The Lord of the Bible?

[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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Their final form is not a Christian form.

It seems to me that you overrate form (which brings one to allegory) and underrate message and intent of the author; please correct me if I am wrong.

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.

If, despite all arguments put forth, you deny even the existence of Christian elements, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

... but it cannot be ring-fenced as a Christian book, as it simply was not written with that purpose in mind.

I believe that Letter #142 which we both quoted points oppositely. It is exactly the purpose of the author that it is beyond doubt; the only thing left to discuss is the form in which he presented Christians idea.

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.

More important than the refference to Anor (the word derives from fire) is the refference to the secret fire, the imperishable flame of Eru. Moreoever, let's track the meaning of Anor:

Originally Posted by Myths Transformed, HoME X

Therefore Iluvatar, at the entering in of the Valar into Ea, added a theme to the Great Song which was not in it at the first Singing, and he called one of the Ainur to him. Now this was that Spirit which afterwards became Varda (and taking female form became the spouse of Manwe). To Varda Iluvatar said: 'I will give unto thee a parting gift. Thou shalt take into Ea a light that is holy, coming new from Me, unsullied by the thought and lust of Melkor, and with thee it shall enter into Ea, and be in Ea, but not of Ea.' Wherefore Varda is the most holy and revered of all the Valar, and those that name the light of Varda name the love of Ea that Eru has, and they are afraid, less only to name the One.
...
Now the Sun was designed to be the heart of Arda, and the Valar purposed that it should give light to all that Realm, unceasingly and without wearying or diminution, and that from its light the world should receive health and life and growth. Therefore Varda set there the most ardent and beautiful of all those spirits that had entered with her into Ea, and she was named Ar(i), and Varda gave to her keeping a portion of the gift of Iluvatar so that the Sun should endure and be blessed and give blessing.
...
But Arie rejected Melkor and rebuked him, saying: 'Speak not of right, which thou hast long forgotten. Neither for thee nor by thee alone was Ea made; and thou shalt not be King of Arda. Beware therefore; for there is in the heart of As a light in which thou hast no part, and a fire which will not serve thee.

So, the power of Anor is in fact the power of the imperishable flame.

Interestingly enough, Clyde S. Kilby notes in his book "Tolkien as Christian Writer" that:
[font=Arial][font=Verdana][size=2]

Professor Tolkien talked to me at some length about the use of the word "holy" in The Silmarillion. Very specifically he told me that the "Secret Fire sent to burn at the heart of the world" in the beginning was the Holy Spirit

[/size][/font][/font]

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

We have gods who are incarnate, serving the good and keeping a guard on the Children; Beren descending into hell and bringing out the light of the silmaril back into the world would parallel, to me, Christ's days in the desert and the light he later brings, or the "fire" with which he baptises; Turin, though he did have his shortcomings (though some of them don't constitute sins, since they were done under the dragon's spell), is mentioned in one of the versions of the second prophecy of Mandos in HoME IV as the one who will defeat Melkor, again, a Christian, even Christ-like, element to me - which is even more evident, for example, in the Atrabeth, where Finrod states that Eru himself will come inside his Creation and will heal it of evil.

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 don't think it should be understood in a restrictive way; it is stated in the Silmarillion, Ainulindale, that "then the themes of Iluvatar shall be played aright, and take Being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall then understand fully his intent in their part, and each shall know the comprehension of each, and Iluvatar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire, being well pleased"; also: in Note 11, Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth the secret flame is said to be "the Creative activity of Eru (in some sense distinct from or within Him), by which things could be given a 'real' and independent (though derivative and created) existence". These refferences mean to me that the imperishable flame brings into existence not just souls but "things" too.

I think we can see the Balrog on the Bridge of Khazad Dum, Boromir blowing his horn & Odin in his 'sun-god' aspect here (wearing a golden helmet & shining corslet...

A good example of using applicability, though too lightly if you ask me.

[The Mouth of Sauron]

LOTR is a novel .

Obviously any book written will be influenced by previous books that the author has read, together with his/her life experiences .

So in the same way as LOTR was doubtless written against the background of Tolkien's own life and beliefs , it is surely true that other works of fiction, including the Bible, were written within the framework of their time and the predilictions of their authors .

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

A good example of using applicability, though too lightly if you ask me.

This is where I would argue you are completely wrong & factually wrong too. One of Tolkien's intentions for the Legendarium, in fact a principle one, was to try & recreate the ancient myths & Legends of North-Western Europe (See Shippey). Tolkien (rightly or wrongly) believed that there had once been a coherent body of myth which had once existed but that over the millenia it was forgotten or lost for various reasons leaving only fragments. His intention was to attempt to recreate that lost mythology by constructing a body of myths into which those fragments could be fitted. Shippey's essay on Light & Dark Elves in Tolkien Studies vol one is an examination of how he approached the problem of the existence of 'Light' & 'Dark' Elves (the exact nature of which, along with their story & oorigin, has been lost). Tolkien's account of the High Elves who saw the Light of the Trees & the Grey & Dark Elves who remained in M-e is the account he produced to explain how there could be two (or more) different types of Elves.

Hence, we are not dealing here with 'applicability' at all, but a deliberate use by Tolkien of ancient myths, as he attempted to get at the 'real' story behind the legend.

Tolkien's claims of orthodoxy for LotR are often his attempts to prove a point, confirm his Catholic credentials if you like - often in response to readers who questioned that. One cannot use the letters (written after the event in most cases) to prove his 'good' intentions. He also stated on numerous occasions that he was not inventing anything at all, but rather attempting to discover 'what really happened'. He stated that the events at the Sammath Naur were dictated by the logic of the story at that point.

Tolkien's statement that the Secret Fire 'is' the Holy Spirit is not something that should simply be accepted without question. Tolkien also referred to men using chainsaws on trees, & in one case a young man riding a motorbike, as 'Orcs'. The Secret Fire is a very clever literary device, but I can't see any exact match between it & the Holy Ghost of Christian theology. Similarities perhaps - but that's the point. Many elements, from Christianity, Paganism, botany, biology & many other things were taken up into the secondary world but once there they took on new & unique forms & were no longer the same thing.

Anyone who has read HoM-e will find it difficult to accept Tolkien's statement that the story was 'consciously Christian in the revision' because the revisions are all there to see & they all follow logically from the dynamic of the story, none from a desire to 'Christianise' the thing. That said, I have no doubt that Tolkien believed what he said.

Finally to the Athrabeth. I have to say that the whole thing about Eru entering into Arda to heal it felt completely false to me - mainly because I agree with Tolkien's opinion on the Arthurian legends - that the prominence of Christian elements is an essential weakness. Its a flaw in one of Tolkien's greatest works & is as out of place as the whole 'Dome of Varda' fiasco.

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

A little Norse myth:

The world will be in uproar, the air will quake with booms, blares and echoes. Amid this turmoil, the fire giants of Muspelheim, led by Surtr, will advance from the south and tear apart the sky itself as they too, close in on Vigrid. Surtr will brandish a fierce fire sword, the Sword of Revenge, that consumes everything in his path with flames. As Surtr and the others ride over Bifröst, the rainbow bridge will crack and break behind them. Garm, the hellhound bound in front of Gnipahellir, will also get free. He will join the fire giants on their march.

So all the Jotuns and all the inmates of Hel, Fenrir, Jörmungandr, Garm, Surtr and the blazing sons of Muspelheim, will gather on Vigrid. They will all but fill that plain that stretches one hundred and twenty leagues in every direction.

Meanwhile, Heimdall, being the first of the gods to see the enemies approaching, will blow his Giallar horn, sounding such a blast that it will be heard throughout the nine worlds. All the Gods will wake and at once meet in council. Odin will then mount Sleipnir and gallop to Mímir's spring and consult Mímir on his own and his people's behalf.

Then, Yggdrasil, the world tree, will shake from root to summit. Everything on the earth, in the heavens, and Hel will quiver. All Æsir and Einherjar will don their battle dresses. This vast host (432,000 Einherjar - 800 from each of Valhalla's 540 gates) will march towards Vigrid and Odin will ride at their head, wearing a golden helmet and a shining corselet, brandishing Gungnir.

I think we can see the Balrog on the Bridge of Khazad Dum, Boromir blowing his horn & Odin in his 'sun-god' aspect here (wearing a golden helmet & shining corslet...

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, this all just goes to prove the primacy of the individual reader as the determinant of a book’s meaning.

Davem said earlier:

LotR is what it is. Your personal interpretation of it is something else. The two things are, & must be, different.

True, as far as it goes. But what is LotR, taken in a vacuum as it were, without the individual’s reaction to it? It is simply a collection of pages with words printed upon them. Those words can mean nothing without a reader to read them.

Of course, you might say that they mean what the author intended them to mean. But that only holds true as far as the author is concerned, together with those who are aware of such intended meaning (to the extent that it can be determined) and inclined to accept it. That again comes down to individual choice and individual reaction.

Ultimately, therefore, it all comes down to personal reaction.

Many here are arguing that LotR is a fundamentally religious and Catholic work. Others are arguing that it is nothing of the sort, because it does not contain specific Christian symbolism. Well, in my view, both camps are right and both camps are wrong.

For those who perceive LotR as a fundamentally religious and Catholic book, then it is just that - for them. But it is neither fundamentally religious nor fundamentally Catholic to others. It depends upon your individual perspective, which informs and shapes your individual reaction.

For those who insist that it cannot be a fundamentally religious and Catholic book, well you are right to suggest that it cannot be fundamentally religious or Catholic to those who do not perceive it as such, but you are wrong to deny the reaction of those who do perceive it in that way.

Of course, there will be areas where our individual reactions overlap, where some of us can reach some measure of agreement as to the “meaning” of LotR, but that does not mean that such “meaning” will hold true for everyone. So, for example, Catholics may agree that there are Catholic themes and Catholic symbolism within LotR, although they may sometimes disagree on the specifics. Similarly, Muslims may agree that there are Muslims themes within LotR, while those of us without any strong religious belief may simply focus on what the book has to tell us about the human condition.

Or, as davem has suggested, we may simply enjoy it as an entertaining story. Even then, our differing experiences and perspectives mean that we will have different individual reactions to it – in terms, for example, of how much we enjoy a particular aspect or how we interpret a character or event within the context of the fictional world. In this regard, therefore, I think that none of us can fully comply with davem’s entreaty to “leave our baggage behind”. Our individual experiences and perspectives will always be there, lurking in the background, influencing our reaction to the story. To a greater or lesser degree (and perhaps even only in very subtle ways) my vision of Middle-earth and my experience of the War of the Ring will always be different to yours.

Davem suggested that the Christian interpretation of LotR is at its most objectionable when it seeks to evangelise or to preach, in effect to insist that this approach is the (only) correct one. Well, I might say that it is equally objectionable to seek to persuade those who do apply a Christian interpretation that they are wrong to interpret it in such a way, since that is in effect doing exactly the same thing. But, as a general principle, I would agree that it is wrong for anyone to insist that there is only one possible approach to a book like LotR and to use this to persuade others to subscribe to their “world-view”. Nothing wrong with expressing one’s reaction to LotR and attempting to delineate areas of agreement, perhaps even to find whether it strikes a chord with others. Quite wrong in my view to attempt to insist that one’s reaction is the only proper reaction or that it gives you a better appreciation of the book than others. Sometimes, though, it can be a fine line between the two.

In my experience, it is a line which is crossed quite frequently here, particularly in discussions of religion and LotR. I have no doubt that this is usually unintentional. The subtle phrasing of a sentence to suggest implicitly that one has a superior understanding of LotR because one shares Tolkien’s faith. Or through seeking to define the terms of the discussion by reference to words which may appear quite neutral on the face of it, but which have implicit religious connotations. A prime example of this is the frequent bandying about of “truth-with-a-capital-T”, a word for which (despite many requests) I have never received a satisfactory explanation. As I understand it, it denotes the existence of some objective, eternal “truth”, independent of mankind, which cannot be denied. But I don’t necessarily accept that as a concept and so cannot accept it as a “given” in a discussion. Another example is “Eucatastrophe”, a word which I understand Tolkien himself coined. I am happy to discuss it in terms of what Tolkien meant by it. Similarly, I am happy to use it by reference to its simple, literary meaning – denoting a piece of writing which produces sudden joy in the reader at an unexpected and significant upturn in events. But I am uncomfortable with it when used implicitly to refer to the undeniable existence of that “truth-with-a-capital-T”, whatever it is. And a final example is those frequent references to the “sub-created world” when talking about the fictional world, since that phrase necessarily implies that the world within which we live, the “primary” world, was wilfully “created” by some sentient supernatural being. Again, that is a concept to which I do not necessarily subscribe.

So, I see nothing wrong in discussing the possible biblical themes and symbolism within LotR. But I think that those whose reaction to LotR leads them to perceive it as a fundamentally Christian work should be careful not to insist that this is the only, or even the “best” or “correct”, interpretation of the book. Similarly, those who do not accept this approach should be careful not to deny the genuine and honest reaction of others who do. We all have our individual reactions to LotR. There are some that most, or even all, of us can probably agree on. There are others that some of us will never agree on. But, whether we can agree or not, it does not follow that any one particular reaction is the “right” or “correct” or “best” one.