The Lord of the Bible?

I think Christopher Lee as Saruman refers to the Balrog as Satan in the movie. PJ certainly went for that image in the first movie, although not necessarily Tolkien.

Just a few more examples as to why I think of Elrond as a Christ-like figure. He is a master of healing, & has command of nature in his valley. One might almost say, he can perform miracles to an extent. He is also a true symbol for Good in Middle-Earth, lord of the elves.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Mansun

He is a master of healing, & has command of nature in his valley. One might almost say, he can perform miracles to an extent. He is also a true symbol for Good in Middle-Earth, lord of the elves.

While I see your point and I agree with it, by the logic of a symbol of Good and using the examples you've used, all Elves would be seen as Christ figures, would they not? The essence of Goodness. A light in their eyes, in their faces to see for those who can see it. All of them skilled healers, if not necessarily to the same caliber as Elrond. They do not care to endure Darkness, but it does not bother them as it would lesser beings, and Darkness cannot endure their Goodness.

And while Elrond is a lord of Elves, he isn't the lord of them. There were many, especially in the early Ages.

This is a race meant to embody Goodness beyond the world of men, in general terms. Do you think Tolkien would have made so many Christ figures, or do you think maybe that he merely took the greatest qualities of Goodness he could think of, not necessarily of Christness as such, but, being Christian and with very strong beliefs of right and wrong, good and evil, qualities of Christ, if you follow me, and gave them to the firstborn in that way?

And for those who disdain of talk of religious allegory, there appears to me to be no difference in taking a fictional archetype versus taking a biblical one and applying it to your story. Having Christ figures doesn't necessarily mean intentionally having Christ.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I think Christopher Lee as Saruman refers to the Balrog as Satan in the movie. PJ certainly went for that image in the first movie, although not necessarily Tolkien.

No it wasn't Tolkien's Balrog or it wouldn't have had wings.

It was John Howe's Balrog, if it had been Ted Nasmith's then it would have been wingless. Has Alan Lee ever illustrated the Balrog?

Anyway. If we wanted a Miltonic Satan in the books, I fear we'd be looking for some time, as Tolkien more or less paints his uber-Bad Guys (like Morgoth and Sauron, the Orcs) as just that, bad. I think he has to, as this ups the stakes in the struggles against them, and also enables him to get away with writing of a lot of Orcs being slaughtered!

A Miltonic Satan, however, has to be a bit seductive and gain the sympathies of the reader. If there's any character who comes close, for me it would be Saruman - and I would say that if we had to draw parallels with any vaguely Biblical figure for Saruman, then this is who he 'fits' best. However, you do have to have some degree of interest in Saruman, an appreciation that he wasn't necessarily evil but was just doing things differently (even if this 'differently' was not within his job description when sent to Middle Earth) - i.e. be 'taken in' by him to some extent, like I am! You have to find Saruman as a character attractive, and the fact that a lot (most?) of readers don't find him so, suggests that he is not a Miltonic Satan to most readers.

I suppose the other factor that's needed to 'see' characters as Satan or Lucifer is to accept the Ainur as 'angels' and I hold that they aren't, they are 'gods' wiht much greater power than 'angels', and they are also not sexless like angels. But I'll leave that thorny topic there.

But for something controversial, then let's look at the meaning of Lucifer - Morning Star or Bringer of Light. Who would that be in Quenya? Varda?

[Raynor]

As pointed previously, Melkor represents the fallen angel of the Bible - the most important difference being that Melkor introduces evil before the creation is completed (as noted by Tolkien in letter #212: "in this Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the World (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken ").

Concerning Gandalf being Christ, Tolkien stated:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

There is no 'embodiment' of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology. Gandalf is a 'created' person; though possibly a spirit that existed before in the physical world [...] Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Raynor

As pointed previously, Melkor represents the fallen angel of the Bible

And that's it... full stop? If Melkor represents the fallen angel, then he (?) represents it and that's settled. No need to think or try to open your mind on anything? We just have solved the crossword and the things are settled:

"So that was it, nice to know; now I understand it - peculiar the professor didn't tell it straight, isn't it? Went on to write an ambiguous story around that thing he wanted to tell us about, funny. Happily we can solve these meanings this nicely anyhow. Well, differences? Surely, but they can be accounted for and explained away as poetic license or something, you know those artists, always taking liberties and muddying the waters to make the reader struggle a bit before the final solution that is given to the gifteds and laborious enough; after all, we know now what he meant..."

???

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by me, me, me

But for something controversial, then let's look at the meaning of Lucifer - Morning Star or Bringer of Light. Who would that be in Quenya? Varda?

I'll answer my own challenge.

Davem says that the equivalent to Lucifer in Quenya would actually be Earendil.

So.... What now, eh? Has this got anything to do with the price of fish?

Actually, I think Tolkien can't have been unaware that the Morning Star and Bringer of Light was also known as Lucifer! But did he aim to turn this on its head a bit by giving a good character's name that meaning?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Actually, I think Tolkien can't have been unaware that the Morning Star and Bringer of Light was also known as Lucifer! But did he aim to turn this on its head a bit by giving a good character's name that meaning?

Perhaps he wanted to show Lucifer as he should or could have been? A sign of hope rather than doom?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'll answer my own challenge.

Davem says that the equivalent to Lucifer in Quenya would actually be Earendil.

So.... What now, eh? Has this got anything to do with the price of fish?

Actually, I think Tolkien can't have been unaware that the Morning Star and Bringer of Light was also known as Lucifer! But did he aim to turn this on its head a bit by giving a good character's name that meaning?

Well, to clarify, I didn't mention Quenya at all......Lucifer is the Light Bringer & is the Morning Star - as is Earendel. However Venus as the Morning Star was associated with John the Baptist in the Crist ('Eala Earendel, engla beorhtast..& all that stuff) as the Morning Star was a 'precursor' of the Sun.

I think Tolkien is using the latter 'myth'. not the former. So I will make myself clearer to Lalwende in future before I let her post anything

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, to clarify, I didn't mention Quenya at all......Lucifer is the Light Bringer & is the Morning Star - as is Earendel. However Venus as the Morning Star was associated with John the Baptist in the Crist ('Eala Earendel, engla beorhtast..& all that stuff) as the Morning Star was a 'precursor' of the Sun.

I think Tolkien is using the latter 'myth'. not the former. So I will make myself clearer to Lalwende in future before I let her post anything

We have such a pick of star myths to choose from. Then there is the Classical one. Orpheus, consumed by grief over loss of Euridyce (and the failure of his quest to bring her back), is taken by Apollo to the stars, from where he can view her forever. I suppose that Earendel doesn't quite view the underworld though, just Middle-earth and we know that Tolkien did not appreciate classical literature as much as Northern. (And, on the other hand, Frodo is given a similar kind of consolation in being taken West when he cannot overcome his despair. Could Frodo look back at Middle earth and see what was happening?)

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. For example, Elrond is a father and official leader of the Elves. He has fought in wars. These are traits not shared with Jesus. At least, unless we grant credence to the Da Vinci Code.