with much study over time, I have come to see one of the resiliant aspects of Christianity is an eagerness to consume all myth and lore and recast it as some story from the desert lands. There is no Adam and no Old Testament g*d in Tolkien, despite thousands of hours of Sunday school and preachers and AA meetings encouraging us to look more superficially at old stories and just resign ourselves to "yes, actually this is told in the Bible"
Tom Bombadil does not need your story of the Garden of Eden and you are invited to take it elsewhere, today.
> The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.
Tolkien may have said that, but it is difficult to find much convincing similarity between his world and Christianity - even less so between the LotR trilogy specifically and Christianity. Most of the the Wikipedia article is a real reach. Some of it would even be contradictory: for instance if Varda corresponds to the Virgin Mary, she would co-exist with Mary in the present age as a separate entity. Surely Elbereth is exactly what she is presented as: a female Vala, wedded to Manwë since before the creation of Arda.
And what are the Valar? In the mythos, they are sub-creators. In Christianity God alone is the creator: angels have no part in creation.
The article draws similarity between the resurrection of Jesus and of Gandalf: but in Christianity, Jesus is literally one of the three persons of God, while Gandalf is a Maia, one of the lesser Ainur.
There are a lot of parallels drawn in that article, and I will not go through every one, but as far as I can see they are all contrived. The closest parallel is that of the rebellion of Morgoth - but there is no real equivalent of Sauron in Christianity.
It is also worth thinking about one thing that is missing. The fall of Adam would have taken place long before most of the sections of the Silmarillion, and yet there is no hint of this foundational event.
Tolkien's statement there, I take as a nod towards universal spirit.. basically accepting some validity in the Christian mythos, kindly, into his own unique realms.. but as said "only later" ..well after the invention and initial drawing.
This confirms, not contradicts, my own statement about Christianity "absorbing" all other mythos As If It Were Actually Christian. The acknowledgement from Tolkien is kind and generous, while the Christian theologians are somewhere in the middle, and the daily practice of socialized education is simply the opposite " no one is saved but through Christ"
pedantic, nagging insistence on "accepting primary sources" is exactly the closed-minded approach that is inevitable in lowest-common-denominator reading of the texts. unimpressive and unenlightening.. Is there really no other source of Truth than the Bible ? ask yourself
Not sure about Adam (he'd probably be an Elf as they were the first created) but Eru Iluvatar seems very akin to the God of the Abrahamic religions to me tbh. They're both all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful yet simultaneously mostly passive deities of their respective universes. Malkor is a very thinly disguised devil-character too, being one of the angels who has turned to evil.
Tom Bombadil does not need your story of the Garden of Eden and you are invited to take it elsewhere, today.