The Lord of the Bible?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I have no qualms about seeking out biblical presence in Tolkien's work. It's like laying on green-smelling grass in high summer, finding pictures in the clouds above you. Whether or not they're really there, sometimes they're obvious to see. And even if there's nothing, certainly the exercise strengthens your imagination, skills of observation, and complex thought processes. Surely you wouldn't discourage such fun?

Though I hadn't noticed the correlation between Elrond and Jesus before... I usually see Jesus in Aragorn. The child, raised by his mother and one not his father; one who did great things for his lands; one with compassion, with the hands of a healer; one who descended into the terror of the lands of the dead to bring those there into light; one who compelled strength and hope into those around him; one that was loved and trusted by nearly all; one willing to die so that others could live; the King that Returns.

As far as inspiration goes, Tolkien borrowed liberally from many places, just like any other writer does. Norse myths, Beowulf, etcetera. You are all well enough versed that I do not need to list. If we are perfectly willing to see that Tolkien borrowed from ancient stories, why is it harder to see the connections to modern religions and current history?

And why must each borrowed character have only one place in a story? Does there really have to be just one Satan? Why not multiple? Why not several heroes? Why not several Christ figures?

If Mansun sees something that you don't, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to quash his vision. Entertain, rather, the notion that he might be right. I'm sure it will be educational.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

If Mansun sees something that you don't, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to quash his vision. Entertain, rather, the notion that he might be right. I'm sure it will be educational.

Feanor I see your point but Mansun asked:

Does anyone think Tolkien effectively stole many of his ideas from the Bible?

My answer is 'No' I don't believe he did.

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Though I hadn't noticed the correlation between Elrond and Jesus before...


And why must each borrowed character have only one place in a story? Does there really have to be just one Satan? Why not multiple? Why not several heroes? Why not several Christ figures?

Do you see the correlation better now?

I never said that there should be just one borrowed character; the names of characters I gave were just examples which I thought reflected those in the Bible.

I also think ''borrowed'' might have been a better word than ''steal'' for the original thread question.

[Boromir88]

I also think ''borrowed'' might have been a better word than ''steal'' for the original thread question.

I don't think either word works out well. Tolkien didn't write a story to mimic or be similar to the Bible. The Bible, and his religion, plus his many interests of studies (Beowulf, Egyptian mythology, Anglo-Saxon...etc) all influenced his writing. But, he did not a write a book to mimic anything, he was creating his own story, his own world, with it's own unique history.

Anyone can find allegories, or references to past cultures all throughout Lord of the Rings (but you can also do this through any book, movie, piece of literature if you're looking for it). Gurthang provides a link to a good thread, there is nothing original anymore, everything that can be written has been written. And authors will either intentionally or unconsciously write about stories, histories, cultures, and what influenced them. But what's important to always remember is that most of the time a good author can successfully create a new world, or a new story, by drawing off of what influenced him or her.

It's perfectly reasonable to find similarities and allegories (Tolkien even chimed in with his own at times), but it's the individuality and the freedom of the reader that shouldn't be taken away, by forcing an accepted view that Elrond=Jesus, the Lord of the Rings was written as a 'Biblical book.' And considering that Tolkien and C.S. Lewis' friendship pretty much ended because Tolkien criticized Lewis for writing too much of 'his religion' in the Chronicles of Narnia...I doubt Tolkien was doing the same with LOTR. There were some other reasons that caused strain between the two, but pretty much C.S. Lewis didn't like Tolkien criticizing his books because it had too much of the religious element.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Tolkien didn't write a story to mimic or be similar to the Bible.

I see a huge difference between borrowing character types and borrowing storylines. Having a Jesus character is not the same as having a Bible story.

Originally Posted by Lommy

That's dangerous; it that prevents us from seeing that there are other perspectives.

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."

Originally Posted by Beth

The problem with this kind of linking is how to distinguish which are the most likely and the most unlikely and what principles to use in making the associations.

The problem with that idea is saying that I should be concerned with logic when making associations.

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

I see a huge difference between borrowing character types and borrowing storylines. Having a Jesus character is not the same as having a Bible story.

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."


The problem with that idea is saying that I should be concerned with logic when making associations.

I agree with the above statements. On many occasions there is no clear definitive answer, so ridiculing one notion is far worse as suggesting one.
If Tolkein never read the Bible, would you think The Lord of the Rings to be anything like as comparable to the Bible?

[davem]

This is all about applicability. If you see Elrond or Gandalf as a Christ figures I have no problem. I you tell me they are Christ figures I will argue. Just as if you say that to you LotR is an allegory of WWII I don't have a problem. If you say that Tolkien wrote LotR as an allegory of WWII I will feel obliged to show you that you are wrong.

Originally Posted by davem

This is all about applicability. If you see Elrond or Gandalf as a Christ figures I have no problem. I you tell me they are Christ figures I will argue. Just as if you say that to you LotR is an allegory of WWII I don't have a problem. If you say that Tolkien wrote LotR as an allegory of WWII I will feel obliged to show you that you are wrong.

Knowbody is really saying that so & so are Christ figures etc. More to the truth is that some characters do have a Christ-like aura about them, so one may be entitled to question whether Tolkien was heavily influenced by characters in the Bible in is works. I for one believe that were it not for his experiences of the World Wars, as well as his interest in Christianity, the LOTR would not have been as it is today. It is possible that he may just have ended up with a longer but comparable tale to The Hobbit.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."

Of course. (Hopefully I never denied that.) In my opinion, one can make allegories, but they shouldn't be taken as a truth.
I very much agree with davem here:

This is all about applicability. If you see Elrond or Gandalf as a Christ figures I have no problem. I you tell me they are Christ figures I will argue. Just as if you say that to you LotR is an allegory of WWII I don't have a problem. If you say that Tolkien wrote LotR as an allegory of WWII I will feel obliged to show you that you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

I see a huge difference between borrowing character types and borrowing storylines. Having a Jesus character is not the same as having a Bible story.

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."


The problem with that idea is saying that I should be concerned with logic when making associations.

I think I learn't a lot from this reply above from Feanor of the Peredhil earlier. My views are exactly the same. If ideas are not allowed to be entertained, then the thread will not be of interest to some, & vice versa.

[Boromir88]

Mansun, if it felt like anyone was ridiculing your opinion I apologize for myself, and the rest, because I'm sure that was not anyone's intent.

I've just been trying to get across davem's point. It isn't the "Lord of the Bible," it isn't "Beowulf of the Rings," it is The Lord of the Ring's, a story of it's own. If you find similarities that's good, but I got the impression that you were saying Tolkien stole and/or borrowed from the Bible. Where I'm disagreeing because someone can certainly not see anything biblical related to the Lord of the Rings, and still be just as 'right' as someone who does.

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."

Fea, you have been saying some wise and truly cogent remarks but this time I'm going to actually have to disagree with you. If someone has no desire to make connections to the 'real' life, or the 'real history,' that's perfectly up to them. If they only look at Elrond as Elrond of Lord of the Rings, I don't see how that is 'dangerous to free thinking.' It makes me wonder how boring this person's life is that he/she couldn't possibly have found a 'connection,' but it's not dangerous to how anyone else thinks of Elrond.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

If someone has no desire to make connections to the 'real' life, or the 'real history,' that's perfectly up to them.

I'll certainly agree with that. Far be it for me to force a connection no matter what the context. My only point is that if people really have no interest in making the connections, why haunt this thread at all? It seems a disappointing waste of time and energy, as well as a rather negative activity for all involved.

I think it would be a brilliantly fun exercise to explore the literature Tolkien might have drawn from, Bible included. Not the well known ideas that influenced his story, but the underlying inspiration. When I have more time, and that's a thought that makes me laugh sadly, I think it would a terribly exciting study to make. Literature as a form of psychosociology. How the human mind works as an individual entity and in group situations; how society influences art, as well as art's influence on society. Surely I can't be the only person with a distinct fascination pertaining to the study of ideas with very little practical value?

It's an interesting experience to see the connections that minds make, both author and reader. Why quash them? I'd rather cosset them, cuddle them, perhaps even nuzzle them, and take notes to see what they grow into.

Originally Posted by davem

All of which gets us precisely nowhere it seems to me.

When you travel, do you always find the quickest route from beginning to end? Do you never drive roads upon which you've never been, simply to see where they go and enjoy the brand new view? Do you never take a walk and think "Maybe today I'll turn left, instead of right, just because I can."? No lovingly pointless meandering for the sheer sake of not having to be anywhere?

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Boro

I don't think either word works out well.

I agree. (I was actually just posting that when I saw there was a new post on the thread stating that.... )

Originally Posted by Mansun

If there is one character I would liken Elrond to, it would be Jesus

This as an explanation to you suggesting that Tolkien stole/borrowed characters from the Bible sounds to me like that you wanted to liken elrond somebody and decided on Jesus. Or you wanted to liken Jesus to somebody, and decided on Elrond. I don't see a point in making an allegory only for the case of making an allegory.

I'm along the same lines with Nogrod. I dislike allegories, because if taken too literally, they flatten things. If we, for example, decide that Melkor is Satan and Gandalf is Jesus, we cease thinking of them as many-layered and variable characters; we simplify them to be just Satan and Jesus. That's dangerous; it that prevents us from seeing that there are other perspectives.
(Ok, don't tell me that Melkor wasn't even originally a very many-layered character... Hopefully you get the point.)