. Thorin Oakenshield was taken with lust for the Arkenstone and it completely warped his state of mind in regard to the others who had a claim to any of the treasure. Likewise, Tolkien wrote poems, the most appropo being The Hoard, which pretty much states his case quite clearly. In succession, a hoard of treasure is held by Elves, then Dwarf, a Dragon, a Knight, then no-one at all. The Dwarf, Dragon, and Knight are each in turn ruined by their greed for the Hoard. Now for that which is unequivocal in my view: there was a certain teacher in a land by a great sea who taught wisdom to those who would listen. One of the things that he said was:

Do not lay up for yourself treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal;
but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Even if one doubts the middle of these three lines, the first and especially the third are just good wisdom. They are not exclusive to Christianity, but that's not what I'm trying to show anyway.

Putting it together: Bilbo claims the Ring as his own; he treasures it. His heart is given to it. He tells Gandalf that he had hoped that giving all these other gifts would make giving up the Ring easier, but it does not. Because Bilbo treasures the Ring, going so far as to call it his precious, the Ring owns him. It takes what little will power Bilbo can muster, with a great amount of from Gandalf, to give up the Ring.

The Ring is beautiful and seductive, as well as powerful. Things that have good qualities but are still damaging to us are the hardest things to give up, even though they might be killing us, or in the case of Bilbo, dragging him into a state of undeadness.

It just so happens that the Ring is also evil, and has a will of its own. It is intriguing to me that Tolkien adds this degree of malevolence. It seems obvious that he had to for the sake of the story, but this was the story he chose to tell; it could have been a different story. What is it about this Ring? Why mix the charateristics of beauty, allure, willfulness, and evil? It is because this is precisely the nature of the struggle humans face, every day. Tolkien objectifies it in the Ring, but in real life we find a pull to wrongdoing already inside, right along with the pull to doing good and right. We're a battleground, every one of us. It's part of what's so Real about LotR.

So just to sommarize: the unequivocal theme that harmonizes with a Christian world view in this scene, is 'That which I give my heart to the possession of, enslaves me.' Bilbo is enslaved by the Ring because he insists that it is his. It's interesting, just as an aside, that the quote from 'the teacher' mentions thieving. I make no more nor less of it than just to note it.

[Raynor]

There is one other parallel I was pondering on lately: Mindolluin and the holy of holies. Both are approached by the priest alone (Tolkien reffered to Numenorean kings as being priests as well) and both contain a special manifestation of divinity (seeing that the white tree was linked through Nimloth, Celeborn and Galathilion to Telperion). Acknolwedging that this is not a temple, Tolkien states:

Originally Posted by Letter #156

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.

Originally Posted by Lal

I can honestly say that Christian joy does not have the monopoly on this kind of emotion, and many non-Christians will agree.

There is a big difference between "everyday" joy, to which you seemed to have related to in your previous post, and this sort of joy. Secondly, I haven't argued that this is something unique to Christianity, but, together with other refferences, arguing against your statement that Tolkien didn't have a message.

Now we know that for some already it is Christian, and that's fine of course, but we've still not had any of the hard evidence promised early on.

Hard evidenced? Promised? By who? As far as I am concerned, this is still an open debate and I am looking forward to keep learning.

What I want to see is something which is unequivocally Christian symbolism which this is not.

I have this question for you: can you point to one instance where it has been argued that the identified possible parallel is uniquely particular to Christianity? The most that I personally asked is to refute the weight/significance of whatever parallels were presented, and/or to present other significant parallels in other systems of beliefes. Lal, if you can't answer this above question positively, then it seems to me that you made the longest non sequitur I witnessed on this site. As it has been argued my others and myself, there is little if anything in Christianity that is absolutely unique, so, to me, your repeated request/critique of this kind doesn't seem to be on point.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

There is a big difference between "everyday" joy, to which you seemed to have related to in your previous post, and this sort of joy. Secondly, I haven't argued that this is something unique to Christianity, but, together with other refferences, arguing against your statement that Tolkien didn't have a message.

But your first statement here suggests that you have said that this is unique?

Originally Posted by Raynor

I have this question for you: can you point to one instance where it has been argued that the identified possible parallel is uniquely particular to Christianity?

Yes, see above Joy. Also in the case of Pity. Also in the Apocalypse/Ragnarok discussion. Also Eucatastrophe.

As it has been argued my others and myself, there is little if anything in Christianity that is absolutely unique, so, to me, your repeated request/critique of this kind doesn't seem to be on point.

Well I have to honestly say that this is not how posts have read. People have put forward ideas and when presented with evidence that these things are as likely something else entirely, other posters have either got upset or claimed that certain things are indeed unique to Christianity and that other people cannot possibly understand those concepts which is a bit much really.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

But your first statement here suggests that you have said that this is unique?

So, even if I stated explicitly several times that I am not looking for something uniquely Christian, even if I didn't use any restrictive qualifier, you still persist on this line of argument? When on the same page you repeated the "unicity" critique, I considered that in my reply as a strawman of my argument, a misrepresentation. As I already stated, in that post I was merely pointing out the existence of what I believed was a moral message, and my refference wasn't anymore restrictive that the original text of the letter was.

Yes, see above Joy. Also in the case of Pity. Also in the Apocalypse/Ragnarok discussion. Also Eucatastrophe.

Well, maybe it's the late hour, mabye the fact that I am not a native English speaker, but where are the restrictive qualifiers you are reffering to in those cases?

Anyway, what do you think of my comparison of Mindolluin? I would be quite interested to know if other religions have a similar setting/event. There is also a refference to Meneltarma in UT that I think might be interesting for our discussion:

Originally Posted by Description of the island of Numenor, Part two: The Second Age, Unfinished Tales

Near to the centre of the Mittalmar stood the tall mountain called the Meneltarma, Pillar of the Heavens, sacred to the worship of Eru Iluvatar; ... and no other likeness of a temple did the Numenoreans possess in all the days of their grace, until the coming of Sauron. There no tool or weapon had ever been borne; and there none might speak any word, save the King only. Thrice only in each year the King spoke, offering prayer for the coming year at the Erukyerme in the first days of spring, praise of Eru Iluvatar at the Erulaitale in midsummeer, and thanksgiving to him at the Eruhantale at the end of autumn. At these times the King ascended the mountain on foot followed by a great concourse of the people, clad in white and garlanded, but silent.

[This is a less strong comparison than the previous one, seeing that it is a community event]

[littlemanpoet]

The thing is, Raynor, that it is basically accepted that Christian analogies can be found in Unfinished Tales, The Silmarillion, and various segments of the HoME series. The real issue is, what about LotR?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The thing is, Raynor, that it is basically accepted that Christian analogies can be found in Unfinished Tales, The Silmarillion, and various segments of the HoME series. The real issue is, what about LotR?

We're in the midst of finding that out