Thirty silver pennies in a fundamentally religious and Catholic work

[Saurondil]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Huinesoron


"The fact that 'thirty pieces of silver' is such an obvious source for the 30 silver pennies led me to start looking for other possible explanations (what can I say? I'm contrary)."

Yes – now the author points it out – it sounds obvious. But I haven't see any published books by the so called 'experts' that have mentioned it before. Nor do I see anything much on the forums out there. Indeed, hardly anything at all. So maybe not so obvious???

By the way - love the way you think. Except Aragorn was referred to as “crownless” not 'half-a-crownless'. Which would lead me to deduce that Tolkien thought the matter was binary – i.e either fully a King or fully not.


lindil

" I will take your version H!

The gospel reference just doesn't fit."


Really - that seems so definitive!
Love to see an explanation.


Saurondil

"Seems to me either too far-fetched, or mistaking the things of common life for specifically Christian allusions."

I must say that first sentence puts me off reading the rest of your post – even though by its length – I know you put some decent effort in.

Sorry, not understood.

So really???
Thirty silver pennies and its connection biblically – is something Tolkien would have been unaware of???

I can’t see anything in my post that means that.

How's about a mixture of subtle and not so subtle symbolic embedments?
Is that beyond belief - or do we all know Tolkien so well that we can definitively say one way or the other?

When it comes to:

“… the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #142

Then the 30 silver pennies it's either a logical fit or not.
I'm not a rocket-scientist – but I don't think I need to be one to arrive at a rational conclusion.

STM the thirty silver pennies owe their description to the needs of the story, and to nothing beyond that. They fit logically where they are found, but that is no reason to see any deeper significance in them. If, OTOH, Tolkien himself said they had some further significance, that would change matters entirely. But I have never heard of any such utterance by him.

That they are thirty, and silver, and pennies, is explicable by the needs of the story, without need of any far-fetched allegorising. Tolkien’s distaste for allegory is a matter of record, and the allegory suggested would not work properly - given Tolkien’s “artistic tact”, I can’t believe he would perpetrate such a clumsy and inexpert allegory. IMHO, looking for Christ-figures, Passion-analogies, analogies to the Eucharist, and that sort of thing, is misguided and back to front, and turns what was an endlessly impressive story into a clumsy, heavy-handed, and dishonest attempt at proselytising. Mount Doom is not Calvary - it is a live volcano, and as such, of practical use to Sauron. As for “way-bread” being viaticum, it resembles in name, but hardly in use.

Such faults are best left to products - stories, is too complimentary - like the Left Behind series. One need be no expert or mind-reader to know that Tolkien wrote far better than that.

lindil is right: the Gospel reference doesn’t fit. As for Balfrog’s suggestions - well spotted, and very amusing

lindil, Huinesoron, Saurondil

I think its worthwhile reading Ms. Seth's post again - and carefully. The insertion of specific amounts of coinage along with type - is extremely rare in TLotR. Just on that basis one can reasonably deduce there was something behind it.

[Inziladun]

For what it's worth, in The Return of the Shadow (HOME), an early draft of the scene where Merry is compensated for his ponies' loss has him receiving twenty silver pennies, 'less the cost of their food and lodging'. The price of the ragged beast bought in Bree was six.

That as opposed to LOTR, where Ferny's price was twelve, and Butterbur added another eighteen.

If thirty was really intended by Tolkien to mean something from the start, why the change?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

For what it's worth, in The Return of the Shadow (HOME), an early draft of the scene where Merry is compensated for his ponies' loss has him receiving twenty silver pennies, 'less the cost of their food and lodging'. The price of the ragged beast bought in Bree was six.

That as opposed to LOTR, where Ferny's price was twelve, and Butterbur added another eighteen.

If thirty was really intended by Tolkien to mean something from the start, why the change?

Exodus 21:32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, its owner will pay the price -- thirty shekels -- to their master, and the ox will be stoned.

the pony Bill was a slave, wretched and ill-used. It is only natural that Samwise "stoned" the ox Bill Ferny with a well-thrown apple.

One can make any asinine allegory or allusion one wishes. If we're going to lift biblical passages and throw them against a wall to make them stick -- and it's entirely reasonable to think that Tolkien knew this passage -- it would seem that this line from Exodus is far better suited to make such an allusion, and more than likely just as wrong.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

One can make any asinine allegory or allusion one wishes. If we're going to lift biblical passages and throw them against a wall to make them stick -- and it's entirely reasonable to think that Tolkien knew this passage -- it would seem that this line from Exodus is far better suited to make such an allusion, and more than likely just as wrong.

Indeed. Not every little detail Tolkien added has to have some special significance. After all, J.K. Rowling came along much later.

[Balfrog]

Saurondil

Can you tell me why the number '30' and 'silver coins' meets the “need of the story”? Why was it so essential to have these specific details in the transaction?

As for allegory and symbolism, the overlap can be somewhat blurry. There is no dispute that Tolkien stated:

“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work” - Letter #142

And that he embedded aspects of Christianity into the story:

“the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism” - Letter #142

When it comes to viaticum, it sounds like you're either unaware of Letter #200 or prefer to ignore Tolkien's stated two-fold function:

In the book lembas has two functions. It is a 'machine' or device for making credible the long marches with little provision, in a world in which as I have said 'miles are miles'. But that is relatively unimportant. It also has a much larger significance, of what one might hesitatingly call a 'religious' kind.- Letter #200

Note which one of the two functions is by far the more important to Tolkien. If a physical item such as waybread has been inserted with the intention of having symbolic Christian significance – one should not be so quick and eager to dismiss other items within the tale being religiously symbolic too. Given how fundamental 30 silver coins are to the Christian story, a religious meaning behind their inclusion becomes a very strong possibility.

It would be a brave person to believe and actively air that Tolkien knew nothing about the monetary aspect of the Judas betrayal. And so as he almost certainly did – the only question needed to be asked – is was he aware of it at the point of writing such details into TLotR?

Good or low probability?

Given the precedence Tolkien himself set in revealing the dual functions of Elven waybread - to call the '30 pieces of silver' analogy made by Ms. Seth as 'far-fetched' is simply ludicrous.



Inziladun

As I've said before – Tolkien was groping for a plot. Maybe this particular idea of Christian symbolism came to him after the said draft.
After all there was a 'deliberate' change to 30 pieces of silver. Maybe that's the way one should look at it!



Morthoron

Yes one can certainly make up asinine connections with the episode at Bree:

Per your presented excerpt in relation to similarities in TLotR. In the Bree passages there is/are:

No stones thrown,
No stoning,
No goring,
No ox,
Thus no stoning of an ox or goring by an ox.
Yes, there is a quantity of 'thirty' and coinage. Only two items show similarity to your quoted biblical extract!

Per Ms. Seth's presented biblical matching in relation to similarities in TLotR. In the Bree passages there is/are:

A theme of betrayal,
A quantity of thirty,
Coins,
Silver ones at that.

Thus four items show similarity to the Judas affair.
On that basis Ms. Seth's argument is stronger.

The acclaimed Mark Hooker in a Tolkienian Mathomium suggests “three points of tangence is the threshold at which coincidence begins to give way to a demonstrable relationship”.

It seems you lack an ability to differentiate and objectively assess the strength of presented evidence. Moreover the considerable weight of the combined evidence (not just the 30 pieces of silver) in Ms. Seth's essay is ignored on your part. She points at least eight closely spaced TLotR points of tangence to a Christian theme and limits herself, at that, to the New Testament. Maybe you should read the essay again! And carefully digest it!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Yes one can certainly make up asinine connections with the episode at Bree:

Unfortunately, you are utterly incapable of seeing the asininity, which makes this all the more hilariously ironic!

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Per Ms. Seth's presented biblical matching in relation to similarities in TLotR. In the Bree passages there is/are:

A theme of betrayal,
A quantity of thirty,
Coins,
Silver ones at that.

Thus four items show similarity to the Judas affair.
On that basis Ms. Seth's argument is stronger.

The acclaimed Mark Hooker in a Tolkienian Mathomium suggests “three points of tangence is the threshold at which coincidence begins to give way to a demonstrable relationship”.

Your mathematics is as flawed as Seth's theory. How does one make four points out of two points, and only one of these may be construed, in a twisted pretzel logic, as relevant?

Thirty silver coins cannot be dissected into three points, my dear, that is as fallacious as it is inane. Thirty silver pieces is the point: not thirty, and coins and silver. If it were thirty of any other item, or if it were brass and not silver, your silly Seth wouldn't be typing out her click bait (and you then would not be acting as her senseless cipher).

Seth has decided to create a false narrative based on the idea of thirty silver pennies. But let's tweak the other aspect of her dumb dialogue: the idea of betrayal. In the Gospels, Judas, an apostle and ally of Jesus, was given 30 pieces of silver by the priests to betray Jesus. It was blood money.

The transaction for Bill the Pony was exactly 12 silver pennies (3 times the animal's worth). That is the amount given by the Hobbits to Bill Ferny, who was certainly not an ally or friend of the Hobbits and was looked upon with distrust (he probably had something to do with the theft of the Hobbits' steeds, but there was no direct proof). That he was an actual enemy later proved the Hobbit's distrust.

Butterbur, feeling sorry for the loss of the Hobbits' ponies out of his stables, gave the Hobbits an additional 18 pence for their loss. This was an act of repentance, of pity, from a friendly innkeeper.

So, let's take stock of what we have here: 1) there was no betrayal, as Ferny was an active agent of the enemy who greedily sold a rundown pony to the Hobbits for a profit, and 2) there were two transactions, the first a 12 penny profit from an enemy, and second an 18 penny repayment by a sympathetic innkeeper.

Therefore, Seth's thirty pieces of silver is aborted in utero. The idea is simply wrong on all counts.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Per your presented excerpt in relation to similarities in TLotR. In the Bree passages there is/are:

No stones thrown,
No stoning,
No goring,
No ox,
Thus no stoning of an ox or goring by an ox.
Yes, there is a quantity of 'thirty' and coinage. Only two items show similarity to your quoted biblical extract!

If, like you, I were to subvert the "acclaimed" Mark Hooker's (although I am wondering at what point the term 'acclaimed' can be affixed to Mr. Hooker) maxim that “three points of tangence is the threshold at which coincidence begins to give way to a demonstrable relationship”, I would have more points than you:

30 (the magic number)
Shekels (a coin)
Silver (what Shekels were comprised of)
An ox (Bill Ferny -- "ox" in the pejorative meaning an "oaf", a "layabout")
Stoning (Samwise does indeed 'stone' Ferny with an apple upside the head)
Slave (poor Bill the pony)
Gore (to shed blood by violence, in this case Ferny's ill-use and beating of the pony)

That's seven peerless points to your fallacious four, is it not? So by your addled addition, I win. Even when I brought this passage up in jest:

Exodus 21:32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, its owner will pay the price -- thirty shekels -- to their master, and the ox will be stoned.

IF Tolkien were allegorizing (which is Captain Ahab Seth's Moby Dick floating throughout Tolkien's text), I would take into account Tolkien's wonderful sense of humor. The act of "stoning" Ferny with a well-thrown apple, for instance, or that Ferny is a lazy "ox" living in a dirty stable.

But it's all a matter of slinging crap against a wall and seeing what sticks. Make up enough false equivalencies and one has one big, stinking pile of fallacies.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Thirty silver coins cannot be dissected into three points, my dear, that is as fallacious as it is inane. Thirty silver pieces is the point: not thirty, and coins and silver. If it were thirty of any other item, or if it were brass and not silver, your silly Seth wouldn't be typing out her click bait (and you then would not be acting as her senseless cipher).

This is the key point, I think. While thirty pieces of silver are certainly suggestive, by themselves they are only a single point. Balin's folk came to Moria thirty years before the Fellowship arrived, looking (in part) for true-silver, and they ended up dying (just like Judas!), but because 'thirty' and 'silver' aren't connected to coins, we don't draw that connection. It's only because Butterbur is out the significant thirty pieces of silver that we look for anything else... and to be honest, it isn't there.

Yes, it is possible, as Ms. Seth has done, to pick out points of vague congruence between the events of Michaelmas Day and the Gospels. But... well, here's the list, for those who have difficulty reading the frankly bizarre format of her article:

a) 'Thirty pieces of silver', in connection with a theme of betrayal.
b) "The drink in their drinking-bowls seemed to be clear cold water, yet it went to their hearts like wine" - connected to the miracle of water into wine.
c) Bombadil's opening of the barrow is connected with Jesus' resurrection of Lazarus, including a link between the sound of stones falling, and Jesus rolling away a stone.
d) A weird confluence of two points:

Originally Posted by Ms. Seth

Jesus on numerous occasions exorcising unclean spirits, echoed by the departure of a spirit which appears to have cohabited with Merry:

“ ‘… Ah! the spear in my heart! … What am I saying? …’ ”.
– The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs

The Roman soldiers’ spear to check for Jesus’ death while nailed to the Cross is also reputed to have penetrated through to this vital organ.

e) Tom mentions the words 'out of deep water', evoking baptism.
f) Tom brings Goldberry lilies; images of the Annunciation often include lilies (not always held by Michael, though Ms. Seth doesn't note this).
g) Two cocks crowing, not on Michaelmas, connecting with a third one in RotK to evoke Peter's rejection of Jesus.
h) The words 'the crownless again shall be king' evoking Christ's resurrection.

Of these, I feel b, d, e, g, and h can pretty much be rejected out of hand. The idea of 'pure drink which acts like heady wine' sounds more like Norse mythology than Christian; Bombadil doesn't even exorcise Merry, and spears are a ridiculously common weapon to be calling out as a Biblical parallel; baptism has never been about being lost in the water; the cock-crows don't take place on the relevant day, and the RotK one has no connection to Denethor's actions (and at any rate symbolises the dawn of a new day and the breaking of the Dark); and Jesus was both (in Catholic theology) still King while dead, and literally wearing a crown when he died.

The 'thirty silver pennies' has been debated extensively. The breaking of the barrow could be Gospel-inspired - I would look more at Jairus' daughter, who was specifically raised as if from sleep - though the stone connection is weak (it's a barrow, of course there's stone). The lilies... yeah, lilies are a symbol of Mary. But they're also the only common flower that grows in the water, and Goldberry the River-Daughter predates LotR; you don't have to search for symbolism when there's a very obvious logical reason for its presence.

The real point is that any effort to analyse Ms. Seth's list is pointless, because it is mind-numbingly easy to take two incredibly detailed books - LotR and the Bible - and find points of congruence between parts of them. You could 'prove' that Gollum has deep and meaningful connections to King Solomon:

a) He has two personalities and is accused of child-murder, linking straight to the famous story about cutting babies in half
b) He is linked to a friendship as close as brotherhood (Frodo and Sam), like Solomon is linked to that of David and Jonathan (indeed, we could cast Smeagol as Frodo's symbolic 'child', as Solomon is David's)
c) He 'pays court' to a powerful female figure (Shelob), like Solomon does the Queen of Sheba (and look how close those two names are!)
d) He is connected to a betrayal in an aquatic context (his murder of Deagol), which Solomon is also (his mother is Bathsheba, who David desired after seeing her bathing)
e) He is an excellent guide (when he wants to be), so could be said to be 'wise' - and the Wisdom of Solomon is legendary.
f) His actions lead to his companions being separated (when Frodo is taken prisoner), just as Solomon's ultimately led to the breaking of the Kingdom of Israel.

And that's all off the top of my head, using an example I came up with without even thinking about it! Are we to suppose that Tolkien used Gollum as a proxy for Solomon, then? Not in the least!

Yes, J.R.R. Tolkien was a fervent Catholic, who grew up in a culture and context saturated with religious imagery, and yes, some of that imagery makes its way into his work. The calling forth of the supposedly-dead; treachery which nearly brings about ruin; hope which returns when all hope seems lost; lilies for innocence and purity; and yes, maybe even thirty pieces of silver. But to claim that that imagery is part of a concerted effort to tell a deeply Biblical narrative is to fall victim to the wildest pareidolia.

hS