Thirty silver pennies in a fundamentally religious and Catholic work

[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

[Galin]

... fall victim to the wildest pareidolia

I had that once. Nasty business. Turns out smearing the affected area with lard does the trick.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galin

I had that once. Nasty business. Turns out smearing the affected area with lard does the trick.

Did the cure cost you thirty silver pennies?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Galin

I had that once. Nasty business. Turns out smearing the affected area with lard does the trick.

Lard is also a cure for butter burs. Very nettlesome.

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

“Thirty silver pennies cannot be dissected into three points”

Oh really! What an absolutely ludicrous.statement!
Honestly I feel like I'm conversing with a five year old.

Just to let you know - very slowly – so that you can take it in:

There are three individual facts associated to the phrase: 'thirty silver pennies'.
Each fact can have a tangency against it.

Very slowly:

Fact 1: There is the number '30'.

Fact 2: There is a metal called 'silver'

Fact 3: There are the coins that are 'pennies'.

Is that slow enough?
So onward to meaningful comparisons:

Example 1: For the phrase '30 gold coins' – that results in two tangecies against the Biblical tale
Example 2: For the phrase '40 copper coins'– that would result in one tangency.
etc., etc.

The less the number of tangencies – the less of an alluring match. Is that plain enough? Do you get it now?

The reason why this is all so intriguing is that in a very short phrase (in TLotR) – we have three tangencies that match something of great significance in the Biblical story. In other words within the TLotR phrase itself there are three points of tangency. Geometrically when a shape such as a circle touches another shape such as line. The coincident point is known as a 'point of tangency'.

One does not even need to consider separate issues beyond this three word phrase. On its own, 'thirty silver pennies' is intriguing enough!

The fact you are unable to grasp even elementary principles – means I'm wasting my precious time. However I really don't mind – except you're coming across as more and more foolish. Yet I enjoy having a good laugh – because you're spewing stuff that doesn't even make common-sense. It's pure bluster – as is the rest of your post. Please open another thread – and I'll be happy to discuss 'Exodus, the ox and the shekels'.

Because Morthoron, both you (and others) seem to always 'conveniently' side-step the most critical question. Very simply, put forward once again:

Was Tolkien learned enough to understand 30 silver coins was strongly associated to the Christian story?

Just give me an answer: Yes or No?

If he wasn't – then by Godsteeth tell me why and provide some evidence?

If he was - then tell me why he put thirty silver coins into the story and why he decided to leave that in – even after editing?

Let's cut to the chase – and cut out the bilge.






Huinesoron


“This is the key point, I think: While thirty pieces of silver are certainly suggestive, by themselves they are only a single point.”

Please see my response to Morthoron – above.

Weren't the number of tangencies sufficient? Do you want me to add other points of tangency? Such as we are told the full worth of the initial monetary loss, in the end, was put to good use – just like in the biblical tale?

“The 'thirty silver pennies' has been debated extensively.”

I would love to see some of these articles – for my own edification. Can you point to them for me please?

Loved your article on Gollum. It is absolutely true that one can associate anything to anything in a long and detailed story. But Gollum wasn't explicitly pointed out as having an association to King Solomon by Tolkien. If he had been – then some analysis would definitely be warranted.

The point is that Tolkien emphasized the Catholic and religous nature of the work and that had been subsumed into the story. It's up to us to try and understand how he did it and at what points this happened.

Ms. Seth has rightly pointed out, for the chapters involving Bombadil, where Tolkien's underlying religious allusions lie. Most strongly with the '30 silver pennies' and less obviously elsewhere. As for those lesser ones, either they are allusions or they or not or they could be. Ms. Seth's point is that are enough of them to build a case. I would take another careful read if I were you and try to digest the thrust of her essay more rationally.

In any case back to the issue at hand – if Morthoron can't or won't answer me, perhaps you can. In repetition then:

Was Tolkien learned enough to understand 30 silver coins was strongly associated to the Christian story?

Just give me an answer: Yes or No?

If he wasn't – then by Godsteeth tell me why and provide some evidence?

If he was - then tell me why he put thirty silver coins into the story and why he decided to leave it in – even after the edit process?

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Huinesoron


“This is the key point, I think: While thirty pieces of silver are certainly suggestive, by themselves they are only a single point.”

Please see my response to Morthoron – above.

If Tolkien had written 'thirty pounds', you wouldn't see a connection to the Bible. If he'd written about thirty silver spoons, you wouldn't see a connection to the Bible. If he'd written about nineteen silver pennies, you wouldn't see a connection to the Bible. The three words aren't distinct points which all have an innate Biblical connection - they are a single point which doesn't work at all if broken up.

Weren't the number of tangencies sufficient? Do you want me to add other points of tangency? Such as we are told the full worth of the initial monetary loss, in the end, was put to good use – just like in the biblical tale?

You're going to have to explain that if you want it to be believed, because so far as I can see, 12 pennies go to Bill Ferny (not noted as being a good cause), while the rest go to Merry and vanish from the story. Neither payment has an 'in the end' - just the initial outlay. Even if you accept both of those as 'good use', you are still conflating the payment to Judas and the purchase of the field into a single event.

“The 'thirty silver pennies' has been debated extensively.”

I would love to see some of these articles – for my own edification. Can you point to them for me please?

Apologies - I meant 'debated extensively in this thread'.

Loved your article on Gollum. It is absolutely true that one can associate anything to anything in a long and detailed story. But Gollum wasn't explicitly pointed out as having an association to King Solomon by Tolkien. If he had been – then some analysis would definitely be warranted.

The point is that Tolkien emphasized the Catholic and religous nature of the work and that had been subsumed into the story. It's up to us to try and understand how he did it and at what points this happened.

And where did Tolkien explicitlt point out a connection between Butterbur and Judas? Or do you not think that King Solomon of Israel is a Catholic and religious figure?

Ms. Seth has rightly pointed out, for the chapters involving Bombadil, where Tolkien's underlying religious allusions lie. Most strongly with the '30 silver pennies' and less obviously elsewhere. As for those lesser ones, either they are allusions or they or not or they could be. Ms. Seth's point is that are enough of them to build a case. I would take another careful read if I were you and try to digest the thrust of her essay more rationally.

I have read it. I went through and looked at every single purported allusion, and discussed each one individually. The argument you're making here is 'there's no smoke without fire!', and it applies exactly as well to King Gollumon as to the Gospel of Tom (ie, it doesn't).

In any case back to the issue at hand – if Morthoron can't or won't answer me, perhaps you can. In repetition then:

Was Tolkien learned enough to understand 30 silver coins was strongly associated to the Christian story?

Just give me an answer: Yes or No?

Yes.

If he wasn't – then by Godsteeth tell me why and provide some evidence?

If he was - then tell me why he put thirty silver coins into the story and why he decided to leave it in – even after the edit process?

I'm glad you asked! Because I think I've figured out the answer, and I'd be delighted to share it.

The original values were six and twenty, but that would leave Butterbur dramatically overpaying Merry - although the specifics that Ferny did indeed charge thrice the value is left out, it's still mentioned in the preceding paragraph. That means a pony would be worth 2 pennies, and Butterbur ended up paying Merry for TEN! There's even a note of 'less the cost of their food and lodgings', so he overpaid even more.

When Tolkien came by and decided to specify that Ferny had indeed charged triple, he needed new numbers. Two pennies is ridiculously low for a pony, so he doubled it. That means Ferny would charge 12 pennies, and Butterbur would pay Merry (5×4=) 20 - less two for food and lodgings, that comes to 18.

When he saw that basic maths led to a value of '30 pieces of silver' - or perhaps even 32, from which he subtracted two to make the reference stick - I'm sure Tolkien had a quiet chuckle to himself, and kept it in thereafter. But, taking the original draft into account, it seems highly likely that the reference first appeared by chance, falling out of a basic mathematical function.

hS

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Morthoron

“Thirty silver pennies cannot be dissected into three points”

Oh really! What an absolutely ludicrous.statement!
Honestly I feel like I'm conversing with a five year old.

Oh look! It's Balfrog the Fallacy Farmer come to spread more manure from the Supriya Seth, LLC (Limited Literary Currency) pile of ponderous allegorical offal and digital dung.

I still can't believe anyone with an ounce of sense (or self respect, for that matter) other than a self-spammer (who, I am sure, lack any dignity whatsoever) would simply return every month or so to plop another implausible article from a different and totally separate entity, and then go to such lengths to defend the indefensible, particularly when numerous other posters pointed out the imbecility of Seth's claims.

If you are not Seth, then you should be in her employ and earn a minimum wage for the spam work you do. I assume it's the only job you currently have, given the disastrous gold-farming market collapse in World of Warcraft.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Just to let you know - very slowly – so that you can take it in:

There are three individual facts associated to the phrase: 'thirty silver pennies'.
Each fact can have a tangency against it.

Very slowly:

Fact 1: There is the number '30'.

Fact 2: There is a metal called 'silver'

Fact 3: There are the coins that are 'pennies'.

Is that slow enough?
So onward to meaningful comparisons:

Example 1: For the phrase '30 gold coins' – that results in two tangecies against the Biblical tale
Example 2: For the phrase '40 copper coins'– that would result in one tangency.
etc., etc.

The less the number of tangencies – the less of an alluring match. Is that plain enough? Do you get it now?

In your pretzel logic, the flawed mathematics work for you (much in the same way George Orwell's tortured character is forced to admit 2+2=5). But in your rabid defense of a half-arsed quotient, you have allowed me to outpoint you.

I get three points by your logic:

30 (the magic number)
Shekels (a coin)
Silver (what Shekels were comprised of)

But you do not get three points, you do not pass GO, you do not collect 30 pieces of silver. My allegory contains the requisite number (30), the metal of said coinage (silver), but also the appropriate biblical currency. Let me explain in the simplest terms, because mathematics is not your strong suit, and evidently logical argumentation escapes you as well.

There is not an ounce (Troy or otherwise) of "betrayal" involved in the convoluted manner by which we derive "30 Silver Pennies", but we must also dock you for the use of the word "pennies" which is not a term in use during Jesus' time and is Anglo-Saxon in origin. "Thirty pieces of silver" is the appropriate biblical jargon, and if you study biblical terminology, a silver shekel was most likely the currency used for Judas' betrayal (either Tyrian shekels or the Antiochan tetradrachm).

But no one is betrayed in the convoluted allotment of how Tolkien came to the sum after deductions of rent and fair payment by Butterbur, as is in blood money used in the betrayal by Judas. And thus, equating Tolkien's 30 silver pennies to the biblical 30 pieces of silver loses whatever allegorical directness and concision it might have otherwise. The innkeeper recompenses the wrong done by the theft of the Hobbit's animals, which is the antithesis of betrayal.

Yes, recompense for the wrong done, which, again for the attention-deficited spammers who blindly push their addled agenda in their part-time posting here in order to advertise click-bait, has nothing whatsoever to do with an allegorical basis for the spammer's point.

Therefore, I maintain the biblical passage:

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.

has more of an allegorical basis for Tolkien's direct plot point and the circumstantial evidence surrounding the plot than does your tenuous harping on Judas' betrayal. It has soundly beaten your master's theory; but humorously, I made up the allegorical connection -- which is something beyond your limited and wholly partisan comprehension, evidently. And that is the humorous aspect of it all.

I will gladly accept your apology in advance of you actually understanding why it is necessary for you to apologize....to Tolkien for warping his works. No hard feelings.