Is Eru God?

[Aiwendil]

Davem: I think the basic point you make above is correct (i.e. that without the Silmarillion, LotR can be read in a more 'pagan' light and that the Silmarillion became more Catholic post-LotR) - but I think you exaggerate the degree to which pre- and post-LotR Silmarillions differ.

The Valar were little different to the Classical Gods, with their tendency to infighting & squabbling, their marriages & production of children, etc.

This is true of the Lost Tales, but we ought to note that by '37 Quenta Silmarillion (i.e. immediately pre-LotR) these elements were gone (save marriage, which of course persisted into the final versions). Most importantly, the Valar had already become more thoroughly good or 'Angelic'.

In that work Eru exists but plays little part in events, leaving that sort of thing to the Gods, who, as I said, are hardly perfect representations of Angelic beings.

Where do you see an increase in the role assigned to Eru in the later Silmarillion? I agree that the work at this point was more religious, and of course there is the 'Athrabeth'. But Eru's role in the Silmarillion proper seems to me to be almost identical to his earlier role.

[davem]

My statements were based on Hutton's talk at Birmingham, but I think he got it right.

This is true of the Lost Tales, but we ought to note that by '37 Quenta Silmarillion (i.e. immediately pre-LotR) these elements were gone (save marriage, which of course persisted into the final versions). Most importantly, the Valar had already become more thoroughly good or 'Angelic'.

The Quenta is very much a 'transitional' phase - if seen in the context of Tolkien's life. Some aspects of the story had been changed, some elements of the Lost Tales remained. I will look into the details further (don't have my books with me), but, as Hutton points out overall the Legendarium is generally a 'neo-Platonic work, rather than an orthodox Catholic one. I'm not sure Tolkien saw the Quenta as necessarily superceeding the LT, or that he had rejected everything it contained.

Where do you see an increase in the role assigned to Eru in the later Silmarillion? I agree that the work at this point was more religious, and of course there is the 'Athrabeth'. But Eru's role in the Silmarillion proper seems to me to be almost identical to his earlier role.

Ok, but I certainly think its clear that Eru's role increased in Tolkien's mind - one only has to read the Letters. His focus increasingly is on Eru's role, the part he plays 'in the wings'. Tolkien wants to explain why what happened was Eru's will. I certainly think the presence of Eru runs through the post LotR Sil in a way that it doesn't in the Quenta.

I think it is clear that pre- LotR Tolkien was less concerned with the Legendarium being 'Orthodox' - because he'd never been challenged on that matter. Only in teh post-LotR period did that concern grow almost to the point of obsession. Changes made to the Legendarium to produce the Quenta were for artistic rather than theological reasons.

[Aiwendil]

The Quenta is very much a 'transitional' phase - if seen in the context of Tolkien's life.

Well, the Legendarium was always evolving, so every phase save the very first and very last was in some sense ‘transitional'. Still, I agree that '30s period in particular can be seen as a transition between one long phase and another.

I'm not sure Tolkien saw the Quenta as necessarily superceding the LT, or that he had rejected everything it contained.

It's certainly true (and a point that CRT makes several times) that details found in an earlier narrative and omitted from a later one were often not rejected but merely suppressed due to compression. Still, there are many cases where a later text clearly and explicitly contradicts (and thus supercedes) an earlier one. Many of the more Pagan elements of the Lost Tales are clearly rejected in the late '20s and '30s - for instance, Makar and Measse, the warrior gods.

Again, I don't fundamentally disagree with you; I'm just quibbling. My points, really are:

1. The Legendarium contained, at every stage, a mixture of Paganism and Catholicism; the pre- LotR Silmarillion was not wholly Pagan and the post-LotR Silmarillion was not wholly Catholic.

2. It is overly simplistic to divide the Legendarium into pre- and post-LotR phases; there was considerable evolution both from 1914-1937 and from 1951-1973.

Changes made to the Legendarium to produce the Quenta were for artistic rather than theological reasons.

Now that's an interesting statement. Surely Tolkien did not see his post-LotR work on the Legendarium as non-artistic (or even non-artistic in motivation).

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

My statements were based on Hutton's talk at Birmingham, but I think he got it right.

I wonder...

Do you think that he got it right because you wanted him to get it right? Did you find his arguments compelling because they were well-woven and because they jived with your own personal opinions?

Throughout most of this thread, it seems to me, you have argued on the side of Eru is not God. I'm minded of this quote by Alatar, several posts back:

Originally Posted by alatar

Is that the making of the next poll where one indicates his/her belief system and also how he/she perceives Eru? I'd wager that you'd see a strong correlation between 'beliefs' and the text.

I'm rather willing to agree with Alatar. Certainly, his theory seems born out in my opinion. I am a conservative, orthodox, Catholic, and I have definitely been on the list of "Eru = God" defenders.

Which brings us full circle to Tolkien... he was Catholic, if strongly interested professionally in paganism. To say that Eru is intended to be God is not a ridiculous assumption at all, as far as that goes. And, as demonstrated, Eru might not be exactly YOUR personal vision of God, whoever you are and whatever that might be, but the way Eru is presented definitely falls within the boundaries of the average definition of God.

Although, for whatever reasons, you may not want to accept Eru as God, it seems to me that you should accept that Eru, at least at the time of the writing of the Lord of the Rings, as well as thereafter, and I would even say beforehand, is intended to be God- in Middle-Earth.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Although, for whatever reasons, you may not want to accept Eru as God, it seems to me that you should accept that Eru, at least at the time of the writing of the Lord of the Rings, as well as thereafter, and I would even say beforehand, is intended to be God- in Middle-Earth.

Yes, very true.

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Is Eru God? Please note that the question isn't, "Is Eru the god of Middle-Earth?" (he pretty clearly is) but, is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Do you think that he got it right because you wanted him to get it right? Did you find his arguments compelling because they were well-woven and because they jived with your own personal opinions?

But could we not make the same argument about you? That you want Eru to be God and so you see the facts and interpret them to mean Eru is God?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I wonder...
Throughout most of this thread, it seems to me, you have argued on the side of Eru is not God.
.

Actually, I've said that I think Eru was the same God Tolkien believed in & the one he worshipped. I do, however, think that Tolkien's concept of God was somewhat 'unorthodox', to say the least. Tolkien clearly found something in old world paganism that he felt was necessary, & he created a secondary world where pagan gods could exist under His God, rather than being cast out & demonised by Him.

LotR, taken as a stand alone novel, could have been written by a Pagan, & I think that's why so many Pagans have taken it to their hearts. There is nothing uniquely 'Christian' in LotR. Only when LotR is read in the light of the Sil does it become part of Tolkien's 'Christian' mythology. Let's face it, if there is a 'Deity' in LotR, it is the 'Goddess' Elbereth, not Eru. In fact, all the references to 'meaning' in LotR could be taken to apply to Her.

In short, I think if we only had LotR & knew nothing of its author's life & beliefs I can't help thinking that no Christian would make a claim to its being a Christian work by a Christian author - though they may notice some 'similarities' between Galadriel/Mary, Lembas/the Host, etc.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by davem

In short, I think if we only had LotR & knew nothing of its author's life & beliefs I can't help thinking that no Christian would make a claim to its being a Christian work by a Christian author - though they may notice some 'similarities' between Galadriel/Mary, Lembas/the Host, etc.

*Fordim falls off his chair clutching at his chest. After being revived, he is carried out on a stretcher muttering...*

There was no Legendarium. He made a point about interpretation without invoking the Legendarium. I...I can't believe it....please please Eru, or God, or whoever, or Eru/God....don't let him admit The Hobbit to the Legendarium...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

*Fordim falls off his chair clutching at his chest. After being revived, he is carried out on a stretcher muttering...*

There was no Legendarium. He made a point about interpretation without invoking the Legendarium. I...I can't believe it....please please Eru, or God, or whoever, or Eru/God....don't let him admit The Hobbit to the Legendarium...

Actually, all he did was state the obvious fact that its possible to read LotR as a stand alone novel (indeed, for most of its history that's how it had to be read) & that if it is read that way the reader's interpretation may be very different from that of reading it in the light of the Legendarium as a whole

Originally Posted by LmP

Actually, the history of the discussions surrounding LotR before the publishing of The Silmarillion are precisely the opposite of what you suggest. I remember many articles in a host of magazines that were quite specifically about Aragorn, Frodo, and Gandalf as specifically Christ figures - - before 1977. And that's just one example..

Hutton was referring to the immediately post-LotR period. Tolkien actually refers to the accusations that there was an absence of religious themes/elements in LotR in The Road Goes Ever On - where he makes reference to the Elves' Hymns to Elbereth.

Hutton's point was that it was precisely readers who pointed out these 'similarities' & that Tolkien grabbed hold of these & played them up in order to point up his Catholic credentials.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Eru ... is intended to be God- in Middle-Earth.

Well duh. I thought we'd already been over that.