The Silmarillion > The Bible

[Peter_20]

I hope this doesn't count as sacrilege or anything, so let me start off with stressing that I perfectly respect religious people; of course I do. :)

I'm also perfectly aware of the fact the The Bible is much, much more important than The Silmarillion will ever be.
Still, I can't really say The Bible really fit my tastes - there's just something about the atmosphere that I'm not that fond of.
I know it's an extremely important piece of work, and I know that millions of people feel a huge respect for it (as do I), but... no - the atmosphere just doesn't appeal to me.

This is where The Silmarillion comes in.
That book reminds in many aspects about The Bible (The Creation, the gods etc.); but The Silmarillion possesses a kind of atmosphere that I like much better.
The Silmarillion's got more... attitude.
I've never seen characters like Fëanor, Fingolfin, Aredhel and Eöl in The Bible before; those characters are really cool, in a way that I like a lot.
I don't know how to clearly explain this, so this whole post might seem rather vague; but I hope I've at least partly expressed my opinions on the subject.

[brownjenkins]

Ainulindalë is a beautiful piece, and is one of Tolkien's best-written works. Genesis, by comparision, lacks in detail a bit and doesn't really paint the picture as full as it could have been.

But hey, it was god's first story. He got better. :D

[Landroval]

Silmarillion sure doesn't lack drama. We would actually need the letters, LotR and various HoME to understand that Eru's support and involvement is far more deep and present than it appears there. The Bible is far more optimistic. Overall, I would choose message over aesthetics ;).

[Peter_20]

I grieve that the parts taking place in Aman are so extremely unknown.
I mean, the atmosphere over there sure seems great, what with the tower of Ingwë, the lights of the two Trees, the Tengwar of Fëanor, the enmity between Fëanor and his half-brothers, Lórien... everything!

If it were possible, and if my family and all my friends could go with me, I'd like to live there. :D

[ecthelion]

Just thought it worth noting, BTW, that the Bible actually happened... When you talk about like and dislike, even if you are a complete non-believer in God and you regard all talk of him as fantasy/fiction, you have to treat the Bible as a history book. :)

[Earniel]

Ainulindalë is a beautiful piece, and is one of Tolkien's best-written works. Genesis, by comparision, lacks in detail a bit and doesn't really paint the picture as full as it could have been.

But hey, it was god's first story. He got better. :D
Heheh, nice one. :D

Just thought it worth noting, BTW, that the Bible actually happened... When you talk about like and dislike, even if you are a complete non-believer in God and you regard all talk of him as fantasy/fiction, you have to treat the Bible as a history book. :)
That in itself is a whole different debate, ecthelion. ;)

[Peter_20]

Just thought it worth noting, BTW, that the Bible actually happened... When you talk about like and dislike, even if you are a complete non-believer in God and you regard all talk of him as fantasy/fiction, you have to treat the Bible as a history book. :)This thread didn't concern belief or disbelief, though; it concerned my thinking The Silmarillion has a cooler atmosphere. :)

The most Bible-like thing in The Silmarillion is probably Aulë making the Dwarves and then having this chat with Eru Ilúvatar.
That scene somehow reminded me of The Bible.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Just thought it worth noting, BTW, that the Bible actually happened... When you talk about like and dislike, even if you are a complete non-believer in God and you regard all talk of him as fantasy/fiction, you have to treat the Bible as a history book. :)
The bible actually happened? Intertesting. Granted the Bible is a historically influental collection of stories; however it is not history. The old testament does in fact orbit the historical world of pre-hellenic Palestine, though its stories were never meant to be historical documents. And do not get me started on the veracity of the new testament - a weak coglmoration of ancient myths wrapped around a first century rabbi.

[brownjenkins]

The bible should be considered a history book in the same way as Homer's Odyssey. It contains elements of history, but should be taken with a grain of salt (or ten :D ).

[elffreak24]

If the Bible is like the Odyssey then why is there at least as much if not more evedence for it than the history books being used in public/private schools?

[brownjenkins]

Because a lot more people believe the bible is true than the Odyssey. ;)

[elffreak24]

But there are archaeological findings of cities in the Bible where the Bible said they were.

[Earniel]

So too in the Odessey and the Iliad. But that doesn't mean everything in the books happened exactly as discribed.

[Valandil]

This is not directed at any post in particular - but is still a caution.

If this thread discusses comparisons and contrasts between the Bible and the Silmarillion, including mentions of other works, that's fine. However - it should not become an attack on the Bible (EDIT: or even a defense of the Bible - although this is what you'll normally get in response to an attack). If it does, I will close it.

After all - we've got all of GM for those kinds of discussions. This is the Silmarillion forum.

[brownjenkins]

I would never attack the bible. :D

Though, the subject alone probably places it in GM.

I was being a little flip, but what Eärniel said, it's event by event. You don't find one, or ten, seemingly historical events in a book and thus say, "it is all true". The Odyssey contains a lot of verifiable material, and a lot which is not. The same can be said for the bible.

The Silmarillion, on the other hand, is 100% fabricated, eventhough Tolkien did a very through job of it.

[Jon S.]

Depends by what you mean by "never happened." If you read the Bible like a science textbook or a children's story, then perhaps it indeed "never happened." If you read it as metaphor and poetry, it's true regardless of whether it "really happened or not."

The Garden of Eden story is the perfect example. 2,000 years ago, there was a Talmudic discussion of this very question: did it "really happen?" The discussion concluded, as many such do, accepting both points of view as to whether the story was a metaphoric teaching tool or physical reality that occurred but agreeing that it's lessons are real and true. And they are. Growing up, leaving the womb and childhood, and becoming an adult are real.

Returning to the Simarillion, to me, I can't even compare the Simarillion to the Bible and am somewhat amazed by some of the comments here to that effect but I'm willing to agree on this: let's resume this discussion in 3 millenia. If people then still even remember the Simarillion I'll count it in the Simarillion proponents' favor.

As for characters and character development, folks like Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and David will be remembered and discussed as long as humans exist on the earth. I don't feel equally so about anyone in the Simarillion.

[Beren One-Hand]

The Silmarillion is an awesome book, and I love to read it.



But I didn't even think it was possible to compare it with the Bible. The Silmarillion is a book written by Tolkien that was entirely made up. The Bible is a book written by God through men, and is TRUTH, Wether your prepared to accept it or not.

[Peter_20]

The Silmarillion is an awesome book, and I love to read it.



But I didn't even think it was possible to compare it with the Bible. The Silmarillion is a book written by Tolkien that was entirely made up. The Bible is a book written by God through men, and is TRUTH, Wether your prepared to accept it or not.The reason I compare these books with each other is because I always thought The Silmarillion resembled The Bible a lot in its style, what with the Creation and the children of The Almighty and so on. :)

[Earniel]

There are some points of comparison, I think. If you look at the lay-out of both books, for example. Both start at the very beginning, with the creation of the world, both have seperate chapters that don't necessarily follow each other perfectly, but together create an extensive history of the different races/tribes.

Although one could argue that in the Silmarillion, this was unplanned. if Tolkien had been able to finish the book as he no doubt would have wanted, it would (I'm sure) have been vastly different.

And in the sense that both books could be regarded as a sort of history book (regardless of what was invented); they both have genealogies, long migrations of nations, destinies and wonders. And Tolkien obviously used some story elements and themes of christian mythology in the Silmarillion, as he did from many mythologies, so those would feel familiar too.

[Jon S.]

All religions borrowed from the metaphors and myth of their predecesors. You can no more have a new religion speak to the hearts of its people without doing so than you can have a new language with no roots in prior linguistics.

The Simarillion obviously has enough similarities with the Bible just as the Biblical flood story has enough similarities with it Bablylonian/Akkadian predecessor to say, in each case, the latter's author was influenced by the former. Then you need to look at the divergences.

That topic definitely belongs elsewhere so this post is done!

[brownjenkins]

But I didn't even think it was possible to compare it with the Bible. The Silmarillion is a book written by Tolkien that was entirely made up. The Bible is a book written by God through men, and is TRUTH, Wether your prepared to accept it or not.

I'd like to respond to this post, but I'll respect Val's comments. :D

[ecthelion]

That topic definitely belongs elsewhere so this post is done!
You can open Pandora's box, but then you have to at least hear her out to the end. :p
I feel I need to write my opinions on the several topics opened here:

The Sil, Iliad and Bible are all comparable in that they all tell a mythos. They have a mythology, and tell about the reason we are here, explain the powers and rules of the world, and how it became like it is today.
The Sil is cooler since few people have read it. But its character development does not surpass that of the Bible. Take David for example: a shepherd, by chnce and will of god kills a giant. becomes the king with the help of the prophet. Then sins, etc. He is a very developed character. And take Job, his suffering is comparable to Hurin.

As for the history value of the Bible, it is uncomparable with the other two. It not only revolves around places and dates (as has been said above), it also mostly tell historical events supported by hard archeological facts that I have seen with my eyes. here are some examples, of the ancient Israeli state (after the Egypt exodus):
The temple
the fort of Massada
all the old cities, as well as their correct locations and ages
coins from the various periods of ancient Israel monarchy
ancient graveyards
Further, there are scattered documents confirming various events. About those I don't have specific knowledge.
About pre-exodus Bible it is much more difficult to obtain archeological facts.

[brownjenkins]

I'll agree with you on the Silmarillion, but the Iliad has comparable historical value.

[Rosie Gamgee]

The bible actually happened? Intertesting. Granted the Bible is a historically influental collection of stories; however it is not history. The old testament does in fact orbit the historical world of pre-hellenic Palestine, though its stories were never meant to be historical documents. And do not get me started on the veracity of the new testament - a weak coglmoration of ancient myths wrapped around a first century rabbi.
.. Risking inciting the wrath of the mods, I want to respond to this simply so that it will not be the only voice in this thread on the subject of the Bible's veracity. The Bible IS history. Many have started out with this same supposition--that the Bible is myth--and have set out to disprove it, unsuccessfully.

As for comparing the Silly with the Bible, I do find the Sil more fun in places, than the Bible. I think this is because the Sil doesn't carry the weight of something real; it's a made-up world where many things are possible that, in our world, the world of the Bible, are not. There are different races, like Elves and Dwarves, which make the world a bit more strange and diverse than our own. Also, the language of the Sil is often more accessible than the Bible. The Silmarillion doesn't instruct or rebuke, or in any way dictate or prod; the Bible does. Also the Sil strikes something, I think, in the Caucasian, European side of me; the Old Testament, for instance, is entirely placed in the Middle-East. Tolkien's works are in an imagined world, but that imagined world resembles Europe.

But the Bible, on the other hand, is a compelling book. Not only are there stories that can touch and entertain (try reading the story of Joseph in Genesis, or 1st Samuel, or Ruth), but there is a moral quality that urges us to respond. It offers real guidelines for life, real hope for the future, real connection with the God who made us. The Bible has the added bonus of being a real account of events. Personally, I've been fascinated with history since I was young, and I enjoy reading of events that really happened and people who really lived.

To me it's difficult to compare the two books, but if you're speaking strictly from the perspective of the 'stories': things like the creation of the world, lives of people such as Luthien or Moses or David or Turin, I would say the writing is about equal (to me) in narrative power, and the difference is in flavour--the different worlds, the different situations.

[Kevin McIntyre]

The bible is NOT History. Like I stated earlier it does relate historical events in and around palestine during the pre and post hellinistic period, but is not an historical document like the Magna Carta or the US Consitution - or for that matter the works of Josephus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Josephus). However the old-testement does relate historical events in a deeply symbolic way - meaning it interprets historical events in spiritual/superstitous context. For example the interpretation that the Babylonians conquered Judah for the sins of the Jews was the explanation - however man being man - it was about politics and power and encompassed a far more complicated tapestry of events than what is reported in the Book of Daniel.
That being said the bible is a far far greater work than the Silmarillion, for one it was written over many years by many different author (lets not bring God into the authorship - because that is a question of faith not fact and hence unprovable) and the Silmarrilion (as published) are the abriged stories of one man (which in itself is astounding for a whole other set of reasons). Also the Bible is the mythological history of an actual people - and remember myth does not mean it never happened - it just means it didn't happen as reported - its been embellished and translated over millenia (and read Genesis - and then read the creation myths of other cultures and you will see it is a borrowed myth)

My apologies to the moderators for my rant - I am just very sensitive to statements of faith = fact.

[brownjenkins]

However the old-testement does relate historical events in a deeply symbolic way - meaning it interprets historical events in spiritual/superstitous context. For example the interpretation that the Babylonians conquered Judah for the sins of the Jews was the explanation - however man being man - it was about politics and power and encompassed a far more complicated tapestry of events than what is reported in the Book of Daniel.

That's a good way of putting it. Every history ever written has some authorial interpretation, but the bible has a lot by comparision to other histories of the same periods.

[brownjenkins]

It offers real guidelines for life, real hope for the future, real connection with the God who made us. The Bible has the added bonus of being a real account of events. Personally, I've been fascinated with history since I was young, and I enjoy reading of events that really happened and people who really lived.

It's way off topic and is sure to draw mod-ire, but that never stopped me... :D

I agree with you that the bible is compelling and offers some powerful moral advice, but why does the belief that the stories are real even matter?

I'd say that the Silmarillion offers quite a lot of compelling morality as well, and this is not diminished at all by the fact that it was completely fabricated.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Every history ever written has some authorial interpretation, but the bible has a lot by comparision to other histories of the same periods.
No doubt, and I am not saying that you should not go to the bible as an historical reference. In many cases it is a excellant starting point - as is the Illiad - for further exploration of the the past. There were many things going on throughtout the world during "biblical times" and the bible is not near a complete telling of history (which as I stated earlier is not its intent).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'll agree with you on the Silmarillion

Ah, that's big of you. ;)


For example the interpretation that the Babylonians conquered Judah for the sins of the Jews was the explanation - however man being man - it was about politics and power and encompassed a far more complicated tapestry of events than what is reported in the Book of Daniel.

There is more than one cause of any given thing, you know... Just because the latter was a cause of the conquer of Judea does not mean the former wasn't.


I agree with you that the bible is compelling and offers some powerful moral advice, but why does the belief that the stories are real even matter?

Depends on which stories you mean.

[Kevin McIntyre]

There is more than one cause of any given thing, you know... Just because the latter was a cause of the conquer of Judea does not mean the former wasn't.


Really! So the invasion was the FSM judgement on Judah?, just as Falwell, Robertson, Dobson et. al. want to blame 9/11, Katrina, VA Tech etc. on the homosexuals in the United States - belief that the FSM punishes in such a way needs to be proven before it can be stated as fact. The onus is on the believers to prove this not the non believer to disprove.

This is where Tolkien shows his depth/quality of his faith - Eru set the world in motion but stays above the fray (with a couple of rare exceptions) Illuvatar is no micro-manager. Man has free will - if we are punished with hurricanes or armed invasion because of supposed sins (who decides which sins?) by all powerfull deity then we do not really have free will.

[The Telcontarion]

Really! So the invasion was the FSM judgement on Judah?, just as Falwell, Robertson, Dobson et. al. want to blame 9/11, Katrina, VA Tech etc. on the homosexuals in the United States - belief that the FSM punishes in such a way needs to be proven before it can be stated as fact. The onus is on the believers to prove this not the non believer to disprove.

This is where Tolkien shows his depth/quality of his faith - Eru set the world in motion but stays above the fray (with a couple of rare exceptions) Illuvatar is no micro-manager. Man has free will - if we are punished with hurricanes or armed invasion because of supposed sins (who decides which sins?) by all powerfull deity then we do not really have free will.

Great point!!!

[Valandil]

Time to close this thread, I think.

Not to really blame anybody, but I don't think a discussion of the nature of the Bible belongs in the Silmarillion forum. Maybe a thread like this can be done right at times, but this time... we didn't do it.

Closing.