The Lord of the Bible?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I wouldn't take the seven levels/seven hills parallel as good evidence as there are also seven hills in Sheffield (and Rome, but it aint a patch on Yorkshire). I think its much better to think of Jerusalem as a metaphor for the concept of a city or a state of mind, as Blake did.

There's the rub. I don't think Tolkien was suggesting anything special about such a state of mind. He's too much on the natural world's side to be given over to using an urban metaphor for holiness.

There's seven days too to consider. There's seven somethings in Norse mythology too as I vaguely recollect. There used to be seven planets, too.

As for Minas Tirith's ship's keel, methinks the Numenorean link might just have something to do with that design.

Originally Posted by Lal

That's the stuff. Collective Unconscious. Universal truth. The search for an unknowable transcendant truth.

Now don't go forcing your belief in collective unconscious on me! Sometimes an association is just an association.

On the other hand, would Tolkien have been making some kind of comment on holy cities, suggesting that ancient things decline and are not worthy of reverence? He couldn't just be puffing up Minas Tirith, could he? And if we're talking cities, we have to consider the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, don't we? But that's the richness of Tolkien. He leads out in so many directions.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

There's the rub. I don't think Tolkien was suggesting anything special about such a state of mind. He's too much on the natural world's side to be given over to using an urban metaphor for holiness.

If there's any place 'holy' in Middle-earth it's Lothlorien, where Galadriel flexes her considerable political muscle and creates her own little Enclave; at the centre of which is Cerin Amroth, a Mother Hill where 'love' happens. And the rest.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Now don't go forcing your belief in collective unconscious on me! Sometimes an association is just an association.

Don't get me started on Dark Matter and theories of Time and Light. I've been obsessed with the building blocks of the Universe for a long time (and before Pullman made it trendy, tch). I'll soon have you believing I am indeed the last Time Lord in the Universe.

[mark12_30]

...part two.

Originally Posted by Post17 Nogrod

And because the mind is a big old stew with us 21st century people, it was the same with the prophets and the apostles of the Bible - their minds were already full of influeneces from their predecessors from the previous generations and so on... We humans are the stories we tell about us.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Post18 Mansun

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.

Christ wasn't alone in performing Miracles, though. There were plenty in the OT. For instance, Moses had quite a record; so did Elijah & Elisha.

Originally Posted by Post19 Fea

...using the examples you've used, all Elves would be seen as Christ figures, would they not? The essence of Goodness...

Well, that would take Galion the butler by surprise. But I do see your point. That then begs the question whether the race of elves has a biblical parallel. There are, of course, limits to the parallels; but with Valar/ Maia/ greater and lesser elves, one might suggest Cherubim & Seraphim, Archangels, Angels. Your run-of-the-mill fallen angels would then parallel the orcs (hence generally unredeemed-- there's another old thread popping up.) But it's a thin parallel. The angels aren't children of God, but created; they don't reproduce where the Maiar may and elves certaainly do; etc. The place where it persists for me is actually Gandalf, who reminds me of Michael, especially in the heat of battle, and his general job description: encourage & counsel, and occasionally lead. There is a host of stuff about Michael which I haven't investigated-- something I've been wanting to do. Anyone else know?

Originally Posted by Fea

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.

No rational difference.

Originally Posted by Lal post 20

Morning Star or Bringer of Light

Regarding the refefrence to "morning star"-- a popular OT reference for this is from Job 38:4-7, which I believe influenced both Lewis (Magician's Nephew) and Tolkien (Ainulindale.)

Originally Posted by Job 38:4-7

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Raynor (post 21) follows up on the creative process and the differences between Tolkien's creation and the biblical account.

Going down to

Originally Posted by post 24 Boromir88

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.

In terms of "too much of the religious element", the big hit I remember from Letters was Tolkien cringing because Lewis had included Father Christmas in Narnia. And that, indeed, is something Tolkien would never have done. However, in due time, it will be shown that Tolkien did not have any problem with religious element-- as long as it was up to the reader to find it, and not up to the author to shove it down the readers' throat. Review Tolkien's distaste for allegory (gesundheit.)

Originally Posted by post25 Thinlomien

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.

No argument here. The A-word is verboten in Tolkien.

Originally Posted by psot26 Lalwende

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

Fortunately for many denizens of Middle-Earth, Earendil did not rebel or fall. (Ooooo, splat.)

Davem (or Wikipedia, or Sauron Defeated) can tell you that this quote comes from the poem 'Crist' by Cynewulf. "Old English Earendel appears in glosses as translating iubar "radiance, morning star". The article says that in this poem Earendel corresponds to John the Baptist; but the leading two lines.....\

éala éarendel engla beorhtast
ofer middangeard monnum sended

......haunted Tolkein til he wrote a story of his own about them. The translation from Wikipedia is:

Hail Earendel, brightest of angels,
over Midgard to men sent

In the New Testament, the one referred to as The Morning Star is Jesus.

Originally Posted by Rev22:16

16“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”

Earendil is actually my favorite (and I think the clearest and most connected) Christ-type in the whole legendarium.

Ah, I should have checked the following post. Davem clarifies. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Post29 Bethberry

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.

I think that Squatter answered this further down.
Fea (post 30) and Mansun (post 31) follow; agreed...

[Child of the 7th Age]

OK, I wasn't going to post on this thread. But there are a few things in this discussion still not tied up that are bothering me. Now that it's nice and quiet I can sneak in the back door and rant on to my heart's content!

As most of the old-timers know (old in posting, not in age, you understand!), I am not a Christian but have often participated in threads which seek to understand how and why Tolkien incorporated many biblical and/or Christian elements into his storyline and characters, including the thread Imp started that looked at the "revisions" in LotR.

Having said that, I would also add that I am not much on labels. I would never call LotR a "Christian" story just as I would never call it "pagan" or paste on any one of a number of other possible labels. I can certainly find elements of both Christian and pagan world views in Middle-earth. Some of those were intentionally put into the story by the author; others undoubtedly slipped in through the Tolkien's subconscious, and he only rediscovered them in later reflection. Whether the latter represent a specific Christian or Catholic paradigm or a "more universal" myth is probably impossible to say with certainty, though that shouldn't stop us from arguing about it.

I have gone back and forth on this issue endlessly: just how Christian is Lord of the Rings.... Tolkien didn't make it easy for us. One minute he lays out tantalyzing hints within the plot or supplementary writing and the next minute he's covering up his tracks. I've read the usual stuff and have even made a point of digesting a lot of the "Christian" criticism, books by folk like Wright and Wood that have come out in the past few years. To be truthful, when I first read LotR back in the sixties, the so-called biblical/Christian elements did not stick in my head, even though I was fairly cognizant of such things as I was embarking on an academic path that would eventually lead to teaching medieval history. But the minute the letters were published and info on Tolkien's life came out, I began poking my nose deeper into the story and discovered a fair amount of biblical and Christian content--or at least allusions that could be interpreted that way. (I even have a few links to an analysis of "Jewish" themes in Middle-earth, which I find extremely interesting!), But there is one aspect of Tolkien's world so decidedly non-Christian that it gives me considerable pause in any examination of the Christian content of LotR.

Middle-earth seems to be profoundly pagan and fatalistic at the core. (There, I've said it!) The overwhelming sense of evil that hangs at the center of the universe goes beyond the depiction of evil in mainline Christian theology. There is simply no escaping it. If evil doesn't get you today, it's going to get you tomorrow! In that sense, Frodo's fate was a given, and the Sea Bell makes a lot of sense. Shippey has written about this--how Tolkien was examining a world before revelation when men and hobbits and Elves were essentially placed in a world where there was no logical hope. Please note that I said "logical hope", rather than "no hope at all". We'd all be dead in two minutes if there was truly no help at all.

Yes, I know about original sin and such in a Christian context, but this is a situation where the very fabric of Arda has been contaminated by Morgoth. That didn't happen in the bible. According to Tolkien, we are all living in Morgoth's world, since our world is supposedly a continuation of Middle-earth. Yet I don't think most orthodox Christians would say that Earth belongs to Satan (a few might--I don't think those would be in the majority). In Middle-earth, you can literally say that: Eru is barely seen and the Valar only stick their noses in occasionally. Morgoth and Sauron were a much more constant presence. By that measure, this is not a Judaeo/Christian world.

Interestingly, the one group of critics that agree with me on this are a number of Protestant ones who feel that Tolkien's depiction of evil and his fatalistic attitude are far removed from "conventional" Christian belief. A few even reject LotR on that basis, though most simply point out the difference and indicate their own view of existence is not identical.

As an aside, that's one problem with this thread relating to semantics and interpreation. "Christianity" (or theism) is not one thing; it is many. Biblical interpretations vary from scholar to scholar and denomination to denomination. The view of Jewish/Hebrew scholars, for example, on the book of Isaiah is markedly different from that of most Christians. It's just not possible to pin down one "Christian" viewpoint so easily. This dilemma is underlined by the fact that some Protestant critics object to the fatalistic northern tone that stands at the core of Arda, while other Christians have no trouble with it.

Getting back to the main issue..... Somebody out there help me! I don't care how many allusions, images, and symbols that Tolkien "stole" from the bible. How can Middle-earth and the Legendarium possibly be Christian if so much pessimism and fatalism stand at its very core? Maybe Tolkien felt and sensed this ambivalence and, realizing the truly pagan world he'd created despite all the biblical imports, felt compelled to write the Athrabeth in his relative old age. Unlike Davem and Imp, I love those later writings. I also love the old Northern pessimism that stood at the heart of the original writings. So call me contradictory! But I feel that two-way tug in my own heart as well---and I'm not phrasing that in terms of Christian doctrine but a general way of looking at our existence--the hopeful and the not so hopeful, the anguished response versus the refusal to give in. Any ideas?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

. . . . Middle-earth seems to be profoundly pagan and fatalistic at the core. (There, I've said it!) The overwhelming sense of evil that hangs at the center of the universe goes beyond the depiction of evil in mainline Christian theology. There is simply no escaping it. If evil doesn't get you today, it's going to get you tomorrow! In that sense, Frodo's fate was a given, and the Sea Bell makes a lot of sense.

Yes, I know about original sin and such, but this is a situation where the very fabric of Arda has been contaminated by Morgoth. That didn't happen in the bible. According to Tolkien, we are all living in Morgoth's world, since our world is supposedly a continuation of Middle-earth. Yet I don't think most orthodox Christians would say that Earth belongs to Satan. In Middle-earth, you can literally say that: Eru is barely seen and the Valar only stick their noses in occasionally. Morgoth and Sauron were a much more constant presence.

. . . .

Somebody out there help me! I don't care how many allusions, images, and symbols that Tolkien "stole" from the bible. How can Middle-earth and the Legendarium possibly be Christian if so much pessimism and fatalism stand at its very core? Maybe Tolkien felt and sensed this ambivalence and, realizing the truly pagan world he'd created despite all the biblical imports, felt compelled to write the Athrabeth in his relative old age. Unlike Davem and Imp, I love those later writings. I also love the old Northern pessimism that stood at the heart of the original writings. So call me contradictory! But I feel that two-way tug in my own heart as well---and I'm not phrasing that in terms of Christian doctrine but a general way of looking at our existence--the hopeful and the not so hopeful, the anguished response versus the refusal to give in.

Amazing! Just this morning I was chatting with Estelyn saying I had another contribution to make to this thread and you have hit on it, Child.

As you say, Norse mythology was exceptionally pessimistic. Chaos wins, in the end, with the defeat of the gods in the final battle. I wonder if it is this which drew Tolkien and the other men in the trenches at the Somme to Fairie. Does horror and death and defeat seem less terrifying if it can be placed within some kind of context, even one which is devoid of hope?

Yet at the same time, I have been thinking not so much of philosophical or theological matters but of literary ones. Tolkien's beloved Beowulf is also a work which incorporates both pagan and Christian elements, sometimes easily, sometimes not. The tension between the two is one of the powerful attractions of the poem. Perhaps Squatter can speak to this, as he likely has read the poem more recently than I and can give examples of this tension. It could well exist more in other Anglo Saxon works as well--I don't know the entire corpus. Would this tension be something that Tolkien strove to incorporate in his work at a later date? Or was it something related to his own faith?

I think it can be said that this tension exists in LotR. It is possible to read without 'seeing' or considering this tension, yet the book becomes far more compelling--to me at least--when both these aspects are held in uneasy equipose. The fascination for me in Old English poetry lies in how it incorporates the world under change--the passing of the pagan era and the arrival of Chrisitianity--and yes, Child you are so right to say that there are many versions of Christianity. sic transit gloria mundi. Perhaps it is this fascination which also draws me to LotR.

So that what we have is not an either/or situation, but a work in which the very tension between those two poles--hope and hopelessness, pagan and Christian--is part of its attraction? Some of the best stories are those which don't provide pat solutions and presentations, but which always leave something beyond the grasp of readers, so that each new reader must come to terms with this tension on his or her own and then have that grasp shaken as new readers come along with their own grappling. The tension stretches, but never is resolved.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I think you have hit the nail on the head. You can spend hours, weeks, years searching Arda for images and symbols of Christian hope and veiled references to providence. It is definitely there. You can also view Arda in terms of its pagan themes and allusions, studying the profound pessimism and fatalism that embodied the dreams of the North. Both of these exercises are fulfilling and will get you a little closer to Tolkien's head.

But it's only when you realize that both these strains were somehow tangled up in the soul of a single man, that you get to the heart of what is going on. When you think about this dichotomy, how these different world views somehow blend into one and form the core of Tolkien's Legendarium, it's rather astounding. Ah, if only we could ask him! Truthfully, this recognition makes me feel a bit humble. I know I wouldn't have the brain or the heart to keep two different world views in balance while carrying through with the mundane things in life but he apparently managed it. Yes, this whole balancing act is certainly beyond my ken, and I suspect that it is one reason the Legendarium so appeals to me. I have always been suspicious of "packaged answers", whether secular or religious in origin. My head leans at least vaguely in the direction of hope and the Judeao-Christian heritage, but my experiences in life stubbornly whisper to my heart that fate and doom and pessimism seem all too commonplace.

As an historian, the next thing I want to do is bang on the table and demand to know where this dichotomy comes from in Tolkien. The Somme is certainly a factor, but I personally suspect it goes back much earlier than that. Tolkien has talked about some of the problems he and his brother encountered when their mother died. Yet on another level we know absolutely nothing about what this young man was actually feeling when the two of them were left on their own. Tolkien's commitment to Catholicism as well as his personal view of the world as a very frightening place, a place where every man and woman faced an implacable Doom, surely stemmed from this youthful period. His later experience in war would only confirm what he'd already learned as a child about the nature of life and fate.

I would love to hear from Squatter or someone else who is more knowledgable about ancient Nordic ways and thinking as well as to hear from those for whom the Christian element in the Legendarium remains especially important.

[littlemanpoet]

The two world views are not as difficult to keep in balance as one might think. Those who call themselves disciples of Christ (I include myself) are, they (and I) believe, rightfully pessimistic about what good can be achieved by my fellow humans; there's just too much orc in all of us. The Northern pessimism is different, but it still agrees with the Christian idea that this world is coming to a crash and burn some day. The difference, of course, is in regard to what happens after that.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

. . . . Both of these exercises are fulfilling and will get you a little closer to Tolkien's head. . . .

But it's only when you realize that both these strains were somehow tangled up in the soul of a single man, that you get to the heart of what is going on. . . .

As an historian, the next thing I want to do is bang on the table and demand to know where this dichotomy comes from in Tolkien.

This is the point at which I will simply retire from commenting, as I don't think one needs to resort to biographical construction to understand how a text can reflect a cultural dilemma or dichotomy. People have a difficult enough time understanding their fellow family members, friends, and others in their community--let alone internet posts and posters--to say nothing of the difficulty in reconstructing a person from literary remains.

Of course, others are welcome to discussing it.

[mark12_30]

While I thought I had made my intent not to offend rather clear, I will try still harder. This post was geared toward a particular member of the Downs-- who has been a mentor to me for most of my time here, and for whom I was gearing the answer in a paradigm I thought most effective (knowing her background.) I have done some extreme editing on this post. For those interested in seeing the original (which is hardly complete even as it stands) it may be found here. It is thoroughly steeped in the Old Testament, because of the background of the one who asked the original question (regarding whom, there are few if any on this board I hold more dear, and there are few if any on this board for whom I would go further, to avoid offending. )

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

.....
Middle-earth seems to be profoundly pagan and fatalistic at the core. (There, I've said it!) The overwhelming sense of evil that hangs at the center of the universe goes beyond the depiction of evil in mainline Christian theology. There is simply no escaping it. If evil doesn't get you today, it's going to get you tomorrow! In that sense, Frodo's fate was a given, and the Sea Bell makes a lot of sense. Shippey has written about this--how Tolkien was examining a world before revelation when men and hobbits and Elves were essentially placed in a world where there was no logical hope. Please note that I said "logical hope", rather than "no hope at all". We'd all be dead in two minutes if there was truly no help at all.
...

Interestingly, the one group of critics that agree with me on this are a number of Protestant ones who feel that Tolkien's depiction of evil and his fatalistic attitude are far removed from "conventional" Christian belief. A few even reject LotR on that basis, though most simply point out the difference and indicate their own view of existence is not identical.

...

Getting back to the main issue..... Somebody out there help me! I don't care how many allusions, images, and symbols that Tolkien "stole" from the bible. How can Middle-earth and the Legendarium possibly be Christian if so much pessimism and fatalism stand at its very core? ...

LOTR takes place in a pre-Christian paradigm.

First let's tackle this line:

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Yet I don't think most orthodox Christians would say that Earth belongs to Satan (a few might--I don't think those would be in the majority).

"The Prince of this world." Yes, most would say that it does. This is, actually, a core Christian doctrine, especially in evangelical, Catholic, and orthodox circles, so I'm certain Tolkien would have also held that view. For details go here

The optimism and hope that is supposed to dominate Christianity can be reconciled with the pessimism and doom evident in LOTR precisely because it is set in an era that is pre-incarnation and resurrection. Hope (in a Christan worldview) literally hinges on the incarnation and resurrection. Prior to that-- grimness; after that, joy.

So back to the tone of the Legendarium. Since Tolkien wrote about a pre-Christian world-- as you say, "pre-revelation"-- it would (by definition in a Christian worldview) be a pessimistic, grim world of very little hope. Apparently Tolkien (as you say) felt the need to write about that in Athrabeth An Andreth. In a pre-Christian world, we (or the pre-Christian characters from a Christian point of view) are waiting -- like Finrod and Andreth-- in the dark with baited breath, waiting for redeemption and light.

Originally Posted by C7A

I would love to hear from Squatter or someone else who is more knowledgable about ancient Nordic ways and thinking as well as to hear from those for whom the Christian element in the Legendarium remains especially important.

Yay! "Squa-tter, Squa-tter!" Your turn, old chap. Tell us about the Nordic stuff.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I have an odd idea. It's a fledgling idea, trying to fly, but falling out of the nest and hitting the ground hard. I think it needs proper feathers before it'll work properly and be worth sharing.

Somebody... Squatter? Anybody?

Is there a capitalized Importance to light/sun/brightness/[insert name for shiny] in Nordic myths?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

The Northern pessimism is different, but it still agrees with the Christian idea that this world is coming to a crash and burn some day. The difference, of course, is in regard to what happens after that.

The Pagan view is that the 'end' is simply part of the natural cycle. There may be many ends and many beginnings. Possibly a response to the ancients' observations on the cycle of organic life and death itself; as they saw themselves and their own lives, so they reflected this in their Mythologies. Ties in with Campbell's thoughts on how each religion/mythology reflects and serves the culture and society within which it was born.

Now let me step aside for a moment and ask that people do not post deeply personal interpretations (sermons?) of their own faiths as 'information'. I was enjoying the debate but it so easily slides back into what has already caused trouble and I am feeling provoked (as predicted, and as such, why hit 'send' after this week's events?). One person this week was admonished for their own thundering and tendency to hit 'send' without thinking, and I can add that he is very sorry to have caused offence and knows that to step back would have been the better move. I am sorry myself to have seen this done again so soon. I could have argued against what has been said and given my own interpretation (as I spend a lot of time thinking about faith and philosophy - it's important to me), but I do not see the point, enough upset has been caused for one week.