The Lord of the Bible?

[Lalwendë]

I have to warn of being wary of attaching too much to the concept of the grouping of the Fellowship travelling through Middle-earth as I think this is a simple narrative requirement. However I'm interested in this idea of Minas Tirith being the 'holiest' city in Middle-earth. What drew you to that conclusion Raynor? I would have thought if anyone was trying to identify such a place, then they would more likely be drawn to Lothlorien or Rivendell, though I myself would not as it would be just too predictable to pick up on something Elven.

A thought strikes me though - it's something that it cannot possibly be intended to be, but there are echoes of Blake's concept of Jerusalem in Minas Tirith.

And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant Land.

Let me qualify that. One of the interpretations of the preface to Milton is that it talks of creating a place of beauty and freedom, Jerusalem being more than a place in Israel/Palestine, but a concept of a 'chosen place'. Looking at the history of the Numenoreans, the city was founded by the faithful who came from the Island and it was founded in a spirit of hope, and with great intentions. Hmm, perhaps the history of the place is far too jumbled and in the time of the War of the Ring, now also crumbled from its former power to call it a holy place at that time, but I think the way it was founded was certainly with high minded intention.

Two more points I just want to discuss here. Firstly Aragorn's healing skills. Of course there are parallels to be drawn with Jesus here, but let's also think about Kingship - the ability to heal is usually associated with Monarchs, possibly drawn from Divine Right. Relics of English Kings and Queens were commonly sought out for their healing powers, and of course Tolkien puts in the reference to Kingsfoil which signposts us to that idea. Its not entirely separate from Jesus though, as I think the writers of the Gospels were themselves using this metaphor for Kingship, hoping to show readers that Jesus's healing powers proved his right to Kingship. So, I'd say, not drawn from, but the same metaphor.

And then Gandalf. if I had to draw a parallel with any Biblical figure I would certainly not place him as Jesus as Gandalf is not divine, but sent as a guide. He cannot instruct, only suggest. If I had to choose one figure it would be Moses or maybe another prophet. However the figure most like Gandalf from all of mythology is Merlin. Predictable, being a wizard an' all, but he fits this model most strongly. Solitary with mysterious powers over fire, he is shamanic. He also strikes fear into many, and what's more, is responsible for the growing up of a King in waiting - as we saw Merlin/Arthur, so we see Gandalf/Aragorn.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

... Hmm, perhaps the history of the place is far too jumbled and in the time of the War of the Ring, now also crumbled from its former power to call it a holy place at that time....

Some might come to the same conclusion regarding modern Jerusalem. Yet the city retains its significance.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Two more points I just want to discuss here. Firstly Aragorn's healing skills. Of course there are parallels to be drawn with Jesus here, but let's also think about Kingship - the ability to heal is usually associated with Monarchs, possibly drawn from Divine Right. Relics of English Kings and Queens were commonly sought out for their healing powers, and of course Tolkien puts in the reference to Kingsfoil which signposts us to that idea. Its not entirely separate from Jesus though, as I think the writers of the Gospels were themselves using this metaphor for Kingship, hoping to show readers that Jesus's healing powers proved his right to Kingship. So, I'd say, not drawn from, but the same metaphor.

Interesting, Lal. Where did the (western concept of) Divine Right come from?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And then Gandalf. if I had to draw a parallel with any Biblical figure I would certainly not place him as Jesus as Gandalf is not divine, but sent as a guide. He cannot instruct, only suggest. If I had to choose one figure it would be Moses or maybe another prophet. However the figure most like Gandalf from all of mythology is Merlin. Predictable, being a wizard an' all, but he fits this model most strongly. Solitary with mysterious powers over fire, he is shamanic. He also strikes fear into many, and what's more, is responsible for the growing up of a King in waiting - as we saw Merlin/Arthur, so we see Gandalf/Aragorn.

More good observations. Moses certainly; don't forget Samuel; and yes, there are others. More on that later I suspect.

[Lalwendë]

Divine Right in the modern context is the power to rule given by God, however the concept of Monarchs who had been 'chosen' and with amazing powers existed before Christianity came to Europe - Celtic Kings (and Queens) were regarded as divine, and the concept also existed in Egypt, China and Japan - in China this was taken to the extreme degree that King actually was a God, not just that he had been given the gift of rulership. The concept was pretty much thrown out in the UK after the Civil War and the growing authority of Parliament, however you can still see echoes of that concept even today - see the Princess Di effect for proof!

And again you only have to look at the Princess Di effect/phenomenon to see how people even now have folk belief that Kings (or Princesses) can 'heal' them.

EDIT (now I've got some dinner ) : It's also worth considering how Tolkien uses the concept. Aragorn indeed has the right to be King, but he does not exercise this right with force. The idea of Divine Right has some very negative connotations, including the arrognace displayed by Charles I, and by some of the French Bourbon kings (resulting in the bloody Revolution). Note that Aragorn (interestingly with that name which is so close to the word arrogant) does not abuse this right. He almost does, at Meduseld, but Gandalf holds him back and makes him consider his actions. Instead, Aragorn very much earns his Kingship through example and leadership, and displays humility when his 'secret' is discovered via Ioreth's knowledge of folklore.

Contrast this with Denethor who thinks he has some kind of 'divine right of Stewardship'. I think Tolkien very much shows that though Kings may indeed have been bestowed with this 'gift', they still must earn the moral right to put it into practice, much as a democratically elected leader might.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

....lots of good stuff....

...indeed. Very perceptive, and good food for thought.

Originally Posted by davem

....

Haven't I heard you saying this before?

Macalaure-- much interesting food for thought. Thanks.

Roompty toom, Burarum.

[davem]

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/...and_rings.html

http://www.capalert.com/capreports/l...fellowship.htm

http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org...s/tract11.html

http://biblia.com/ring/

http://www.tldm.org/News8/JRRTolkien...wis.Narnia.htm

http://www.cuttingedge.org/newsletters/030504.html Quote below

But, even more damning is the book we have on our bookshelf, written by Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware of Focus On The Family, entitled, "Finding God In The Lord of the Rings"! The demonism I felt pouring through the horrible first movie was so strong, I had to leave the theater. The Abyss spirit powering this movie was much greater than in Harry Potter. Former Satanists have also testified their conviction that this movie is demonic through and through. This movie depicts a battle between a White Magic Wizard versus a Black Magick Wizard, both wielding powers and abilities that are well known to a former Satanist. This series of movies by Tolkien is pure Witchcraft through and through.

[mark12_30]

Gee, davem, how many of those were written by Barrow-Downers participating in this discussion? Or more astounding still, written by Tolkien himself?

[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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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).

You're far more sympathetic to Charles I than I am. There is of course a long history of Kings taking that kind of line and meeting their makers as a result. I think we can still call it arrogance taken from our modern perspective, as we don't necessarily excuse slave traders in the past of ignorance.

And you're more harsh on Aragorn than I am! I think Aragorn did indeed have a conviction that he had the right to rule, but certainly after the near miss 'diplomatic incident' (as it might be called today) at Meduseld he knew about holding back. If he had still got poular support and one of the brothers had held onto Gondor he would have used diplomatic means to win them over, but even had he not had popular support, I doubt he would have gone 'steaming in'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I haven't been admonishing anybody. I was asking for someone to put forward these Christian elements - & I asked repeatedly because for a very long time people were demanding the 'right' to do that & not actually doing it.

The point is, davem, that you persist in stating your personal objection to the basis of the discussion when I think that all involved acknowledge and accept that objection. Regardless of that personal objection of yours, there are people who still wish to discuss possible parallels with the Bible. It is perfectly possible to do so without accepting that LotR is a uniquely Christian book or that it reflects the "One True (Christian) Myth" or that Tolkien intended such parallels. Equally, it is perfectly possible to do so without sermonising (as I am sure that those here who might otherwise be inclined to do so will appreciate).

Originally Posted by davem

To qualify as a Books thread surely there needs to be serious debate, with evidence cited, quotes provided, justification offered for points made & an absence of whining about being criticised. The fact that it involves Christianity & the Bible doesn't grant it special treatment in a forum dedicated to serious analysis of Tolkien's works.

As I see it, the thread is now starting to move towards more serious debate of the issues raised and hopefully will continue to do so, if you will let it. Debate does not become serious only when davem considers it to be so. A discussion does not become worthy of the Book forum only when davem deems it to be so. A parallel does not become a parallel only when davem accepts it (and nor, in my opinion, does it require an exact identity of features for it to be validly drawn).

As for "whining about being criticised", there is a difference between debating points of disagreement and ridiculing the views and opinions of others. You, in my assessment, have over-stepped the mark on a number of occasions (and unfortunately continue to do so).

Your objection is noted. Let's move on.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If he had still got poular support and one of the brothers had held onto Gondor he would have used diplomatic means to win them over, but even had he not had popular support, I doubt he would have gone 'steaming in'.

And if a diplomatic resolution had not been possible?

Of course, the point does not arise because, within the context of the story, Aragorn does have a divine right to rule (as evidenced by his "hands of a healer") and this is readily recognised and accepted by his putative subjects. (There was also the small matter of having saved their City from almost certain doom. )

EDIT: Cross-posted with Mister Underhill, whose final warning will, I hope, be heeded by all concerned.

[narfforc]

I would like to concentrate on just one character, Gandalf. He is called by some an angelic power, so what is an angel. There seems to be a whole host of them, so here we go.


First Hierarchy (Choir)
Seraphim:They are with God
Cherubim:They hold the knowledge of God and are sent to Earth with the greatest tasks.
Thrones.


Second Hierachy (Choir)
Dominions.
Virtues.
Powers: Spirits of Form, a sort of elite guard against the demonic attack of heaven

Third Hierarchy (Choir)
Principalities:Watch over the mortal world, guiding and protecting. They are responsible for carrying out divine acts concerning their area of jurisdiction.
Archangels.
Angels:Those that intermediate between God and Man, they are carriers of Gods word to mankind, acting as messengers and couriers to both God and the upper ranks of Angelkind.

Now I have chosen the bits that fit the descriptions of The Ainur, The Valar and Maiar, the last one being very descriptive of Gandalf and The Istari. I do not believe in angels anymore than I believe in fairies, yet Tolkien may well have done. He seems to have merged these Judeo/Christian myths with the Pagan myths of the Norse and Celts.

A very good book to read is From The Ashes Of Angels by Andrew Collins.
This book tells another interpretation of these winged men and their offspring The Nephilim.

So what else is Gandalf/Olorin other than an Angel?, here is a different possibility, Mercury. This God is:

1. The Messenger of the Gods

2. He carries the dreams of Morpheus from Somnus to sleeping humans.

3. He is the son of Maia Maiestas

4. In occult circles he is given rulership over all things magical.

5. He is identified with the Celtic God Lugus, and he is sometimes asscotiated with Light/Sun
6. Lugus as The Irish God Lugh defeated the monstrous Balor One Eye.

So you see when looking at certain characteristics you can fit almost anything you want into LotR, the problem is that the world is full of stories and religions and some are very similar. Take Mithras the saviour god for instance, Born on Dec 25th in a cave of Virgin Birth, died and was reborn. Early christian tradition said that Jesus was born in a cave, the word in the Gospels is katalemna which literally means a temporary shelter or cave. Another story is that of Tammuz, born of Virgin Birth, died with a wound to his side, arose from his tomb after three days leaving it vacant, with a rock at its entrance rooled aside. There are 12 different instances I know of where death by crucifixion occurs and the person is ressurected. Tolkien was a clever man, he would have known of these similarities, this is possibily why he used universal myths to add weight to his sub-creation.

[ninja91]

Now, I am (annoyingly) interrupting a thread again. It is what ninjas do...
Anyway, I have not read through the whole thread because it is very, very long now. Boromir88, please, do not get mad at me!
Anyway, I would like to compare Frodo to Jesus.
Frodo had to carry a burden, the ring, up mount doom. He was helped by Sam. Jesus had to carry the cross up to Mount Golgotha, with some help from Simon.
Frodo was deceived by Gollum. Jesus was deceived by Judas.
Frodo suffers at the cracks of doom. Jesus suffers on the cross.
Frodo went to the Grey Havens. Jesus ascended into heaven.
Along the way, they are both tempted. Once I remember more, I'll probably edit the post or something...

[davem]

Originally Posted by ninja91

Now, I am (annoyingly) interrupting a thread again. It is what ninjas do...
Anyway, I have not read through the whole thread because it is very, very long now. Boromir88, please, do not get mad at me!
Anyway, I would like to compare Frodo to Jesus.
Frodo had to carry a burden, the ring, up mount doom. He was helped by Sam. Jesus had to carry the cross up to Mount Golgotha, with some help from Simon.
Frodo was deceived by Gollum. Jesus was deceived by Judas.
Frodo suffers at the cracks of doom. Jesus suffers on the cross.
Frodo went to the Grey Havens. Jesus ascended into heaven.
Along the way, they are both tempted. Once I remember more, I'll probably edit the post or something...

Both had hairy feet, sang songs about cows jumping over the moon & fought giant spiders...

[davem]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

More good observations. Moses certainly; don't forget Samuel; and yes, there are others. More on that later I suspect.

This is based on the rejected passage in HoM-e 7 where the baby Gandalf was found by Tom Bombadil floating in a basket on the Withywindle presumably?

Interesting, Lal. Where did the (western concept of) Divine Right come from?

Maybe Rome & the whole deification of the Emperor thing? Or from the fact that the Anglo-Saxon kings claimed descent from Woden, or the Egyptian tradition that the King was the incarnation of Osiris, or just the fact that it was fairly common for ancient peoples to see their rulers in that way.

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.

If Tolkien had wanted to write a book of theology I'm quite certain he could have done that. If he wanted to write an allegory on the lines of Narnia I'm sure he could have done that too. What he actually wrote was a story. Whatever got taken up into his secondary world became absorbed into it. I can think of no Biblical figure or event that was taken up wholesale. There may be bits of Moses, & Jesus, & Satan & the Heavenly Jerusalem & other stuff in there, but they're all mixed in with bits of Odin, Merlin, Beowulf, & lots of other stuff. 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.

EDIT Cross-posted with Lalwende

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Raynor

- the saviour, a godly being is sent to rekindle the hope in good; he is despised in two of the most powerful kindgoms of Men, (Gondor + Rohan); he sacrifices himself so that evil may not prevail and returns to seal the the faith of the incarnation of evil; one of his inner circle, who for a time fell to temptation, repents;
- the King of Men returns to what might be called the holliest city of Middle-Earth; he heals the wounded and calls back the humans from the dead(Lazarus anyone?)
- of all the human race, the only two ones who are allowed into the "kingdom of heaven" are the humble ones ("Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" - Matei 3:5)
- the saviour is tempted by the power of evil, who promises all the riches of the world; he goes up the mountain, carrying a tremendous burden; for a while, a faithful one carries that burden for him.

Could you provide a little more detail for the lowly heathens?

Calling Gandalf the saviour needs more arguments, I think. Godly being, yes, but there's quite a difference between a low Ainu and the Son of God. Both sacrifice themselves, but one to save his companions from becoming balrog-barbeque, and one to redeem men from their sins. If "returns to seal the the faith of the incarnation of evil" refers to the resurrection, then I don't see this. If it refers to Jesus' return on Judgement Day then... well... no, I don't see it then either.
I'm waiting for Helen (mark12_30=Helen, if I understand this right? Sigh, I'm still too new... ) to post more about the Gandalf+Aragorn+Frodo ⊇ Jesus.

Of course Minas Tirith is the holiest city, there just isn't any other city left that is intact, unconquered and equal in age. Originally, I would think Osgiliath is a little holier (original capital of Gondor, connects two shores of a river, has the nicest Palantir), but Tolkien decided to destroy the great worldly city in favor of a mere citadel.


On the Borimir-Judas issue.
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.
Here I see a similarity with Boromir's situation, who thought that the Ring should be used to destroy the enemy with its power.
Difference: Judas planned his betrayal whereas Boromir was taken by madness. Both repented, but only Boromir was given a chance to redeem himself. The source of potential power was in one case entirely good, in the other entirely evil.
But we're not expecting one-to-one correspondency anyway.


On kings that heal.
There is a difference between 'Divine Right' and 'Königsheil' (King's Hail/Heal, can't translate it properly). The first is founded on the theory that God appoints a person and its descendants to rule the people. It is no more than a right. The second means that the king also has some 'supernatural' abilities, the one to heal people among others, to justify their rulership over others. It is a right and an obligation. This imagination already existed for the old germanic kings, and probably other peoples as well. The two got mingled in the middle ages, but the source of the healing aspect isn't christian.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

On kings that heal.
There is a difference between 'Divine Right' and 'Königsheil' (King's Hail/Heal, can't translate it properly). The first is founded on the theory that God appoints a person and its descendants to rule the people. It is no more than a right. The second means that the king also has some 'supernatural' abilities, the one to heal people among others, to justify their rulership over others. It is a right and an obligation. This imagination already existed for the old germanic kings, and probably other peoples as well. The two got mingled in the middle ages, but the source of the healing aspect isn't christian.

Neither are as both are incredibly old ideas. The term Divine Right comes from, I think, St Paul, but the concepts of both are old as the hills. The 'proof' in Celtic times and back beyond would probably have come from performing some act of bravery or seeming magic (e.g. the Arthurian Sword in the stone story possibly originates from the seeming magic powers of smiths, turning rock into metal, which must've seemed incredible).

[Anguirel]

It should also be noted that Divine Right and Touching for the King's Evil did come to be interwoven. After the Hanoverians succeeded the Stuarts with a much more constitutional style of monarchy in Britain, the exiled Stuarts continued to claim both prerogatives and asserted their rights by frequently touching the scrofulous with some success.

There's even a story that the Hanoverian so-called George II was approached by a little boy who was dying of scrofula. The lad begged him to touch him with the magical Royal effect, but the unimaginative, tedious, constitutional George laughed in his face and told him to go and seek out the Stuart claimants to the throne if he really believed in the absurd superstition. The boy promptly went to James VIII and III, "The Old Pretender", in Rome, was touched by him and recovered from the disease...

[Macalaure]

davem, your links only show that:

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Well, of course one is free to do whatever one wants to. Still, if his meaning is not coherent and conclusive, then it is invalid and of no substance. Of course, nobody can be punished for having an invalid opinion. (at least not where you and I live)