The Lord of the Bible?

[Raynor]

Tolkien's tinkerings with her in letters and later notes, adding elements of the Mary myth to her persona only serve to make her seem flat and one-dimensional, and deeply un-womanly, as though she is reduced to a mere cipher or symbol than a real character.

Considering her deeds in the first age, no amount of later "tinkering" would make her one-dimensional (to me).

Tolkien was the God of Arda, he was the only one who could create it and give it life, and that is what he did. With the letters, it's as though on the 8th day he opened the door and let some other God from another part of the void in, and we know what they say about too many cooks.

Well, I am sure the professor would preffer the term sub-creator. In the On fairy-stories essay, he states that a work is believable and can produce "willful suspension of disbelief", or more accurately, secondary belief, only if it achieves inner-coherence, which is what he tried to do all the time with his work. If you are saying that what he did was the opposite, i.e. destroying an existing coherence between the form and essence of his work, I will have to politely disagree.

This is all a bit vague, though, & hardly specifically Christian. Pity, mercy, compassion are all essential to Buddhism, for instance. What is often cited as 'Christian' themes in these arguments are actually much more universal. Tolkien certainly found them in Christianity, but he could equally well have found them in other faiths. I think a Jew or a Muslim could equally well have written LotR, or a Buddhist or Hindu or Sikh. I'm also pretty sure that any readers of LotR who followed those faiths would have no issues with the philosophical underpinnings of the work or feel they were at all strange.

If what you imply is that if you want to make a christian/catholic work you must use only elements that are specific to this religion, then I disagree

The specifics of Christianity (Incarnation, Sacrifice of God for the salvation of the World, Resurrection, etc) are absent from the story.

Having those in the original form would have been as much as an allegory as you can possibly have. Of course, I could point out to the presence of the Gods who are Incarnate and whose eyes are not dimmed and whose hearts are not hardened; or to the foretold coming of Beren who descends into hell and brings out the light; to the sending of the imperishable flame at the heart of the world, making its foundations good and healing creation from inside; or to the second coming of Turin, who will slay Morgoth; or to the foretold coming of Eru himself, to heal all Creation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

. Of course, I could point out to the presence of the Gods who are Incarnate and whose eyes are not dimmed and whose hearts are not hardened; or to the foretold coming of Beren who descends into hell and brings out the light; to the sending of the imperishable flame at the heart of the world, making its foundations good and healing creation from inside; or to the second coming of Turin, who will slay Morgoth; or to the foretold coming of Eru himself, to heal all Creation.

As to Beren we have Orpheus/Orpheo, Innanna, Gilgamesh & others. Turin is hardly a 'Christ figure' (incest, murder, suicide). As to the Incarnation of Eru in Hinduism we have Krishna as the incarnation of Vishnu the Creator.

As far as the Flame Imperishable which enters into the Heart of the World, I don't at all see any similarity with Christian belief - unless you're referring to the fires of Hell....

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

As to Beren we have Orpheus/Orpheo, Innanna, Gilgamesh & others. Turin is hardly a 'Christ figure' (incest, murder, suicide). As to the Incarnation of Eru in Hinduism we have Krishna as the incarnation of Vishnu the Creator.

As far as the Flame Imperishable which enters into the Heart of the World, I don't at all see any similarity with Christian belief - unless you're referring to the fires of Hell....

Again, it seems to me that the main difference between us is that for you a Christian work is one in which there are refferences to only what is absolutely unique in Christianity - if the work would evolve solely around that, it would be rather barren. [Btw, IIRC, in hinduism, it is Brahma who is the creative aspect of God, not Vishnu]

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Again, it seems to me that the main difference between us is that for you a Christian work is one in which there are refferences to only what is absolutely unique in Christianity - if the work would evolve solely around that, it would be rather barren. [Btw, IIRC, in hinduism, it is Brahma who is the creative aspect of God, not Vishnu]

If the work contains equally strong elements of other faiths/beliefs (as it does, if anyone wishes to get into some alternative reader-resonse research) then can we still call it a Christian work? Shouldn't we really be calling it an Ecumenical or Universal work?

The fact still remains that the books do not contain that one major (in fact, pretty damn fundamental) aspect of Christianity. Christ.

Hmm, I wonder has anyone considered that perhaps Tolkien, as a devout Catholic, recognised that the Bible, as the Word of God, was the only definitive Christian text. Why would he have sought to demean the real Bible by attempting to create his own version? Wouldn't that be blasphemous?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Hmm, I wonder has anyone considered that perhaps Tolkien, as a devout Catholic, recognised that the Bible, as the Word of God, was the only definitive Christian text. Why would he have sought to demean the real Bible by attempting to create his own version? Wouldn't that be blasphemous?

Tolkien mentioned this aspect in one of his letters. Unfortunately, I don't have them at hand right now.

Rather than using the word blasphemous, he chose the word parody, which he wanted to avoid. When I can find the letter, I'll edit this post with the proper BD reference.

[Raynor]

As far as the Flame Imperishable which enters into the Heart of the World, I don't at all see any similarity with Christian belief - unless you're referring to the fires of Hell....

What about the fire form that God assumed before Moses? Or the fire with which Jesus baptises and cleans? The pillar of fire which God assumed as a form, to lead Moses' people? The Holy Spirit as Holy Fire?

If the work contains equally strong elements of other faiths/beliefs (as it does, if anyone wishes to get into some alternative reader-resonse research) then can we still call it a Christian work? Shouldn't we really be calling it an Ecumenical or Universal work?

Take some Christian prayer or text that doesn't use terms which are _uniquely_ Christian. Does that make it less Christian to Christians, even if its terms & values have a universal ring to it? In general, even if one doesn't know these specifics, one can't exclude it can be christian; but if one does know them, why hold on to a hypothetical ignorance of them?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Tolkien mentioned this aspect in one of his letters. Unfortunately, I don't have them at hand right now.

Rather than using the word blasphemous, he chose the word parody, which he wanted to avoid. When I can find the letter, I'll edit this post with the proper BD reference.

Well, as I pointed previously, he called the Gospels the greatest fairy story (letter #89) - nonetheless, he did maintain that myth-making in fairy stories is a path to the Truth, which is quite the opposite of blasphemy

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

What about the fire form that God assumed before Moses? Or the fire with which Jesus baptises and cleans? The pillar of fire which God assumed as a form, to lead Moses' people? The Holy Spirit as Holy Fire?

What about Surtr, Hephaestos & Brigid, what about Agni. What about Wayland Smith. Fire has long been a symbol of the Divine.

It doesn't matter where Tolkien found the elements he used, what matters is what he did with them. Their final form is not a Christian form. The specifically Christian corners have been knocked off & those elements have been given a non-Christian form. Arguing that LotR is a 'Christian' story, or one with Christian elements is rather like arguing that the book you hold in your hands is a tree because it was made from wood pulp.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Take some Christian prayer or text that doesn't use terms which are _uniquely_ Christian. Does that make it less Christian to Christians, even if its terms & values have a universal ring to it? In general, even if one doesn't know these specifics, one can't exclude it can be christian; but if one does know them, why hold on to a hypothetical ignorance of them?

That would be a very different thing, as Christian prayers are written for Christians, so even if they do take up universal ideas then they are necessarily framing them within the specifically Christian context. As I've said many posts ago, perhaps the longest spin we can put on Tolkien's work in terms of 'promoting' ideas of Christianity is that it is a book by a Christian and definitely a book suitable for Christians (in that it is sympathetic to the tenets of the faith) but it cannot be ring-fenced as a Christian book, as it simply was not written with that purpose in mind.

Well, as I pointed previously, he called the Gospels the greatest fairy story (letter #89) - nonetheless, he did maintain that myth-making in fairy stories is a path to the Truth, which is quite the opposite of blasphemy

Originally Posted by Raynor

What about the fire form that God assumed before Moses? Or the fire with which Jesus baptises and cleans? The pillar of fire which God assumed as a form, to lead Moses' people? The Holy Spirit as Holy Fire?

'You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. 'I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'

Note that Anor is The Sun. Someone wielding the flames of the Sun? The power of Light given by the Sun? Using it to chase away Darkness? That is an incredibly powerful Pagan image.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by davem

The whole point, which I made earlier, is that once an element is successfully absorbed into a Secondary World it becomes part of that world. The things Tolkien 'absorbed' into M-e are rather Religious universals, rather than specifics. If one didn't know he was Christian & had only the works I don't think - much as he might have hoped - anyone would be able to tell what religion, if any, he followed.

Hence, it is not a 'Christian' work.

Which has me thinking, what is a 'Christian' work?

If it is only something which contains christian specifics, in the plot, the characters or the symbolism, then Tolkien's works are not christian.

If it is something which contains christian themes and christian ethics, without solely consisting of them, then they are.
But since most works contain the ethics of their authors, and Tolkien's ethics were deeply influenced by christianity, this is not much of a surprise.

Is it a work which has a christian message?
This is a little difficult, since Tolkien's work does not have a specified message and everything depends on the individual application.
Can you apply Tolkien in a christian way? - obviously you can.
Can you apply Tolkien in a way that is not christian? - obviously you can.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Having those in the original form would have been as much as an allegory as you can possibly have. Of course, I could point out to the presence of the Gods who are Incarnate and whose eyes are not dimmed and whose hearts are not hardened; or to the foretold coming of Beren who descends into hell and brings out the light; to the sending of the imperishable flame at the heart of the world, making its foundations good and healing creation from inside; or to the second coming of Turin, who will slay Morgoth; or to the foretold coming of Eru himself, to heal all Creation.

Raynor, please elaborate. This is what the thread was about - in the first place.

Originally Posted by Raynor

What about the fire form that God assumed before Moses? Or the fire with which Jesus baptises and cleans? The pillar of fire which God assumed as a form, to lead Moses' people? The Holy Spirit as Holy Fire?

I always understood the Imperishable Flame as the source of the indepentent life, contrary to the lives of animals, the source of the fëar of elves, men and dwarves, making their fëar imperishable in Arda. Gandalf refers to it when he calls himself a servant of the secret fire and I see it as a symbol for Eru in this place, whom he serves via serving the Valar.
I cannot see a resemblance to this in your examples.