Tolkien's "black-and-white" worlds ...or...?

[scotsboyuk]

@Mrs. Maggot

Indeed, Tolkien has taken the myths, legends and history of our own world and created a realm, which is as complex and detailed as it is interesting and fun to read about. Tolkien's works, especially LotR, embodies a very British, and particuarly a very English, quality. The themes of self-sacrifice, loyalty, freedom and a struggle to the bitter end aginst overwhelming odds are all very much characteristics Tolkien would have found in his natve land, as well as in humanity in general. The idea of a small people (quite literally in Tolkien's works) struggling against the might and seemingly unstoppable power of an enemy many times greater, is a resonant image throughout British history.

What is so interesting about the way that Tolkien wrote is that he weaves a story that all can enjoy, not just Englishmen or Britons, but all those who recognise good and evil and the struggle between the two. It is that struggle, which I see as being so important. It is in the struggle itself that we see both greatness and failure, it is the struggle, which is the heart of the story, that which gives it universal appeal and resonance.

 

[Walter]

To my mind, Gollum is far more akin to Judas Iscariot than Christ.

What an interesting comparison...

Judas, just like Gollum, is most often seen just as the villain. Judas is the no-good egomaniac who sells the saviour for 30 pieces of silver.

But a closer look may even here bring up some interesting aspects that may throw a different light at Mrs. M's comparison. Just like Gollum had his "alter ego" Sméagol, Judas sicarius, the 'murderer' or 'assassin', probably had one too. In the light of biblical scholarship of the last century it appears quite plausible that Judas Iscariot is identical with Judas Thomas, the (twin-)brother of Jesus, who is said to have "betrayed" Jesus, but with that probably only fulfilled Jesus' order (which was necessary to fulfil the prophecies; e.g. Zech 11:12; 12:10).

But just like Gollum, Judas Iscariot was playing an important role, without which the "greater plan" could not have been fulfilled, without which the world could not have been saved and both, Sméagol and Thomas (thomas is the aramaic word meaning 'twin') had to pay dearly in order to fulfil the divine plan, the one with his life, the other with his honour...

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Is Tolkien's mythological world "black-and-white" only?

In other worlds, do you think that the worlds and their inhabitants, that he had created, are based upon this bi-pole pattern, or are there "shades" and nuances?
Are the "good guys" only 'good' and the "bad guys" - only bad?
Is 'good' only good and 'evil' - only evil?

Some "food for thought".

"Bi-pole"? In real life as in Middle-earth, there are always the extremes of good and evil, between which are infinite shades of them both.

Barley

 

[Forgotten Path]

You know, the comparison of Gollum to Jesus reminds me of fans in the early years of The L.R. writing "Gollum died for your sins" on bathroom walls. Quite a deviation from the normal "Trust Jesus" we get over here in America.

I hate to interject on your conversations, but I would like to hearken back to the earlier conversation. I believe that nothing in Tolkien's works is "pure" evil, and I think that is the way Tolkien intended it to be. In Letters, Tolkien states that he does not believe Sauron is pure evil "since that is zero" (paraphrased). Nor is the Ring "pure" evil. For instance, the gold of the Ring is not in itself evil. (This comes from an essay from The L.R. and Philosophy, a book I am reviewing.) "Pure" evil is nothing, the void, etc. Furthur support of this view is shown when Gandalf tells the Witch King to "go back to the abyss that awaits you and your Master". However, I believe it may be possible to "fall" past the point of redemption. Comparable to a black hole. It pulls you in with it's extreme gravity, but you still have a chance to escape until you pass the event horizon. Maybe there is such an "event horizon" with Tolkien's characters. (The only ones in The L.R. past this "event horizon" would be Sauron and the Nazgul.)

I am glad I stumbled upon this thread. It is very interesting, and I enjoy musing over this subject. Everyone, I hope this all made sense.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

What an interesting comparison...

Judas, just like Gollum, is most often seen just as the villain. Judas is the no-good egomaniac who sells the saviour for 30 pieces of silver.

But a closer look may even here bring up some interesting aspects that may throw a different light at Mrs. M's comparison. Just like Gollum had his "alter ego" Sméagol, Judas sicarius, the 'murderer' or 'assassin', probably had one too. In the light of biblical scholarship of the last century it appears quite plausible that Judas Iscariot is identical with Judas Thomas, the (twin-)brother of Jesus, who is said to have "betrayed" Jesus, but with that probably only fulfilled Jesus' order (which was necessary to fulfil the prophecies; e.g. Zech 11:12; 12:10).

But just like Gollum, Judas Iscariot was playing an important role, without which the "greater plan" could not have been fulfilled, without which the world could not have been saved and both, Sméagol and Thomas (thomas is the aramaic word meaning 'twin') had to pay dearly in order to fulfil the divine plan, the one with his life, the other with his honour...

I am very wary of "modern" Biblical scholorship which is often less than objective and tries to "disprove" earlier versions. Much of the problem with the Bible and its relatively different "versions" has to do with translations from Hebrew, Greek or Latin - and especially Greek. The old saw that "the Greeks have a word for it" is not without truth. For instance, the King James version translates the word into "charity"; later translations, "love". However, there are many different kinds of love which are quite clear in the Greek.

Another problem is the word "brothers" used to indicate St. James and others apparently "related" to Christ (Thy Mother and Thy brothers are outside and wish to see Thee...). In the Greek, the term is "brethren" meaning those in one's family, but not necessarily siblings. Since the Scripture speaks of a virgin birth (and not merely "a young woman" becoming pregnant - hardly a "miraculous" event!), to suggest that Christ had brothers and sisters directly contradicts the teaching of the early Church - and continued today in the Orthodox East and the Roman West that Mary is the "ever Virgin" Mother of God (Theotokos). In the early Church, the understanding was that the "brethren" alluded to in Scripture were the children of Mary's husband, Joseph. Now, according to the early Church documents and Tradition, Joseph was an older man who took Mary into his home as "wife" when she had to leave the Temple wherein she had been consecrated to God by her mother and father the elderly Joachim and Anna. There she had lived since she was a child of about three. Of course, once she reached puberty, she could not longer remain in the Temple precincts for biological reasons and so, like other of these "consecrated" young virgins, she was "given in marriage" to a man who was widowed and already had children in keeping with the tradition of continuing the family line. The idea was that these older men would look after and provide for these "vestal virgins", leaving them both money and their own family to care for these young women after the older "foster husband" had died. This was, according to the documents and Tradition of the early Church, a common practice for such young girls. Therefore, even though the information is not contained in Scripture, the early Church had sufficient documentation to determine that Joseph was such a man and that those whom Christ called "brothers", were in fact, His step-brothers, the children of his foster father, Joseph. Unfortunately, these nuances of familial relationships did not survive garbled attempts to translate Scripture from its early sources.

As for Judas: we must remember that Jesus of Nazarath had as many as a hundred followers with Him most of the time - men and women! Of those, He chose only twelve to be not His "disciples", but His "apostles". Among them was Judas. Therefore, Judas could hardly have been a man of no standing among Christ's followers nor could he have been openly of questionable character. And so why did he betray his Master? Who knows? Perhaps Judas was one who wanted the type of Messiah desired by the zealots - that is, someone to bring down God's wrath and defeat the Romans, re-establishing Israel as a mighty nation. Certainly we know that Judas repented of his actions and even declared himself guilty of the shedding of "innocent blood"! Yet, surely he must have known the fate to which he was condemning Jesus - the Sanhedrin had hardly been secretive in its efforts to find some reason to apprehend and condemn Christ! Nor was Judas stupid so, perhaps (as has been suggested in at least one film) he wished to "push" Christ to reveal Himself by putting Him in mortal peril and thus "force the issue".

Whatever the reason, Judas for at least a very short time walked a fine line between salvation and damnation. Indeed, he could have been one of the greatest saints of the Church - had he only asked for the forgiveness of the Man he betrayed and those who had trusted him (Jesus' followers). But instead (like Denethor more than Gollum), he was not able to abase himself and humbly ask for that forgiveness. Instead, because he could not live with his ultimate sin, he chose to take his own life and thus damn himself forever.

Gollum, on the other hand, does not resemble Judas in this way. The resemblence is strictly narrative, not motivational. He betrays the person to whom he has pledged faithfulness (Frodo) and his betrayal leads - unexpectedly and unintentionally - to the desired outcome of the matter. Judas also betrayed the Person to whom he had pledged faithfulness and his betrayal also led to the "desired outcome" of the matter. Without Gollum, the quest would have failed even though it was certainly not Gollum's intention to bring the quest to a successful conclusion. Without Judas, Scripture would not have been fulfilled and God would not have been able to redeem mankind - at least at that time. He would have eventually succeeded (one cannot "thwart" God!), but we have no idea how. Yet, Judas obviously did not foresee the ultimate result of his actions nor is it probable that he really intended that result - that is, the crucifixion of Christ. Gollum's motives were simple and obvious; Judas's were considerably less so.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

You know, the comparison of Gollum to Jesus reminds me of fans in the early years of The L.R. writing "Gollum died for your sins" on bathroom walls...

LOL ROFL! I missed that one "back when," but it sure gave me a belly laugh when I read it in your post just now!

Barley

 

[Walter]

I am glad I stumbled upon this thread. It is very interesting, and I enjoy musing over this subject. Everyone, I hope this all made sense.

Then you will probably enjoy this thread too...

----

I am very wary of "modern" Biblical scholorship which is often less than objective and tries to "disprove" earlier versions. Much of the problem with the Bible and its relatively different "versions" has to do with translations from Hebrew, Greek or Latin - and especially Greek. The old saw that "the Greeks have a word for it" is not without truth. For instance, the King James version translates the word into "charity"; later translations, "love". However, there are many different kinds of love which are quite clear in the Greek.

Here I do not agree. I think the bigger part of the problem which has arisen for Christian Orthodoxy in the past decades by the results of modern biblical scholarship are just "old sins" coming back to haunt them: Namely, the biased and manipulative way to handle "scripture" and create "canon" and "orthodoxy" - and thus "correcting" and omitting those "apocryphal" traditions that didn't fit nicely into Paul's and Peter's new religion (creating a new religion was never Jesus' intention anyway) during the first 3 or 4 centuries.

But I really do not wish to get drawn into another religious discussion, my intention was to point out that there's more to your comparison between Gollum and Judas than what first meets the eye.

Tolkien's world has many hues and many colours and Sméagol/Gollum isn't just the villain he is often seen as. Of course he is not just the "saviour" either, even though in the literal sense - and nolens, not volens - he is. But he is also a tool - or a peasant in the game of - Sauron, in his attempt to get hold of the One Ring.

And - as a parallel - Judas is - most probably not the sicarius, the 'murderer' or 'assassin' either, as a twin-brother of Jesus he is maybe - but here volens, but reluctantly - as much a tool - or a peasant in the plan of Jesus, to fulfil the prophecies...

 

[Forgotten Path]

Thank you, Walter. It does look very interesting. I don't have time to read the whole thing now, but I am looking forward to it. I think you would enjoy The Lord Of the Rings and Philosophy . I bought my copy at Walden Books. If theres not one near you, I'm sure they have a website you can order off of. There are alot of essays in it concerning good/evil. Thanks again for directing me to that thread!

 

[Eriol]

Here I do not agree. I think the bigger part of the problem which has arisen for Christian Orthodoxy in the past decades by the results of modern biblical scholarship are just "old sins" coming back to haunt them: Namely, the biased and manipulative way to handle "scripture" and create "canon" and "orthodoxy" - and thus "correcting" and omitting those "apocryphal" traditions that didn't fit nicely into Paul's and Peter's new religion (creating a new religion was never Jesus' intention anyway) during the first 3 or 4 centuries.

But I really do not wish to get drawn into another religious discussion, my intention was to point out that there's more to your comparison between Gollum and Judas than what first meets the eye.

Modern biblical scholarship doesn't differ much from ancient biblical scholarship in that they draw way too much conclusions from too few data (and that goes for both Christian and non-Christian scholars). Yet, as anyone who looks into the matter knows, the "manipulative and biased way" to handle the texts isn't at all different from "protection of copyright"; the early Church certainly condemned and destroyed books which projected a false character on Jesus. The same thing would surely happen if people began to write "alternative Lord of the Rings" in which Aragorn were an orc, or Gandalf were just an impersonal force of nature like "the Force" in Star Wars, or in which Gollum and Frodo were considered the same character.

This would happen with LotR, a work of fiction; it's rather more understandable (and important) if we are speaking about factual reports, about real people, as the gospels are. The apocryphal were rejected because they were false; and we know that precisely because they were rejected. The point, which no biblical scholar would deny, is that the early Church was in the best imaginable position to pick which books were true and which were false; much better than any biblical scholar, modern or ancient. To presume that they picked the books according to some conspiracy to establish a great religion (something which led the leaders to ghastly deaths) while knowing that they were lying about it is, to put it mildly, sorely lacking in evidence. As much as some people would loooove to see a Jesus like the one depicted in the apocryphals, such as one who married Mary Magdalene, the simple fact is that this did not happen, according to the best evidence that we have -- the gospels, selected by the people closest to Jesus, and who had no vested interest in manipulating the stories, quite the contrary (if they had any vested interest it was surely to make them softer, more like the apocryphals, for it would render their religion more acceptable to Roman society. Yet, they didn't).

I was curious when you asserted without any doubt that Paul and Peter did not follow Jesus' wishes. Do you have any inside information on what were Jesus' wishes? I'd rather assume that Peter, the person whom Jesus specifically chose to continue his work, knew what he was doing.

Even though such a simple and obvious belief is quite unfashionable among those who wanted a completely different kind of Christianity, one less... offensive. Yet, as Jesus (not Peter, and not Paul) said, "Blessed is he who is not offended in me". Apparently Jesus had a fair notion of how many people would be offended by him (and not by Peter or Paul).

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Modern biblical scholarship doesn't differ much from ancient biblical scholarship in that they draw way too much conclusions from too few data (and that goes for both Christian and non-Christian scholars). Yet, as anyone who looks into the matter knows, the "manipulative and biased way" to handle the texts isn't at all different from "protection of copyright"; the early Church certainly condemned and destroyed books which projected a false character on Jesus. The same thing would surely happen if people began to write "alternative Lord of the Rings" in which Aragorn were an orc, or Gandalf were just an impersonal force of nature like "the Force" in Star Wars, or in which Gollum and Frodo were considered the same character.

This would happen with LotR, a work of fiction; it's rather more understandable (and important) if we are speaking about factual reports, about real people, as the gospels are...

Ahem, ahem, beg pardon...not all of us hold that to be true. As far as I'm concerned, the gospels speak of alleged "facts," the details of which are as "manipulated and biased" as anything you were talking about in your opening paragraph. (I think this discussion will eventually call down The Wrath of the Mods, since such discussion has been declared a no-no...)

Barly

 

[Eriol]

Ahem, ahem, beg pardon...not all of us hold that to be true. As far as I'm concerned, the gospels speak of alleged "facts," the details of which are as "manipulated and biased" as anything you were talking about in your opening paragraph. (I think this discussion will eventually call down The Wrath of the Mods, since such discussion has been declared a no-no...)

Barly

You have my pardon . And not all of us hold that to be false either. What I object to is the presentation of some minority opinions as facts. I know quite well that Walter and you do not agree with the gospels, but the least that I can ask of you is that you label your opinions with the tag "opinion", and your facts with the tag "facts" .

Which Walter didn't do in that passage above.

 

[Uminya]

In reference to the original post of this thread, I believe that a generalization that would declare Tolkien's works to be strictly "black and white" or "good versus evil" would be incorrect. Consider the Eldar. While they are generally seen as 'good', we must examine their role in the Kinslaying (for the Noldor, at least) and subsequent events. I see the Silmarilli as the first Ring, though rather than being corrupting in and of themselves, they corrupt indirectly. Recall that the sons of Feanor would declare war on anyone who kept the Silmarils from them. Surely this is not an act of "good".

The dwarves, it is stated, are also not entirely "good", and instead work in that grey area that is their own agenda, along with the Ents.

Perhaps the most "grey" people of all in all of Tolkien's works are the Pukel-men, or Druedain. They really don't go for one side or the other, but instead only want the "evil" orcs gone because they cut down trees and make nasty black clouds and brown air.

When examining who is "good" and who is "evil", one cannot simply examine actions, one must examine motivations. Did all of those Haradrim really want to fight, or were they lied to, threatened, and manipulated into fighting? Tolkien himself brings down that tremendous message with that single passage which we are all of course familiar with.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

You have my pardon . And not all of us hold that to be false either.

Of course!

What I object to is the presentation of some minority opinions as facts.

Oh, so do I! But then — in this case — you object to your own post (even a majority opinion can be wrong)!

I know quite well that Walter and you do not agree with the gospels, but the least that I can ask of you is that you label your opinions with the tag "opinion", and your facts with the tag "facts" .

Which Walter didn't do in that passage above.

(I take it you accept "as far as I'm concerned"?) And you didn't either. But we're not supposed to talk about this stuff anymore.

Good morning! And how is your lovely garden?

Barley

 

[Eriol]

And you didn't either.

Well, I also remember that you don't believe in objective truth, so it's no surprise that you equate "opinion with evidence" and "opinion without evidence". Which is of course your sovereign right as a free human being .

Yet, as far as the evidence is concerned, my post presented some. Each one must judge it by himself, of course. And I agree we shouldn't be speaking about this, but what can I do? If you saw someone talking about LotR as if Frodo were a dwarf, you would take exception, wouldn't you? I'd much rather discuss the blackness/whiteness of Tolkien's world, but there was that little matter of a missing tag... .

As regards the topic, I think that Tolkien's musings about the origin of Orcs in HoME X are a sign of his concern about this. He certainly made the Orcs to be absolutely "black", but that couldn't be reconciled with the old theory of "Orcs-as-corrupted-Quendi" without ditching the free will of the elves, and Tolkien wasn't ready for that. The idea of making orcs "corrupted beasts" (which presumably lacked free will), perhaps infused with Maiar spirits (which would be evil by choice), is very much an "explanation" of that blackness seen in Orcs, who are irredeemable.

There is a letter, I think it is directed at W.H. Auden, in which Tolkien discusses the problem of the Orcs, and agrees that an irredeemable race can't be present in a world created by God (or something to that effect).

 

[Gothmog]

The Wrath of the Mods

I think this discussion will eventually call down The Wrath of the Mods, since such discussion has been declared a no-no.

Not yet Just a friendly request to keep the discussion related to Tolkien in the thread. For any points not related to Tolkien Please use PM's

Thanks

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Well, I also remember that you don't believe in objective truth, so it's no surprise that you equate "opinion with evidence" and "opinion without evidence". Which is of course your sovereign right as a free human being .

Your first phrase is absolutely on the money. I'm not sure that I even understand what you put into quotes.

If you saw someone talking about LotR as if Frodo were a dwarf, you would take exception, wouldn't you?

Is that what was going on???!! But if that were the case, I would indeed pipe up.

...Tolkien's musings...made the Orcs to be absolutely "black", but that couldn't be reconciled with the old theory of "Orcs-as-corrupted-Quendi" without ditching the free will of the elves, and Tolkien wasn't ready for that. The idea of making orcs "corrupted beasts" (which presumably lacked free will), perhaps infused with Maiar spirits (which would be evil by choice), is very much an "explanation" of that blackness seen in Orcs, who are irredeemable.

It's an explanation — but is it the right one? (I am being worn down by too many of you with a wider reading experience — I am slowly but surely being driven to acquire a paper version of HoME...)

There is a letter, I think it is directed at W.H. Auden, in which Tolkien discusses the problem of the Orcs, and agrees that an irredeemable race can't be present in a world created by God (or something to that effect).

That's quoted in HoME? (I'll have to do some investigating — which volume is it?)

Barley

 

[Eriol]

The letter (actually a fragment) is letter 269 (this was an answer to Auden's question about whether the notion of the Orcs, an entire race that was irredeemably wicked, was not heretical):

With regard to The Lord of the Rings, I cannot claim to be a sufficient theologian to say whether my notion of orcs is heretical or not. I don't feel under any obligation to make my story fit with formalized Christian theology, though I actually intended it to be consonant with Christian thought and belief, which is asserted somewhere, Book Five, page 190, where Frodo asserts that the orcs are not evil in origin. We believe that, I suppose, of all human kinds and sorts and breeds, though some appear, both as individuals and groups to be, by us at any rate, unredeemable. . . . .

As for the part of HoME X (Myths Transformed) that deals with orcs in detail, here it is:

...Their nature and origin require more thought. They are not easy to work into the theory and system.

(1) As the case of Aulë and the Dwarves shows, only Eru could make creatures with independent wills, and with reasoning powers. But Orcs seem to have both: they can try to cheat Morgoth/Sauron, rebel against him, or criticize him.

(2) ? Therefore they must be corruptions of something pre-existing.

(3) But Men had not yet appeared, when the Orcs already existed. Aulë constructed the Dwarves out of his memory of the Music; but Eru would not sanction the work of Melkor so as to allow the independence of the Orcs. (Not unless the Orcs were ultimately redeemable, or could be amended and 'saved'?)

It also seems clear (see 'Finrod and Andreth') that though Melkor could utterly corrupt and ruin individuals, it is not possible to contemplate his absolute perversion of a whole people, or group of peoples, and his making that state heritable [Added later: This latter must (if a fact) be an act of Eru.]

In that case Elves, as a source, are very unlikely. And are Orcs 'immortal', in the Elvish sense? Or trolls? It seems clearly implied in The Lord of the Rings that trolls existed in their own right, but were 'tinkered' with by Melkor.

(4) What of talking beasts and birds with reasoning and speech? These have been rather lightly adopted from less 'serious' mythologies, but play a part which cannot now be excised. They are certainly 'exceptions' and not much used, but sufficiently to show they are a recognized feature of the world. All other creatures accept them as natural if not common.

(...)

In summary: I think it must be assumed that 'talking' is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a 'rational soul' or fëa. The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted/converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their 'talking' was really reeling off 'records' set in them by Melkor. Even their rebellious critical words -- he knew about them. Melkor taught them speech and as they bred they inherited this; and they had just as much independence as have, say, dogs or horses of their human masters. This talking was largely echoic (cf. parrots). In The Lords of the Rings Sauron is said to have devised a language for them.

It is important to note that this passage from HoME is (supposedly) from 1959, while the letter to Auden is from 1965. Which means only what we already knew -- Tolkien surely took a long time in establishing this kind of "theoretical frame", and it is quite hard to know what was his "final opinion" (or even whether he came to one final opinion in the end of his musings),

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Let us for a moment consider "redemption" in the light of real life. The common meaning seems to be that a person, no matter to what depths of depravity and evil has fallen, is still capable of giving them up and becoming good once more. We know that in some cases it happens and in some it doesn't. The theological issue seems to be however that all individuals (since "made by God") are "redeemable," given the right circumstances. This begs the question, Is that really true, or simply a hope or a religious doctrine? More than that, I believe that Christianity has religionized the general human hope that we can all "turn over a new leaf" when necessary. After all, what reasonably well-adjusted person would willingly come to a ready conclusion that Man's tendency is to stay as he is and not be open to change for the better?

There is also a scientific/genetic approach: most people will be good as long as they can manage the bad things that happen to them in good spirit, but every person can be driven to hideous behavior given the right circumstances. And my life's experience has led me to conclude that if most people tend to the "good," there are some who are so willingly, consciously evil in thought and deed that there must be a strong genetic/temperamental component to it. The Germans have an interesting word: schadenfruede, taking pleasure in cruelty. So there is strong evidence for a wide streak in humans beings of "evil as a consciously chosen lifestyle" as well as "good as a consciously chosen lifestyle."

Tolkien is addressing a theological issue that comes from within Western religion, specifically Christianity, and also what seems to me to be his private problem (and the in-house problem of other Christians for whom it matters): shall orcs be redeemable since they were "bred" from elves, or not? This to me is a question which breeds (no pun intended) endless (and therefore fruitless) speculation. If even he couldn't come to an answer which satisfied him, I shall certainly not presume to try to find one for him!

For me, the whole issue is one which stands entirely outside my ethical/moral concepts because I am not a Christian (nor, for that matter, a serious believing member of any other mainline religion). Indeed there are other major religions in which the concept of redemption does not even exist, because the operative notion is one of karma, one of behavior: each individual soul, through a series of lives eventually and inexorably achieves perfection, that is, Oneness with God (by whatever name the religion calls Her).

Further, I am glad indeed that JR didn't weigh down his saga with his (private) question openly, happily leaving Joe Reader (including myself) to enjoy his reading without being weighted down, albatrosslike, with extraneous (for the reader who has no such concerns) religious baggage.

Barley

 

[Walter]

Modern biblical scholarship doesn't differ much from ancient biblical scholarship in that they draw way too much conclusions from too few data (and that goes for both Christian and non-Christian scholars). Yet, as anyone who looks into the matter knows, the "manipulative and biased way" to handle the texts isn't at all different from "protection of copyright"; the early Church certainly condemned and destroyed books which projected a false character on Jesus. The same thing would surely happen if people began to write "alternative Lord of the Rings" in which Aragorn were an orc, or Gandalf were just an impersonal force of nature like "the Force" in Star Wars, or in which Gollum and Frodo were considered the same character.

Quite an interesting comparison too. Now let us examine it a little closer. The locations and characters of Tolkien's legendarium are indeed protected by copyrights, which is - at least in part – simply ridiculous. Tolkien has heavily "borrowed" names as well as storylines from other, pre-existing, myths. Names like Middle-earth, Mirkwood, Eärendil, Ents, or storylines like the tale of Turin, the early conception of the Valar – to name but a few – are examples of this and Tolkien, when asked, admitted that quite freely. Would Tolkien's legendarium be stripped of everything he originally borrowed from other myths it would be dismantled to a degree where it probably would not be recognizable anymore.

And exactly the same goes for Christianity.

Would the myths which are now considered "biblical canon" be stripped of everything that has been borrowed elsewhere, the Christian religion would be dismantled to a degree where it would no longer be recognizable. Monotheism, the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the virgin birth, Jesus' sacrificial death, his resurrection are but a few examples. Christianity now making a copyright claim on things they borrowed elsewhere, is IMO as ridiculous some of the copyright claims of the Tolkien-estate or the publishers...

This would happen with LotR, a work of fiction; it's rather more understandable (and important) if we are speaking about factual reports, about real people, as the gospels are. The apocryphal were rejected because they were false; and we know that precisely because they were rejected. The point, which no biblical scholar would deny, is that the early Church was in the best imaginable position to pick which books were true and which were false; much better than any biblical scholar, modern or ancient. To presume that they picked the books according to some conspiracy to establish a great religion (something which led the leaders to ghastly deaths) while knowing that they were lying about it is, to put it mildly, sorely lacking in evidence. As much as some people would loooove to see a Jesus like the one depicted in the apocryphals, such as one who married Mary Magdalene, the simple fact is that this did not happen, according to the best evidence that we have -- the gospels, selected by the people closest to Jesus, and who had no vested interest in manipulating the stories, quite the contrary (if they had any vested interest it was surely to make them softer, more like the apocryphals, for it would render their religion more acceptable to Roman society. Yet, they didn't).

Can you prove – and I mean prove according to scientific standards, not such proofs as put forth by some "specially gifted" individui, who think they can prove God's very existence by means of mere logic - any of your assertions above about facts, peoples, what is true and false? I very much doubt it! But if so, please do. But since the in-depth discussion of religious issues which are not related to Tolkien is now off topic here, please do it elsewhere. Or – better yet – do publish it in a scientific periodical, that should settle quite some disputes still going on between biblical scholars. And as soon as your proofs are accepted among all scholars, then – but only then - I will gladly accept it too.

I was curious when you asserted without any doubt that Paul and Peter did not follow Jesus' wishes. Do you have any inside information on what were Jesus' wishes? I'd rather assume that Peter, the person whom Jesus specifically chose to continue his work, knew what he was doing.

I'd like to invite you to read my statement a little more carefully and take it for what it says. And that what it says, I concluded from what the authors have Jesus say in the Gospels. IMO nobody knows Jesus' wishes, though some – even here – try to make it appear that way. To the best of my knowledge not even the very existence of the biblical Jesus can be proven (again according to scientific standards). If you can, please do and then do publish it, like those proofs mentioned above.

What I object to is the presentation of some minority opinions as facts.

If you indeed consider what the gospels report as "historical facts" and that those were written by people who were closest to Jesus, then it appears we do have a very different understanding of "facts". Again, please put forth the proofs and do publish them, you could earn quite some renown...

I know quite well that Walter and you do not agree with the gospels,...

Whether I agree or not with what is said in the gospels is irrelevant - as irrelevant as whether or not you agree with me about biblical scholarship and its outcome. I do value and respect part of the contents of the gospels for the ethics and morals they contain, but in the same way I value other writings, like the Upanisads, the Koran or the so-called apocryphal gospels (to name but a few).

...but the least that I can ask of you is that you label your opinions with the tag "opinion", and your facts with the tag "facts".

I would like to ask the same of you...

Jesus said: You see the mote which is in your brother's eye; but you do not see the beam which is in your own eye. When you cast out the beam from your own eye, then you will see (clearly) to cast out the mote from your brother's eye. (Thom 26)

Since I do not wish to overstress the patience of the moderators, I will not elaborate any further on these issues, hence I would suggest we simply agree to disagree on the issue of religious truth and the like...

 

[Arvegil]

Tolkien is addressing a theological issue that comes from within Western religion, specifically Christianity, and also what seems to me to be his private problem (and the in-house problem of other Christians for whom it matters): shall orcs be redeemable since they were "bred" from elves, or not? This to me is a question which breeds (no pun intended) endless (and therefore fruitless) speculation. If even he couldn't come to an answer which satisfied him, I shall certainly not presume to try to find one for him!


Further, I am glad indeed that JR didn't weigh down his saga with his (private) question openly, happily leaving Joe Reader (including myself) to enjoy his reading without being weighted down, albatrosslike, with extraneous (for the reader who has no such concerns) religious baggage.

Barley

Without going in to speculation too far, I thought Tolkien designed the Orcs in such a way as to avoid such issues, or at least make them of limited relevance within his mythology.