The Lord of the Bible?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

You have to understand that my approach to debate is to (in my own mind) 'depersonalise' it & just respond to the statement itself. As a statement it is either correct or incorrect, logical or illogical, sensible or silly.

Just a thought: Let's say you observed my children and had some 'advice' for me, as they were acting slightly less than angelic. You want me to hear what you have to say, but as it's concerning my kids, you know that, though I may want to be depersonalizedly objective and open (and may even whole-heartedly agree with your observation), you're still going to engage that part of me that's emotional, whether I like it or not. A person's faith/beliefs may be like that. Surely you know this.

Anyway...

Clouds. If you sit out on a green lawn and look out up at those white puffy cumulus clouds, and you let you imagination run a bit, you can see all types of faces, animals, shapes, etc, limited only by what's in your brain. The information that you have, from reading books, looking at pictures, your life experiences, all provide you with images into which to fit the random cloud shapes. If you've been reading LotR, you might see various Middle Earth imagery; if Disney, then 'the Mouse' may appear. Regardless, the shape of the clouds are the same and you choose, from the set within your head, the image that best matches. At that point you say, "See that one...that looks like Gollum's head." Your friend, sitting beside you and never having read nor saw anything Tolkien, can only respond with, "Huh? You mean the one that looks like Mickey?"

A very obvious point, but to make it anyway, is it any mystery why some see certain things in Tolkien's works while others do not? Plus, when we pattern-match the clouds, our brains are using 'fuzzy fitting,' meaning that the shape that looks like Galadriel really doesn't look just like the elf queen, but, say, 20% of the shape does and our brain fudges the rest. The cloud and image fit closely enough for our brain to engage our mouth so that we can tell the world of our obvious observation.

Tolkien was well-read (I assume) and also, like us all, had a unique life experience, and lived through some times that thankfully we won't see. All of those events put images into his head, and so when he wrote, looking at the white paper like a cloud, surely some of those images, fudged a bit, came back out. Some of the images may even have been Christian.

Hope that that makes some sense.

P.S. I too would argue that reps should not be posted without permission, as I would then have to continually be fretting that I wasn't writing 'good enough for primetime' reptext, which would then shorten the text (maybe that's not a bad thing) or leave it unsigned, just in case...but then if it were considered the best reptext ever on the Downs, then no one would ever know that it was from my pen...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mark 12_30

A reader who knows nothing about the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala, will also be able to understand LOTR as it is. Are we then to believe that the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, and the Kalevala had no effect or affect on LOTR, that there are no parallels, that the works were not part of the 'compost' out of which the legendarium grew, and that they should not be discussed here on the Downs?

They all had an effect. But what effect did they have, & how did they work on Tolkien's imagination? There is some of Odin in Gandalf, some of Gwydion, some of Vainamoinen, some of Merlin, perhaps some of Jesus even. One could go very deeply into the way Tolkien's mind worked. He himself stated that he could not study fairy stories as he constantly approached them as a source of raw material.

The question is, did Tolkien 'steal' from the Bible - ie, did he take any figure or event straight from the Bible or not. Clearly he did not. He wrote the story as it came to him & images & ideas arose.

Now, the next question is whether such analysis & parallel hunting tells us anything. Does it tell us anything about M-e itself? About what went into it, perhaps, but that way lies a real danger, one that Tolkien himself pointed up - 'Breaking a thing to find out what it is made of'. Yet we know that Tolkien had read all the works you list above, the Bible, & many more. We know they influenced his thinking. Its not telling us anything we don't already know. 'There's an 'x' in LotR & an 'x' in the Bible' is a process that can go on for months, beginning with 'There is a Creator God in both' down to 'There is a lot of letter 'e's' in both'. The interesting thing, to my mind, is not to look at the raw materials he used, but at what he did with them.

Let's say the Bible was his chief influence - how & why did he produce something like LotR - on the surface of it a work a million miles away from the Bible?

Originally Posted by Alatar

Just a thought: Let's say you observed my children and had some 'advice' for me, as they were acting slightly less than angelic. You want me to hear what you have to say, but as it's concerning my kids, you know that, though I may want to be depersonalizedly objective and open (and may even whole-heartedly agree with your observation), you're still going to engage that part of me that's emotional, whether I like it or not. A person's faith/beliefs may be like that. Surely you know this.

Well, yes, I do know it, but.... Let me clarify my position as regards faith & religion. I would defend anyone's freedom of belief & their right to worship. That is an essential human right. On condition they do not harm anyone else - or attempt to prevent anyone else practicing their own belief. However, I do not respect 'belief' itself, or any particular religion. People believe all kinds of odd things - they always have & always will. I actually like the fact that folk believe all kinds of wierd things - it makes for an interesting world. I will go down fighting for your right to believe in & worship Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Ceridwen, Odin, cosmic pink elephants or who or whatever you want, but at the same time as I'm taking a bullet for your right to believe & worship as you will I'll also quite probably be thinking that what you believe is a bit silly.

P.S. I too would argue that reps should not be posted without permission, as I would then have to continually be fretting that I wasn't writing 'good enough for primetime' reptext, which would then shorten the text (maybe that's not a bad thing) or leave it unsigned, just in case...but then if it were considered the best reptext ever on the Downs, then no one would ever know that it was from my pen...

But if you weren't named then it would hardly matter. Again, my position is that if one has a gripe with another poster one should come out with it publicly. Its too easy to play Mr or Ms Sweetness & Light in the public forum & then stick the boot in in private & demand no-one must be told about it. My reps (all good, btw) usually come with the comment 'Good one ....davem' & that's it. Don't give bad rep comments & there won't be any need to worry about them being posted - anonymously or otherwise.....

[Mister Underhill]

davem, what's up, man? If anyone here seems "desperate" to prove anything, or convinced that his view is the one true way, or determined to silence any view other than his own, it's you.

Since you don't seem to respond well to friendly suggestions from moderators and seem to prefer to handle these matters publicly anyway, let me lay it on the line for you:

1. Publishing privately made comments and private PMs without permission has long been a no-no here on the Downs. In the past when people have seen fit to take private comments and publish them on the Downs, we've often deleted them, as I have now done with the ones you published.

2. As SPM mentioned waaaay back upthread, discussion is not serious or relevant or appropriate only when davem deems it to be so. The moderators of the forum make those calls.

We are not extremely rigid about this; members are free to question a topic or to alert the moderators to a thread or a post or a member who has stepped over the line. But when we make a call -- such as that the "Lord of the Bible?" thread is a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion -- we expect members to respect that call, and not to continually challenge it or attempt to shout down or intimidate other members or otherwise hijack the thread.

I would think that the fact that Tolkien himself was willing to entertain the idea of drawing parallels between his work and his religion would be enough to justify the validity of the topic. In the past we've had threads that discussed WWI parallels, WWII parallels, parallels with ancient myth and fairy tale, and yes, biblical/religious parallels.

You don't think this activity reveals anything valuable or worthwhile for you. Okay, we get it. If that's all you have to say, stop saying it and let others who do find it valuable or even just interesting do it. If you can't see how disruptive your posts have been in the latter part of this thread, I can't help you, I can only urge you to find a topic that you do find more valuable and spend your energy there instead.

3. Respect forum policies and mod decisions and requests. In this case, I'm going to request that you do something that's going to be very difficult for you: resist the temptation to respond to this post line by line, justifying why you think you're right and explaining again why you think this topic isn't serious enough to meet your standards. If you (or anyone) have questions on our moderating policies or any of the calls we've made here, please feel free to PM me for further clarification.

[davem]

I will step aside from this thread, as my reappearance on the Downs has been welcomed by many here & I don't want to deprive them of my wisdom & insights on Tolkieniana Its difficult to avoid repetition when the points one has already challenged are themselves repeated, but there I will leave it.

It seems to me that the question that started all this has been answered already with a resounding No! Where it can go from here I have no idea, but I will let others do as they will with it.

[narfforc]

An argument is very rarely Won, what tends to happen is that both sides go their seperate ways still believing what did from the start. It is not always won by the person who utters the last words, nor shouts down his opponent, and is never won when one side is independently silenced. The problem is that this thread turned into an argument and not a discussion, and that is usually the case when religion is involved. It is probably the best thing Davem to step away and not concede defeat, knowing that this discussion will continue in circles.

Originally Posted by narfforc

An argument is very rarely Won, what tends to happen is that both sides go their seperate ways still believing what did from the start. It is not always won by the person who utters the last words, nor shouts down his opponent, and is never won when one side is independently silenced. The problem is that this thread turned into an argument and not a discussion, and that is usually the case when religion is involved. It is probably the best thing Davem to step away and not concede defeat, knowing that this discussion will continue in circles.

The original question to the thread was a rhetorical one - the answer was always going to be a no. But out of it has come a greater appreciation of the LOTR & the Bible, & acknowledgement of the fact that there is great similarity between the two texts, suggesting that Tolkein gained many of his fundamental themes/ideas through inspiration from the Bible. Gandalf isn't Christ, but he is Christ-like. Saruman isn't Judas, but he is just as bad a traitor. The far green country isn't heaven, but it is the undying lands where the High Elves dwell in peace.

[narfforc]

I agree with many of your points Mansun, and the thread for the most part has been a success, I just haven't enjoyed reading some of the repetitive arguments.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mansun

The original question to the thread was a rhetorical one - the answer was always going to be a no. But out of it has come a greater appreciation of the LOTR & the Bible, & acknowledgement of the fact that there is great similarity between the two texts, suggesting that Tolkein gained many of his fundamental themes/ideas through inspiration from the Bible. Gandalf isn't Christ, but he is Christ-like. Saruman isn't Judas, but he is just as bad a traitor. The far green country isn't heaven, but it is the undying lands where the High Elves dwell in peace.

Um, well I'm just one of a few yet to be convinced by anything. The most interesting notion was that of having a 'holy city' of some description in Middle-earth, and even with that there's absolutely no evidence in the text that Tolkien intended it, it's just an interesting literary motif to be pursued.

And on that note....

Originally Posted by LMP

Exhibit #1: Pity stayed Bilbo

In the Prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, section four, paragraph seven, we read,
"...Bilbo was tempted to slay [Gollum] with his sword. But pity stayed him...."
First, this is precisely the same way it is presented in the revised "The Hobbit, Riddles in the Dark". Note the passive tense. It does not say 'Bilbo took pity on him', but 'pity stayed him'. Pity is thus something acting upon Bilbo rather than he doing the pitying. What is this pity? Does it have a source? If not, we are left with an unanswerable conundrum, or else not the best writing (passive tense instead of active). If this pity does have a source, what is it? Or are we dealing with a 'who'?
The question is too early to answer yet; we don't have enough information, and must read further to see if any answers are forthcoming.

Interesting point. I know that Pity is one of the Christian virtues, and in fact is pretty central to any genuine Christian (now aint the place to pursue what a non-genuine Christian is in this respect ) but I would also have to point out that its in no way exclusive. Pity is one of the attributes setting us out as distinctly human (and is naturally linked to another basic emotion - disgust). Pity is something also displayed to a great degree by non-Christians, e.g. Oxfam is a secular charity doing work to help people less fortunate. Amnesty International also works to lobby for more 'pity' even for people who have broken the law and done 'wrong'.

Saying 'Pity stayed him' actually to me seems more like the basic human instinct of pity coming to the fore, whereas 'took pity on him' suggests the conscious mind taking over, e.g. deciding to exercise the pity you are required to show as part of your religion.

[Raynor]

My congrats to Mansun too, I think he phrased his idea very well.

Originally Posted by Lal

Saying 'Pity stayed him' actually to me seems more like the basic human instinct of pity coming to the fore, whereas 'took pity on him' suggests the conscious mind taking over, e.g. deciding to exercise the pity you are required to show as part of your religion.

I think it is interesting to show Gandalf's comments too:

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

Pity? It was Pity that stayed [Bilbo's] hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity

Now, it is interesting to note the capitalisation of Pity and Mercy - the ones who will bring about the saving grace in the end - also, the fact that Pity is rewarded, which, again, implies divine action.

To adress the second part of Lal's statement:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.

So, in the light of this, unless we consider Frodo to be mad, we are left with the spiritual explanation of his action.

I would also compare Tolkien's words:

Originally Posted by Letter #192

Of course, he did not mean to say that one must be merciful, for it may prove useful later – it would not then be mercy or pity, which are only truly present when contrary to prudence. Not ours to plan ! But we are assured that we must be ourselves extravagantly generous, if we are to hope for the extravagant generosity which the slightest easing of, or escape from, the consequences of our own follies and errors represents. And that mercy does sometimes occur in this life.

to the Bible:

Originally Posted by Luke 6:35

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

[littlemanpoet]

.... I'll just make an observation.

It's really quite comical how this is going once you boil down the arguments:

"There is nothing uniquely Christian in LotR."

"On the contrary, there are aspects of Christianity all over LotR."

"I could just as well argue that there are aspects of Norse myth all over LotR."

"If so, why can't we also say that there are aspects of Christianity in LotR?"

"I insist, though, that LotR is not a Christian book."

"And I insist, that you can't say there is nothing Christian in LotR."

"And I insist that there is nothing uniquely Christian in LotR."

"On the contrary, there are........"

We're arguing past ourselves. I don't think any Christian appreciator of LotR here at the Downs is saying that LotR is strictly Christian. That would be stupid.

Nor is any non-Christian saying that there is NO Christian element in LotR.

I think that we can all agree that there is no EXCLUSIVELY Christian aspect in LotR, just as there is no EXCLUSIVELY Norse mythic, Baghavad Gita'ish, etc., aspect to LotR.

My exhibits (properly numbered of course) will continue to show aspects; we will see what the text itself reveals. ... later....

[narfforc]

Well said LMP, it is exactly what I have been trying to say, LotR is not an allegory, it is an amalgm, now can we please stop the merry-go-round (carousel) I want to get off.

[Lalwendë]

lmp - you've just boiled down the many lost hours of internet time for me, because basically you could say that about any discussion on the Downs, or indeed on any forum about any topic! Someone says something, someone else argues a different case. You've scared me now, I'm thinking I should be doing something useful instead! Hey ho.

I hope you're right that nobody is arguing that LotR is exclusively Christian! But even any one single aspect can be interpreted any number of ways. One thing that a lot of us agree on is that there are multiple influences and interpretations. That's one of the reasons why Tolkien's work is so loved by so many diverse people.

As I've said before, feel free to say what you like on here, even if its a bit mad, I'll happily discuss and argue with anything that anyone sticks on, but we should all think twice before posting if we don't want someone to challenge us on what we say. Hmmm, maybe I'm jumping the gun a bit but is there anyone out there who does seriously expect to be able to post statements, assumptions, opinions without having them challenged? Isn't challenge and discussion what its all about?

Keep 'em coming if you like, 'cause I enjoy examining these points. None of us will learn anything otherwise.

[mark12_30]

Lal, you baffle me.

My last serious post on this thread was (A) in answer to two specific questions and (B) provided extensive detail for those answers. My answer to Sharon was geared entirely towards (my grasp of) Sharon's worldview and how it would contrast between Tolkien's pre-incarnation worldview. Hence the extensive comparison/contrast between the OT worldview and the NT pre-incarnation worldview, explaining the difference in terms I hoped would resonate with Sharon and provide the contrast I thought she was looking for.

However, instead of responding to the difference between the two worldviews, or questioning my presentation of the information and processing it, and challenging the provided aspects of (New Testament, Christian) pre-incarnation hope and post-incarnation hope versus the Old Testament (Hebrew) aspects of hope-- challenging the information given on its own merit-- I was simply accused of proseletyzing, and otherwise the discussion ignored everything I had said in the post. I can hardly refrain from adding, that except for the comment about sheep and goats which was intended for humor, I did not claim "This is what I believe, and it is clearly true and all else is false." (Some others on this thread have, with impunity.) I simply presented my arguments regarding hope in context of the Christian worldview, supported by the texts, as thoroughly as I could.

Before it was over, I was rebuked for my textual support, and Sharon was rebuked for her question. I find this extremely unfortunate, since I thought Sharon had asked one of the most challenging questions on this thread so far.

Level of detail has been a point of contention on this thread. The repeated accusation is that those arguing in favor of Christian/ biblical influences offer only guesses and no proof. How are we suupposed to offer any proof for our points when as soon as we offer concrete textual support of our points we are accused of proseletyzing?

If my discussion had been about the Norse worldview and I had discussed the Eddas, providing textual quotes and summaries of ideas and worldviews, would anyone have complained?

I hope you'll pardon my skepticism, but in light of your reaction to my detailed answer to Sharon's question, I find your statement "Keep 'em coming if you like" a bit hard to trust. What are you looking for?

An afterthought, directed toward those who hold an 'anti-biblical-influence' stance or a neutral stance: -- what is it that you would like to see? Textual support? Summaries of overarching principles? One-liner, unsupported opinions? If I'm going to put real time and energy into this thread (as yet undecided) I'd like some indication.