Of another world

[Aiwendil]

Alatar wrote:

Note that our world (that includes Christianity) and Tolkien's secondary world are at best parallel. As much as I would choose it to be so, the Sil and LotR do not document 'pre-Abrahamic' events. If you really think about it, Tolkien's world actually excludes Christ as there is no need for such a saviour. No Adam, no need for a Second one.

Obviously, I agree that Arda is not our real world. However, does Tolkien's world really "exclude" a Christ-figure? Is there no Adam? Tolkien intentionally left the awakening of Men out of the Silmarillion; it seems to me that he intentionally left room for the Eden myth. Moreover, he refers in Letters to the first "fall of Men" as an event not actually depicted in the Legendarium. In fact, he did at one point write a short account of that fall - presented in the guise of Adanel's ancient Edainic lore. Although that story is certainly not exactly the same as that told in Genesis, it does seem to fill the same theological role. And then, of course, we have the Athrabeth, with its Messianic hints (a work that is quite connected with Adanel's tale of the Fall).

I think that Tolkien did, at least at some points in his life, consider Arda to be a fictional version of the real world in pre-Abrahamic times.

Of course, this is a separate question from the one that littlemanpoet and Davem debate - i.e. whether elements of Christian theology are explicitly present in Tolkien's works.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Alatar wrote:
Tolkien intentionally left the awakening of Men out of the Silmarillion; it seems to me that he intentionally left room for the Eden myth. Moreover, he refers in Letters to the first "fall of Men" as an event not actually depicted in the Legendarium.

I think that Tolkien did, at least at some points in his life, consider Arda to be a fictional version of the real world in pre-Abrahamic times.

Well, the fact that the 'Fall of Man' is not mentioned is a rather odd thing for Tolkien to play up - he never says in any Letters that the 6.15 to Paddington, or those little plastic tabs on the ends of shoelaces are not actually depicted in the Legendarium. I don't think either of those things would be assumed to be present by readers of the Legendarium & neither would they expect (unless they were Christians) to find the Fall of Man there - at least not the Biblical version of it.

This just strikes me as yet another example of Tolkien attempting to make the Legendarium 'fit' in response to challenges from Christian correspondents. 'Oh, its really there, but I just didn't mention it' is a cop out. The real point is that for the purposes of the Legendarium there was no need for a Fall of Man - it played no significant part - unlike the Fall of the Elves.

The Athrabeth is a work of great beauty & profundity, but if it is read as a reference to the Christian story it ties the Secondary world too closely into the Primary world - something he himself said would be fatal. It would then both cease to be a self contained Secondary World but couldn't be accepted as a 'genuine' possible history of the Primary World - in other words it would be neither one thing nor the other. The thing is, Tolkien knew this well but he still felt driven to attempt this disastrous move. If he'd succeeded his creation would have been no more than another Narnia-type 'allegory'.

Of course, this is the danger of the Translator Conceit, because the TC actually does attempt to tie the Legendarium into the Primary World. Interestingly, most readers pay no attention to the idea. They actually don't want Middle-earth in the long distant past - they really want it to be a place that exists 'now', just round the next corner or over the next hill.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

However, does Tolkien's world really "exclude" a Christ-figure? Is there no Adam?

Yes & no. Evil (an active force) enters Arda the day it becomes real; evil enters creation when Adam falls.

I think that Tolkien did, at least at some points in his life, consider Arda to be a fictional version of the real world in pre-Abrahamic times.

It may be in his mind, but I'm not sure how he ties in all of the Bible into Arda. More thought would place his works post-Adam (duh!) and pre-global Noachian flood.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, he didn't have the faintest grasp of theology either.

This is actually humorous. davem, you are, I fear, being as vituperative in regard to Paul the Apostle as you accuse the "critical elite" of being regarding Tolkien.

Originally Posted by davem

Is it not equally possible that it is Christianity that is a 'dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflection of the truth as presented in the Pagan traditions - after all any objective observer can find more of Hellenism (where demi-gods, virgin births & the like abound) than Judaism in the Christian story?

Well, of course it's possible. But, of course, I don't believe that, since I'm convinced that God has spoken to us through the Christian Bible and revealed himself to us through it, including through the apostle Paul.

My faith consists of definites. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Et cetera. I know it's unpopular and deplorable by the standards of currently generally acccepted, tolerant opinion, but according to my faith, there is indeed only one path that is true. Either we are the most arrogant people on earth, or we have been humbled by Someone who has revealed Himself to us directly. If it seems like the height of hubris, I can't help that.

Originally Posted by alatar

...evil enters creation when Adam falls.

Not so. Satan is a part of creation, and came in the form of a serpent. Since Jesus speaks of a real Satan, so must I. It would be more accurate to say that evil mars creation with the fall of Adam.

[davem]

This is actually humorous. davem, you are, I fear, being as vituperative in regard to Paul the Apostle as you accuse the "critical elite" of being regarding Tolkien.

Not at all. Paul was clearly a great mystic. Unfortunately, as with all great mystics he could only communicate to the rest of us in either nonsense ('I went to the third Heaven') or platitudes about loving each other. Not his fault. The point I was making was making was about his claim to be able to 'explain' the Unknown God. Just because you've met God it doesn't make you smart.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Et cetera. I know it's unpopular and deplorable by the standards of currently generally acccepted, tolerant opinion, but according to my faith, there is indeed only one path that is true.

Yes, & as I pointed out Mithras said: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." & he said it before Jesus.

[Lalaith]

the Fall of the Elves

Davem, are you referring to the corruption of elves into orcs, the revolt of the Noldor, or something else?

the impetus to do so did originally arise from his defensive replies to Christian critics

I wonder, if the wish to see so much religious content in Tolkien's works today is driven by a similar impetus. In the US, there is a mistrust of fantasy within many Christian churches (this was something, as a sheltered European, that I was only made aware of since joining the Downs!) and it strikes me that Tolkien's religious credentials, both as a writer and as a man, are helpful to American Christians who may feel the need to justify their enjoyment of his works.

[littlemanpoet]

That's an interesting thought, Lalaith. In my case, Tolkien's works served as a necessary balance to a very rigid theology that had me mentally tied in knots for years. Through Tolkien's ministrations I was able to find a deep spirituality that was free from the pinned-down-ness of such rigid theologies.

Originally Posted by davem

Mithras said: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." & he said it before Jesus.

Mithras' words were said in the negative. A similar thing was true of the Golden Rule. "Whatsoever you would not have someone do to you, do not do it to another." Jesus took those words, which no doubt were reasonably well known in general society, and stated them positively. Compare:

This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. This cup is the new covenant of My blood, which is shed for you.

and

Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

[Legolas in spandex]

What you said may be true for some Lalaith, but not all christians are the same, and others may simply recognize the similarities between some of Tolien's works and the gospel. Nothing more. Looking at both, I see a resemblance without much process to it. I wasn't tying to prove something in particular, just that it was interesting how the two stories mirrored each other a bit.

As for what you said Davem, intelligence surely has nothing to do with meeting God . Intelligence will always be sinful as it causes us to feel more important with each bit of information we earn. The ability to think destructs almost as much as it constructs. The knowledge of God however, is a totally different matter. If God wants to get information of some kind across to people, he will do so by whomever he chooses, intelligent or not, for having God on your side would surely call for nothing else other than doing what you are asked. Also, since you mentioned something about tolkien being Catholic, some aspects of the Cathlolic religion are a derivation of the Christian faith.