The Lord of the Bible?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The idea of Divine Right has some very negative connotations, including the arrognace displayed by Charles I ...

If I recall my rusty history correctly, Charles I was raised to believe that he had a divine right to rule and genuinely believed this to be the case. He simply could not conceive of things any differently. The whole basis of his defence at his trial was that Parliament had no right to challenge his authority, deriving as it did from God. Indeed, it probably sealed his fate - I seem to recall that it would have been possible for him to avoid the executioner's axe had he renounced his right to the throne. His arrogance therefore (if it may be called that) was driven by an unshakeable conviction in his right to rule.

But didn't Aragorn too have an unshakeable conviction in his right to rule? Admittedly, he saw it as important to assume the throne with the will of the people. But what if he had not had popular support? What if Denethor (or even Boromir) had survived and opposed his coronation? It has, I think, been mooted in the past that civil war within Gondor might have been the outcome (as had happened in the past).

Originally Posted by Macalaure

There is a difference between 'Divine Right' and 'Königsheil' (King's Hail/Heal, can't translate it properly).

In England at least, the belief in the monarch's power to heal scrofula (the 'King's Disease'), which lasted from the time of Edward Confessor (11th Century) through to the 18th Century was, I think, connected to the concept of divine right.

It goes without saying that Tolkien would have been aware of this tradition.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Of course Minas Tirith is the holiest city, there just isn't any other city left that is intact, unconquered and equal in age.

Is there a parallel, I wonder, in the Bible (or in any other tradition) with Minas Ithil/Morgul - the "twin" city which falls to evil? Babylon? Gomorrah?

Originally Posted by Macaulure

Judas betrayed Jesus because he was looking for a different kind of messiah. He thought that Jesus would use his 'messiahness' to obtain power and destroy the enemy (drive out the Romans). By betraying Jesus, he wanted to force him on this path.

Wasn't that the motivation of Simon and the Zealots? My Bible is even more rusty than my English history, but I thought that Judas' motivations were different. Or am I just basing that on Jesus Christ Superstar?

Originally Posted by davem

And this is the whole problem here. You're taking universals & claiming they are uniquely 'Christian' in order to prove some kind of point, or worse consciously or unconsciously misinterpreting incidents & characters in order to make them 'fit' your theory ... This whole 'Gollum-like' scrabbling around among the roots & in holes to find out 'secrets' is vaguely insulting to Tolkien's genius as a creator.

Davem, why is this a problem? A cursory glance at this thread will make your position quite apparent to any reader. I rather agree with your point that LotR is not uniquely Christian. I am one of those who did not pick up any parallel with Christianity when I frst read the book - certainly not until I started to read the Silmarillion some years later (indeed, the "Biblical" tone of the Silm's opening chapters put me off reading it back then).

But I can't for the life of me see why you should have any objection to those who are interested in discussing possible Bilbical parallels (whether intended by the author or not) doing so. What skin is it iff your nose? I acknowledge your point about detailed analysis perhaps risking breaking the "enchantment" (and that is one of the reasons that I too stopped contributing to the C-b-C thread). But that is a matter for the individual. You do not have to participate if you do not wish, but why seek (continually and repetitively) to admonish others for discussing these matters if they wish to do so? I just don't see the point.

Certainly, I don't think it is something that should be thought of as insulting to Tolkien, given that it was something in which he himself (when, post-publication, was effectively in the position of a "detached reader" of his own work) engaged in correspondence with his readers.