The Lord of the Bible?

Does anyone think Tolkien effectively stole many of his ideas from the Bible? Examples are the Balrog - Satan; Saruman/Grima - Judas; Gandalf the White resurrection; Elrond - Jesus?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I think that 'stole' is a very strong word to use here. Doubtless he had some inspiration from The Bible, but I don't think that he 'stole' anything. The examples you gave there, for example:

Balrogs = Satan
I don't think so. Demonic, may be. But the Balrog was a figure of shadow and flame, not necessarily the hornéd beast seen in the films.

Saruman/Grima =Judas
Again, not necessarily. Treachery has been a theme throughout literature and especially in Greek tragedy and all that. Not every traitor is a Judas necessarily.

Gandalf the White resurrection
Possibly. The theme of sacrifice and reward is quite strong in Gandalf's return. I think its more of a plot thing, with Gandalf's mission not being complete.

Elrond - Jesus
Personally, I can't see the similarity. Could you be a little more specific on this?

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

I think that 'stole' is a very strong word to use here. Doubtless he had some inspiration from The Bible, but I don't think that he 'stole' anything. The examples you gave there, for example:

Balrogs = Satan
I don't think so. Demonic, may be. But the Balrog was a figure of shadow and flame, not necessarily the hornéd beast seen in the films.

Saruman/Grima =Judas
Again, not necessarily. Treachery has been a theme throughout literature and especially in Greek tragedy and all that. Not every traitor is a Judas necessarily.

Gandalf the White resurrection
Possibly. The theme of sacrifice and reward is quite strong in Gandalf's return. I think its more of a plot thing, with Gandalf's mission not being complete.

Elrond - Jesus
Personally, I can't see the similarity. Could you be a little more specific on this?

If there is one character I would liken Elrond to, it would be Jesus - why is a difficult question to answer. He spends much of his time preaching & recalling important events in history, & using this to counsel those in the House of Elrond. Of all the Good free folk in Middle-Earth, Elrond to my mind represents Good better than anyone else (save Gandalf the White perhaps).

Another important comparison is the ending to the LOTR - Gandalf passes into the far green country where the undying lands await. Does this not ring bells as to where Jesus ends up when he has done his time on earth? Tolkein was a devout Christian I can imagine.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Another important comparison is the ending to the LOTR - Gandalf passes into the far green country where the undying lands await. Does this not ring bells as to where Jesus ends up when he has done his tme on earth? Tolkein was a devout Christian I can imagine.

Old J.R.R was Christian, yes. Roman Catholic, I believe.
One cannot deny that Tolkien was suggesting a Heaven like place. His Christian faith is obviously in influence on his work, there’s no denying that. I still wouldn't say he was stealing it.
Besides which, I'm sure that the 'western seas' and all that are based in Norse and other mythologies. Tolkien got his inspiration from all over the town (so to speak).

[mormegil]

I would think that a balrog really wouldn't be likened unto Satan. Melkor would be a better analogy, would it not?

I believe Hookbill covered the others fairly well, but there are a lot of people who would be considered as sages in literature and Elrond does not strike me as a Christ figure.

Having a hero return to life after 'death' is quite common also in fiction, especially fantasy. It doesn't seem too unique to Tolkien.

[ninja91]

Yes. I also think that the Balrog does not represent Satan as well as Melkor, who was almost a fallen angel like Satan was.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I have no qualms about seeking out biblical presence in Tolkien's work. It's like laying on green-smelling grass in high summer, finding pictures in the clouds above you. Whether or not they're really there, sometimes they're obvious to see. And even if there's nothing, certainly the exercise strengthens your imagination, skills of observation, and complex thought processes. Surely you wouldn't discourage such fun?

Though I hadn't noticed the correlation between Elrond and Jesus before... I usually see Jesus in Aragorn. The child, raised by his mother and one not his father; one who did great things for his lands; one with compassion, with the hands of a healer; one who descended into the terror of the lands of the dead to bring those there into light; one who compelled strength and hope into those around him; one that was loved and trusted by nearly all; one willing to die so that others could live; the King that Returns.

As far as inspiration goes, Tolkien borrowed liberally from many places, just like any other writer does. Norse myths, Beowulf, etcetera. You are all well enough versed that I do not need to list. If we are perfectly willing to see that Tolkien borrowed from ancient stories, why is it harder to see the connections to modern religions and current history?

And why must each borrowed character have only one place in a story? Does there really have to be just one Satan? Why not multiple? Why not several heroes? Why not several Christ figures?

If Mansun sees something that you don't, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to quash his vision. Entertain, rather, the notion that he might be right. I'm sure it will be educational.

[Macalaure]

I'm with Hook and morm on the Balrog, Saruman/Grima and the Undying Lands.

But I see differences with Gandalf and Elrond.

Gandalf died to save his companions from the balrog. Because of this, and because his quest was not yet fulfilled, he was resurrected. Jesus died and came back to save mankind from their sins. I'd say this is a significantly different motive. It is a resurrection, but not 'The' resurrection.

Originally Posted by Mansun

If there is one character I would liken Elrond to, it would be Jesus - why is a difficult question to answer. He spends much of his time preaching & recalling important events in history, & using this to counsel those in the House of Elrond. Of all the Good free folk in Middle-Earth, Elrond to my mind represents Good better than anyone else (save Gandalf the White perhaps).

Preaching and counselling was not everything Jesus did in his life, so I don't see the connection.
I'm not knowledgeable enough about the bible to tell whether one of the prophets of the old testament could have a similarity to him.


Like Hook and Fea said, Tolkien got his inspiration from more or less all myths and sagas, surely including the bible. It's what he made of it that made it great.
If you copy from one, you steal; If you copy from many, you let yourself be inspired.


PS: It isn't my intention to quash your ideas, Mansun, and I'm sure it isn't Hook's and morm's. Every new thought is welcome and should, and hereby is, encouraged.
I agree with you Fea, however, if we want to discuss the given topic, we must be allowed to criticise the given view if we don't agree with it. I'm sure that's what Mansun wants, too.

(edit: as you might guessed, cross-posted with morm)

[ninja91]

I agree with Hookbill. The only remote similarity that I see is the White Resurrection of Gandalf with the Resurrection of Jesus. Elrond? Explain your reasoning for him.

[The Mouth of Sauron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Does anyone think Tolkien effectively stole many of his ideas from the Bible? Examples are the Balrog - Satan; Saruman/Grima - Judas; Gandalf the White resurrection; Elrond - Jesus?

No .

Originally Posted by The Mouth of Sauron

No .

Your contribution was been well established. I look forward to handing you the title for winner of ''The Post of the Barrow Downs Award''.

[mark12_30]

The first N posts: Character oriented. Some quick notes, although I don't think the meat is really here, and I don't want to get bogged down.

the Balrog - Satan;{or} Melkor-Satan

Melkor gets my vote.

Saruman/Grima - Judas

Hmmm. Not quite; although Grima is a better possibility than Saruman. I'm still mulling this one over, and could be prevailed upon to expound... for Fea in particular, if she asks us nicely, preciousss. The other treasonous varmints to consider are Smeagol/Gollum, and, Denethor. Hoom. Smeagollum is worth some more thought-- after some more homework. EDIT: Actually, Boromir is also worth considering. (My poor Boromir!) (end edit)

Gandalf the White resurrection

Well, yes, but not the resurrection of Jesus. There are several resurrections in the scriptures. This is worth taking a closer look at later. Remind me.

Elrond - Jesus?

Again, not the similarity I would have focused on-- although Elrond's role in healing, preaching, history-linking, and counsel is certainly notable, it doesn't shout "redeemer" to me. Maybe "prophet." Healings happened under more hands than Jesus' alone. Elrond reminds me more of Elijah & Elisha than he reminds me of Jesus. .

Originally Posted by Mansun

Another important comparison is the ending to the LOTR - Gandalf passes into the far green country where the undying lands await. Does this not ring bells as to where Jesus ends up when he has done his tme on earth? Tolkien was a devout Christian I can imagine.

The very word paradise, means garden. This is a whole interlocking, interlacing theme throughout scripture. It probably also shows up in other myths-- I can't speak to that; but I can definitely speak to the scriptural theme. More later if folks are interested.

Now, post number 8:

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Though I hadn't noticed the correlation between Elrond and Jesus before... I usually see Jesus in Aragorn. The child, raised by his mother and one not his father; one who did great things for his lands; one with compassion, with the hands of a healer; one who descended into the terror of the lands of the dead to bring those there into light; one who compelled strength and hope into those around him; one that was loved and trusted by nearly all; one willing to die so that others could live; the King that Returns.

Could hardly have said it better myself. I tried, about ten years ago, and this is stil posted on my old website:

From an obscure-- but ancient and royal-- lineage, a prince rises. He keeps his lineage secret. He is faithful to a fiancee (1) and a life-vision (2) that he has had since he was a very young man. He carries a sword (3) before which the darkness gives way; he has a name (4)-- the Heir of Isildur-- which the darkness fears. After numerous journeys, skirmishes and battles (5) with the darkness, in which his character is proven practically fautless (6), he travels--- three days (7)--- on the paths of the dead, bringing a spiritual, ghostly host with him when he emerges (8); fights a battle beside them against the darkness; he then releases the souls from their bondage to go in peace.(8) He continues against the darkness until he is at the very gates of the kingdom of darkness. At this point in time, the kingdom of darkness is defeated (granted, not by the prince directly, but he is there when it happens.) All of Middle Earth is released from the authority of Sauron.(9) (However, there are pockets of resistance left over that must be cleaned up. In a similar vein, we are released from the authority of Satan; his power is broken; but there are still battles to be fought.) The prince then returns to the seat of his fathers(10), claims his throne, sits in judgement, and then marries a bride (11) (a bride that has the heritage of eternal life, although she chooses to forsake it and become mortal. The parallel fails there.) Together, they reign in peace over a prosperous and joyful kingdom. (12)

1. The church, not formed yet during Jesus' ministry, but clearly foretold.
2. To win the Kingdom back so that he can marry the bride.
3. The Word Of God.
4. The Name of Jesus.
5. The ministry of Jesus.
6. The sinlessness of Jesus.
7. "Just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale..."
8. The "Harrowing of Hell"-- release of Hell's captives.
9. Satan defeated by the cross and resurrection of Christ-- destruction of Satan's power.
10. Minas Tirith-- Jerusalem.
11. The church.
12. The post-millenial reign with the church (after the judgement.)

Originally Posted by Fea

And why must each borrowed character have only one place in a story? Does there really have to be just one Satan? Why not multiple? Why not several heroes? Why not several Christ figures?

A very, very perceptive point-- especially since, in the Old Testament, there are a bunch of them. They are not allegories (achoo.) They are imperfect Types. ONe aspect of their life forecasts a specific trait of the messiah. Obviously the Types have their faults (otherwise they'd be sinless.) However, taken together as just Types, the Types give a cumulative portrait of the expected one. Off the top of my head,
Biblical OT Messianic TYPES:
Adam-- the first of a new race. (Christ is the first (and firstfruits) of the New Creation..)
Noah: End of the old creation, beginning of the new. (According to Paul, a symbol of baptism -- passing through death to new life.)
Isaac: (The Son of promise, (almost) sacrificed. Redeemed.)
Joshua: (Ushers in a new kingdom. Jesus is named after Joshua.)
David as Shepherd. David as worshipper. David as King. Solomon as King. Daniel. Jonah. Hoseah. I'm missing some. Anyway you get the point. More than one forecasting Type is not only allowed, but required to form the broader picture.
So Fea's question is extremely perceptive, and yes I'd be happy to elaborate. Bottom line, I see three main pre-messianic Types, each forecasting a different Messianic aspect. Aragorn forecasts the kingly aspect, Gandalf the prophetic aspect, Frodo the sacrificial aspect. And no, none of them are complete picture in and of themselves; but taken together, the picture begins to form-- as it does with the OT types.

Phew! I'm only on post number 8 ?!?!? Moving on. Post number 10:

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Gandalf died to save his companions from the balrog. Because of this, and because his quest was not yet fulfilled, he was resurrected. Jesus died and came back to save mankind from their sins. I'd say this is a significantly different motive. It is a resurrection, but not 'The' resurrection.

Correct. Neither is Aragorn's emerging from "three days in the belly of the" paths of the dead. Neither is Frodo's being stung into unconsciousness by Shelob, waking up to hellish torture, and then waking up again at the call of a loved one's voice. Neither is Frodo's being lifted off of Hellish Mount Doom, unconscious, and borne off by eagles to sit on Aragorn's makeshift throne at the field of Cormallen. However, they make pretty good Types. Not allegories; no-no-no, don't go there! But Types? Yes. Highly applicable Types.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Preaching and counselling was not everything Jesus did in his life, so I don't see the connection. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the bible to tell whether one of the prophets of the old testament could have a similarity to him.

I believe Macalaure was referring to Elrond here? In which case, I've already agreed with him. Very Elijah-Elisha-ish. Now, this begs the question: Did Tolkien steal Elijah-Elisha from the bible and squeeze him into the pages earmarked for Elrond? Hardly. More on this later.

Post 12, from Boromir88, and I paraphrase: :

...egads, don't use the word allegory

To which I also agree. Tolkien didn't want to shove anything down anybody's throat; that wasn't his style. No allegories. Allegories Nyet.
Post 13, Fea: You make me smile.

Originally Posted by Gurthang'sPost14

Now, as far as specifics are concerned, I can see some. There could be strong cases made that Gandalf, Aragorn, and even Frodo were Christ-like. A case could even be made that Elrond was also. I wouldn't initially make that connection, but links between the two do exist. Although, I don't think any of them could really be said to represent Jesus.

Amazing. And I've never lectured Gurthang. Ever!

Originally Posted by Gurthang'sPost14

Although, I do say otherwise about Melkor. He, in my mind, exactly represents Satan. Sauron does also. Their aspects of being good at one time, falling into evil, often appearing likeable or pleasant, but deeply desiring to hold and corrupt everything sounds extremely close to the story of Lucifer that I've heard. In my mind, Melkor and Sauron directly represent Satan.

Melkor I've already agreed about. While Sauron comes close, he's too vulnerable to tactical defeat via physical destruction of the Ring. Melkor (versus Earendil) on the other hand, was a spot-on Foreshadowing..

Originally Posted by LalwendePost15

You can't deny that things such as his faith will have had an influence but at the higher, deeper level in forming archetypes to work from

Aaaahhh, now we come to it. Archetypes and myth. Hold that thought. And kudos to Lal for bringing it up.

I suppose we could say that some of the characters that seem Biblical could equally be from similar archetypes found in say Norse myth.

Yes; but read On Fairy Stories and read Mythopoeia, to see that Tolkien believed all myths point to the One True Myth.

The point is that the mind is a big old stew and influences definitely come through, but Tolkein did not intend them as allegories of certain Biblical characters.

Mustn't say the a-word. Agreed. No allegories here.

Originally Posted by TheOnlyRealEstel_post16

No, Tolkien didn't "effectively steal" anything from the Bible because he wasn't trying to. As others have said, Tolkien seemed to be a firm believer in leaving things up to the mind of the reader (applicability rather than allegory) instead of leading their minds to a certain point. Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se.

That said, I think you can draw many similarities (obviously). There are several reasons for this - the most obvious being that you can find similarities anytime, even when there aren't any. But also, I think there are parallels that are in Tolkien's books, whether he meant them to be or not. You can not be so devoted to something (his faith) without it seeping into what you do.

In my opinion, this agrees quite nicely with most of the above, except perhaps my enthusiastic, specific, one-to-one endorsement of Melkor as Satan. But Estel isn't done yet:

I agree. I don't quite see the Balrog=Satan line of thought either. Considering there were mainly Balrogs, I'd think they represented more the "fallen angels" that followed Satan when he was cast out. Of Sauron & Melkor, I'd say that Melkor more directly paralleled Satan because he was cast out by Illuvator & really was the beginning of evil in Tolkien's world. Sauron was simply a pawn of his (though a powerful one).

Another agreement.

However, in the interest of a good night's sleep I think I will pause here at Post 16. Grace and peace, all.

[davem]

Well, firstly, as regard's Mark's quotation from Mythopoea – I have to say that I am not arguing with the possibility of some kind of spiritual dimension to LotR, that it may provide an open minded reader with a glimpse of something 'more'.

As to her list of Biblical figures who are similar to LotR characters, are we talking a deliberate taking up by Tolkien of those specific characters into his secondary world, or simply an example of 'applicability' due to some, often vague, similarities? I don't think the former can be the case, as Tolkien specifically denied 'inventing' very much of the story. Hence, it seems we are dealing with a case of the 'leaf mould of the mind' – Biblical figures & imagery were part of the subconscious store he drew on, along with myths, legends, fairy stories etc.

The fact that one can find such correspondences with Biblical figures does not prove the work is 'Christian' any more than the fact that one can find correspondences with Pagan figures proves it is a Pagan work.

[Lalwendë]

I think the chief sticking point here is this idea that all myths point to the truth, because yes, I can see aspects of certain characters reflected in Biblical myth (though not whole characters, who seem to have a distinct integrity within the separate cosmology of Arda) e.g. I can see the aspect of Gandalf that was 'reborn', though Gandalf is most definitely not Christ, he is Gandalf. However, there are as many if not more apsects which do not stem from Christianity, or which could equally be from other beliefs/myths/folklore.

However, as I say above, I know that I will be told again that all myths point to The Truth. I have to stick my neck out and venture to say that though Tolkien may have put forward this idea, it is by no means accepted by everyone, and possibly only by a small proportion of Tolkien readers. It is also a shaky argument which in order to accept ourselves, we first have to accept that Christianity is the only acceptable belief and that all others are just 'little copies' of it, and their followers are really just Christians. News - they're not. They're Moslems, Jainists, Wiccans, Taoists etc. But everyone is indeed under the same umbrella, yes, its just that its a bit more multi-coloured. The concept is basically similar to those put forward by Jung and Campbell of Collective Unconscious, but ring-fencing it in favour of one religion of the many available, which defeats the object of what Campbell suggests - that there is indeed one myth, but it cannot be 'claimed' by anyone. It belongs to us all, and we don't have to have a pass to get in.

It is also an idea put forward in a quite obscure text which Tolkien would not have considered would even be read by many (if any) of his fans - so my argument is that how would he have expected anyone to know, let alone accept this argument and system of interpretation. He simply gave us non-allegorical stories which he accepted could be read in any way. He kept his own interpretations under his hat (or in his desk ) because he did not wish to impose. He was not an evangelist.

Really, if we are hoping to pinpoint any Primary World 'messages' that he wants to put to readers, shouldn't we only be focussing on those texts he intended for us to read? If said messages can only be vaguely supported in principle by papers he determinedly did not publish or make otherwise generally available (and lecture notes are not such documents), then can we truly say that he wanted those messages to be read in that way?

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It is also a shaky argument which in order to accept ourselves, we first have to accept that Christianity is the only acceptable belief and that all others are just 'little copies' of it, and their followers are really just Christians.

Why this?
The way I understand it, which could certainly be wrong, the "One True Myth"-Theory just says that there is an amount of truth in every myth and religion and the "One True Myth" itself isn't equal to Christian Myth or any other, and it is approachable from Christianity as well as from every other one. Other myths and religions aren't copies of Christianity, but each contains a different component of the Big one.

And, of course, if Tolkien wanted the Lord of the Rings to point to this true myth, then it is no wonder that people find application in it, regardless of their religion.

It is also an idea put forward in a quite obscure text which Tolkien would not have considered would even be read by many (if any) of his fans - so my argument is that how would he have expected anyone to know, let alone accept this argument and system of interpretation.
...
Really, if we are hoping to pinpoint any Primary World 'messages' that he wants to put to readers, shouldn't we only be focussing on those texts he intended for us to read? If said messages can only be vaguely supported in principle by papers he determinedly did not publish or make otherwise generally available (and lecture notes are not such documents), then can we truly say that he wanted those messages to be read in that way?

I don't see why there shouldn't be elements or messages in it that Tolkien didn't expect people, or at least not the majority of people, to understand. He was also writing a book he himself would want to read, after all.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Why this?
The way I understand it, which could certainly be wrong, the "One True Myth"-Theory just says that there is an amount of truth in every myth and religion and the "One True Myth" itself isn't equal to Christian Myth or any other, and it is approachable from Christianity as well as from every other one. Other myths and religions aren't copies of Christianity, but each contains a different component of the Big one.
.

No - for Tolkien Christianity was this 'One True Myth' of which all others were flawed copies.

A case of 'There's only one True religion, & blow me! it just so happens its the one I'm already following. That's lucky! Imagine what a pain it would be if I'd been following the wrong one all these years. Looks like everybody else is going to have to change their religion but I'm ok to carry on as I am!' perhaps?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

No - for Tolkien Christianity was this 'One True Myth' of which all others were flawed copies.

A case of 'There's only one True religion, & blow me! it just so happens its the one I'm already following. That's lucky! Imagine what a pain it would be if I'd been following the wrong one all these years. Looks like everybody else is going to have to change their religion but I'm ok to carry on as I am!' perhaps?

Exactly why I think the theory is bunkum. It's terribly convenient that believers in this theory just happen to have chosen the right one; and I mean of whatever faith, I'm not just picking on one! However, nobody has to change their religion as the theory says, ultimately, we're all Christians, and so were our ancestors who built Stonehenge and so were the builders of Mecca, hey, even Pullman is one!

It interests me though, why would someone come up with such a theory? Is it to explain away a lack of comfort with a love for distinctly bloody Pagan myth while being devoutly Catholic? To forestall critics who would be horrified at world-building and playing God in an Act Of Literature?

Originally Posted by Fea

If we can suspend disbelief into declaring that Gandalf is Gandalf and not just a conglomeration of words on paper, surely we can suspend disbelief on religion long enough to think [openly]?

No, because this would require me to start thinking as though Christianity is the only acceptable Truth in this world, and I do not deal in absolutes. If I had the capacity to suspend my intellectual disbelief on any religion then I would follow it. However I strongly believe that no one religion has got the handle on the 'Truth' so that would be entirely impossible.

Accepting Gandalf as Gandalf takes very little suspension of disbelief as he is there on the page, crafted in words for me to see and hear, and he is part of an entire, coherent and entirely self-supporting secondary world. That's how Tolkien made him, and if he wished Gandalf (or any other character) to be viewed in the light of the Primary World, he should not have set them within an entirely self-contained, non-allegorical, Secondary World context.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

.....several tempting things.....

Ai Ai, Lal! Almost thou temptest me to leave my systematic post by post approach. Very tempting! But no. I shall resist.

I shall return to my post-by-post track...

But perhaps not right away. The sun is shining, the grass is drying, and my sons have been cooped up for far too long....