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.

[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.

[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.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

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.

Feanor I see your point but Mansun asked:

Does anyone think Tolkien effectively stole many of his ideas from the Bible?

My answer is 'No' I don't believe he did.

[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)

[Nogrod]

I would like to further Fea's point a bit more.

If we wish to find out a solution or an answer to questions like "is Gandalf / Elrond the Christ", "is Balrog / Melkor the Satan" we easily reduce pieces of art / literature to mere crossword puzzles...

= Fea
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.

I would just like to add to the "educational": fruitful, perspective-opening, refreshing, interesting, deepening, varying, ... you name it.

Anyhow, I'm not sure there needs to be a truth behind these things in the first place - how could there be?

[Boromir88]

Basically Tolkien didn't like allegories, or at least he denied vehemently ever using them:

...my mind does not work allegorically~Letter 144

The story is not about JRRT at all, and is at no point an attempt to allegorize his experience of life.~Letter 183

There is no symbolism or conscious allegory in my story.~Letter 203

There are several other places where Tolkien denies using allegories, but what he does say about them in his work:

Other arrangements could be devised accordingly to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and have always done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicablity to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ';applicability'; with ';allegory; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.~Foreward to LOTR

As you can pretty much do with any piece of literature, if you are looking for allegories, than you can certainly find them. But, whatever allegory can be applied, is up to the reader, and the reader alone:

Of course the L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and must now go its appointed way in the world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its fortunes , as a person would of a child.~Letter # 328

I much refer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers~Foreward to LOTR

With Tolkien it's up to the indivuality and 'mind' of the reader, it's the 'freedom of applicability.' So, while you can certainly find biblical reference (a long with several other mythologies and histories Tolkien was drawing off of). I would disagree with someone trying to make it an accepted view that Gandalf=resurrection, Aragorn=Jesus, or anything of the sort. As it all comes down to the applicability and the freedom of the reader to apply their own meaning...or that Tolkien was stealing ideas from the Bible, because someone may not interpret Saruman as being a 'Judas' Figure.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

someone may not interpret Saruman as being a 'Judas' Figure.

That's okay, darling. After all, no two people interpret the bible quite the same way either.

[Gurthang]

Interesting thoughts Mansun. I am inclined to believe as most have stated: Tolkien did not "steal" from the Bible. True, aspects of it can be seen in his work, but that does not imply plagiarism or stealing. This thread gives some excellant thoughts about the topic.

Metareferences and Intertextuality.

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.

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.

[Lalwendë]

No, Tolkien did not 'steal' anything from The Bible any more than he made use of influences from many other sources. Yes he was a Catholic, but references that seem similar to Biblical myth are not there on purpose any more than references that seem similar to Northern myth are there on purpose. Remember Tolkien filtered all his influences through his head and imagination and came up with his own, non-allegorical, tales. So he didn't nick anything, he just used all the influences swirling round in his capacious mind.

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; I suppose we could say that some of the characters that seem Biblical could equally be from similar archetypes found in say Norse 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. You need to read CS Lewis to find that for sure.

If we like to read them that way then there's nothing wrong in that, but I suppose a balance between our own interpretations and what Tolkien intended is important - otherwise you get either entirely personal interpretation (however wild and whacky) or you stick rigidly to Authorial intention and have no room to 'see' new things in the text. I think even Tolkien realised that readers would interpret things differently, as demonstrated in his many letters to fans - you get the impression that he was thinking "Hmmm! I never thought of that!"

Of course there's the infamous "consciously so in the revision", but even that statement is open to interpretation and doesn't mean that he sat down revising his text to turn it into a Christian text - or else it would become allegorical, the thing he said it was not, and everything would start to get very confusing!

I personally think that Tolkien wished the books to reflect his own moral system, i.e. Christianity, but this influence is just one of many. The charcaters have integrity as the characters they are - they are not rewrites of other characters, but this doesn't mean other characters influenced them and that the reader can't read what they like into it.

I guess I've summed up from what I've said before on this old can of worms. What surprises me is how often it comes up. Or maybe it shouldn't as I suspect Tolkien's work is getting close to the Bible in terms of big mythical characters that stay in the shared public consciousness.

[The Only Real Estel]

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.

Originally Posted by Gurthang:
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.

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).

Anyway, this subject, though a fascinating one in my opinion, could go on & on.

Originally Posted by Lalwende:
Or maybe it shouldn't as I suspect Tolkien's work is getting close to the Bible in terms of big mythical characters that stay in the shared public consciousness.

Well that depends entirely on your beliefs, which is not something we're allowed to discuss here.

[Nogrod]

= Lalwendë
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.

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.

I think Christopher Lee as Saruman refers to the Balrog as Satan in the movie. PJ certainly went for that image in the first movie, although not necessarily Tolkien.

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. He is also a true symbol for Good in Middle-Earth, lord of the elves.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Mansun

He is a master of healing, & has command of nature in his valley. One might almost say, he can perform miracles to an extent. He is also a true symbol for Good in Middle-Earth, lord of the elves.

While I see your point and I agree with it, by the logic of a symbol of Good and using the examples you've used, all Elves would be seen as Christ figures, would they not? The essence of Goodness. A light in their eyes, in their faces to see for those who can see it. All of them skilled healers, if not necessarily to the same caliber as Elrond. They do not care to endure Darkness, but it does not bother them as it would lesser beings, and Darkness cannot endure their Goodness.

And while Elrond is a lord of Elves, he isn't the lord of them. There were many, especially in the early Ages.

This is a race meant to embody Goodness beyond the world of men, in general terms. Do you think Tolkien would have made so many Christ figures, or do you think maybe that he merely took the greatest qualities of Goodness he could think of, not necessarily of Christness as such, but, being Christian and with very strong beliefs of right and wrong, good and evil, qualities of Christ, if you follow me, and gave them to the firstborn in that way?

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. Having Christ figures doesn't necessarily mean intentionally having Christ.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I think Christopher Lee as Saruman refers to the Balrog as Satan in the movie. PJ certainly went for that image in the first movie, although not necessarily Tolkien.

No it wasn't Tolkien's Balrog or it wouldn't have had wings.

It was John Howe's Balrog, if it had been Ted Nasmith's then it would have been wingless. Has Alan Lee ever illustrated the Balrog?

Anyway. If we wanted a Miltonic Satan in the books, I fear we'd be looking for some time, as Tolkien more or less paints his uber-Bad Guys (like Morgoth and Sauron, the Orcs) as just that, bad. I think he has to, as this ups the stakes in the struggles against them, and also enables him to get away with writing of a lot of Orcs being slaughtered!

A Miltonic Satan, however, has to be a bit seductive and gain the sympathies of the reader. If there's any character who comes close, for me it would be Saruman - and I would say that if we had to draw parallels with any vaguely Biblical figure for Saruman, then this is who he 'fits' best. However, you do have to have some degree of interest in Saruman, an appreciation that he wasn't necessarily evil but was just doing things differently (even if this 'differently' was not within his job description when sent to Middle Earth) - i.e. be 'taken in' by him to some extent, like I am! You have to find Saruman as a character attractive, and the fact that a lot (most?) of readers don't find him so, suggests that he is not a Miltonic Satan to most readers.

I suppose the other factor that's needed to 'see' characters as Satan or Lucifer is to accept the Ainur as 'angels' and I hold that they aren't, they are 'gods' wiht much greater power than 'angels', and they are also not sexless like angels. But I'll leave that thorny topic there.

But for something controversial, then let's look at the meaning of Lucifer - Morning Star or Bringer of Light. Who would that be in Quenya? Varda?

[Raynor]

As pointed previously, Melkor represents the fallen angel of the Bible - the most important difference being that Melkor introduces evil before the creation is completed (as noted by Tolkien in letter #212: "in this Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the World (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken ").

Concerning Gandalf being Christ, Tolkien stated:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

There is no 'embodiment' of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology. Gandalf is a 'created' person; though possibly a spirit that existed before in the physical world [...] Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Raynor

As pointed previously, Melkor represents the fallen angel of the Bible

And that's it... full stop? If Melkor represents the fallen angel, then he (?) represents it and that's settled. No need to think or try to open your mind on anything? We just have solved the crossword and the things are settled:

"So that was it, nice to know; now I understand it - peculiar the professor didn't tell it straight, isn't it? Went on to write an ambiguous story around that thing he wanted to tell us about, funny. Happily we can solve these meanings this nicely anyhow. Well, differences? Surely, but they can be accounted for and explained away as poetic license or something, you know those artists, always taking liberties and muddying the waters to make the reader struggle a bit before the final solution that is given to the gifteds and laborious enough; after all, we know now what he meant..."

???

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Though I hadn't noticed the correlation between Elrond and Jesus before...


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?

Do you see the correlation better now?

I never said that there should be just one borrowed character; the names of characters I gave were just examples which I thought reflected those in the Bible.

I also think ''borrowed'' might have been a better word than ''steal'' for the original thread question.

[Boromir88]

I also think ''borrowed'' might have been a better word than ''steal'' for the original thread question.

I don't think either word works out well. Tolkien didn't write a story to mimic or be similar to the Bible. The Bible, and his religion, plus his many interests of studies (Beowulf, Egyptian mythology, Anglo-Saxon...etc) all influenced his writing. But, he did not a write a book to mimic anything, he was creating his own story, his own world, with it's own unique history.

Anyone can find allegories, or references to past cultures all throughout Lord of the Rings (but you can also do this through any book, movie, piece of literature if you're looking for it). Gurthang provides a link to a good thread, there is nothing original anymore, everything that can be written has been written. And authors will either intentionally or unconsciously write about stories, histories, cultures, and what influenced them. But what's important to always remember is that most of the time a good author can successfully create a new world, or a new story, by drawing off of what influenced him or her.

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.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Boro

I don't think either word works out well.

I agree. (I was actually just posting that when I saw there was a new post on the thread stating that.... )

Originally Posted by Mansun

If there is one character I would liken Elrond to, it would be Jesus

This as an explanation to you suggesting that Tolkien stole/borrowed characters from the Bible sounds to me like that you wanted to liken elrond somebody and decided on Jesus. Or you wanted to liken Jesus to somebody, and decided on Elrond. 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. If we, for example, decide that Melkor is Satan and Gandalf is Jesus, we cease thinking of them as many-layered and variable characters; we simplify them to be just Satan and Jesus. That's dangerous; it that prevents us from seeing that there are other perspectives.
(Ok, don't tell me that Melkor wasn't even originally a very many-layered character... Hopefully you get the point.)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by me, me, me

But for something controversial, then let's look at the meaning of Lucifer - Morning Star or Bringer of Light. Who would that be in Quenya? Varda?

I'll answer my own challenge.

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

So.... What now, eh? Has this got anything to do with the price of fish?

Actually, I think Tolkien can't have been unaware that the Morning Star and Bringer of Light was also known as Lucifer! But did he aim to turn this on its head a bit by giving a good character's name that meaning?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Actually, I think Tolkien can't have been unaware that the Morning Star and Bringer of Light was also known as Lucifer! But did he aim to turn this on its head a bit by giving a good character's name that meaning?

Perhaps he wanted to show Lucifer as he should or could have been? A sign of hope rather than doom?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'll answer my own challenge.

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

So.... What now, eh? Has this got anything to do with the price of fish?

Actually, I think Tolkien can't have been unaware that the Morning Star and Bringer of Light was also known as Lucifer! But did he aim to turn this on its head a bit by giving a good character's name that meaning?

Well, to clarify, I didn't mention Quenya at all......Lucifer is the Light Bringer & is the Morning Star - as is Earendel. However Venus as the Morning Star was associated with John the Baptist in the Crist ('Eala Earendel, engla beorhtast..& all that stuff) as the Morning Star was a 'precursor' of the Sun.

I think Tolkien is using the latter 'myth'. not the former. So I will make myself clearer to Lalwende in future before I let her post anything

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, to clarify, I didn't mention Quenya at all......Lucifer is the Light Bringer & is the Morning Star - as is Earendel. However Venus as the Morning Star was associated with John the Baptist in the Crist ('Eala Earendel, engla beorhtast..& all that stuff) as the Morning Star was a 'precursor' of the Sun.

I think Tolkien is using the latter 'myth'. not the former. So I will make myself clearer to Lalwende in future before I let her post anything

We have such a pick of star myths to choose from. Then there is the Classical one. Orpheus, consumed by grief over loss of Euridyce (and the failure of his quest to bring her back), is taken by Apollo to the stars, from where he can view her forever. I suppose that Earendel doesn't quite view the underworld though, just Middle-earth and we know that Tolkien did not appreciate classical literature as much as Northern. (And, on the other hand, Frodo is given a similar kind of consolation in being taken West when he cannot overcome his despair. Could Frodo look back at Middle earth and see what was happening?)

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. These are traits not shared with Jesus. At least, unless we grant credence to the Da Vinci Code.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Tolkien didn't write a story to mimic or be similar to the Bible.

I see a huge difference between borrowing character types and borrowing storylines. Having a Jesus character is not the same as having a Bible story.

Originally Posted by Lommy

That's dangerous; it that prevents us from seeing that there are other perspectives.

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."

Originally Posted by Beth

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.

The problem with that idea is saying that I should be concerned with logic when making associations.

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

I see a huge difference between borrowing character types and borrowing storylines. Having a Jesus character is not the same as having a Bible story.

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."


The problem with that idea is saying that I should be concerned with logic when making associations.

I agree with the above statements. On many occasions there is no clear definitive answer, so ridiculing one notion is far worse as suggesting one.
If Tolkein never read the Bible, would you think The Lord of the Rings to be anything like as comparable to the Bible?

[davem]

This is all about applicability. If you see Elrond or Gandalf as a Christ figures I have no problem. I you tell me they are Christ figures I will argue. Just as if you say that to you LotR is an allegory of WWII I don't have a problem. If you say that Tolkien wrote LotR as an allegory of WWII I will feel obliged to show you that you are wrong.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."

Of course. (Hopefully I never denied that.) In my opinion, one can make allegories, but they shouldn't be taken as a truth.
I very much agree with davem here:

This is all about applicability. If you see Elrond or Gandalf as a Christ figures I have no problem. I you tell me they are Christ figures I will argue. Just as if you say that to you LotR is an allegory of WWII I don't have a problem. If you say that Tolkien wrote LotR as an allegory of WWII I will feel obliged to show you that you are wrong.

Originally Posted by davem

This is all about applicability. If you see Elrond or Gandalf as a Christ figures I have no problem. I you tell me they are Christ figures I will argue. Just as if you say that to you LotR is an allegory of WWII I don't have a problem. If you say that Tolkien wrote LotR as an allegory of WWII I will feel obliged to show you that you are wrong.

Knowbody is really saying that so & so are Christ figures etc. More to the truth is that some characters do have a Christ-like aura about them, so one may be entitled to question whether Tolkien was heavily influenced by characters in the Bible in is works. I for one believe that were it not for his experiences of the World Wars, as well as his interest in Christianity, the LOTR would not have been as it is today. It is possible that he may just have ended up with a longer but comparable tale to The Hobbit.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Knowbody is really saying that so & so are Christ figures etc. More to the truth is that some characters do have a Christ-like aura about them, so one may be entitled to question whether Tolkien was heavily influenced by characters in the Bible in is works.

They don't have a 'Christ-like aura' about them for me as I'm not a Christian. For me they are who they are, & are not 'in service' of any other person, real or imagined.

I for one believe that were it not for his experiences of the World Wars, as well as his interest in Christianity, the LOTR would not have been as it is today. It is possible that he may just have ended up with a longer but comparable tale to The Hobbit.

Its a truism that a writer's experiences will shape the kind of tale he tells. I'm not even sure that he woulld have written TH as he did (particularly the Battle of Five Armies) were it not for his wartime experiences - or his trip to Switzerland come to that. However, none of that is evidence of any conscious 'allegorical' element in any of his works.

It could be argued there's as much (if not more) of Odin in Gandalf as Christ, & a reader with a knowledge of Norse myth who was completely unaware of Christianity would possibly see Gandalf as having an' Odin-like aura'. Or one who read LotR first & then came to Christianity would possibly argue that Christ had a 'Gandalf-like aura'. All of which gets us precisely nowhere it seems to me.

LotR works because the Secondary World of Middle-earth is self contained, & has no dependence on primary world myth, religion or history.

As I said, if you want to see Gandalf (or Elrond or Aragorn or Frodo) as a 'Christ' figure, an 'Odin' figure, or a 'Mickey Mouse' figure I couldn't care less. If, on the other hand, you tell me they are that in their essence, I'll tell you you need to get some perspective.

Originally Posted by davem

As I said, if you want to see Gandalf (or Elrond or Aragorn or Frodo) as a 'Christ' figure, an 'Odin' figure, or a 'Mickey Mouse' figure I couldn't care less. If, on the other hand, you tell me they are that in their essence, I'll tell you you need to get some perspective.

If you couldn't careless, congratulations. You have managed to send lengthy replies even though you didn't careless. Likening characters & past events to the LOTR is all about opinions, where often there is no definitive answer. If there was, then there would be no point in most threads on this website existing. Most of Tolkien's work appears to show ambiguity in order to stimulate interest.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I for one believe that were it not for his experiences of the World Wars, as well as his interest in Christianity, the LOTR would not have been as it is today.

I think Tolkien says in the forward to The Lord of the Rings, something along the lines of

Originally Posted by The Professor

"An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous."

Elsewhere in the forward he explains how the story would have differed if it had been an allegory of the world wars. Also, I am of the opinion that, as a Christian, it is very difficult to leave God or anything there related, out of a work so vast and involving so much of a 'creation'. I cannot, of course, speak for Tolkien, but only from my own experiences in story writing that lead me onto that train of through.

[Macalaure]

I start to get the feeling we're all talking past each other.

Originally Posted by Mansun

More to the truth is that some characters do have a Christ-like aura about them, so one may be entitled to question whether Tolkien was heavily influenced by characters in the Bible in is works.

What exactly do you mean by 'Christ-like aura'. I can't do much with this term.
As many have stated, Tolkien was a Christian and thus of course not only influenced by the characters of the bible, but by the bible itself and its mediated values and ethics (not that these are unambiguous). Surely you can find traces of it in LotR and Silmarillion. The question is: are these traces intentional refers to the bible or just came about because their writer was a faithful Christian? Given Tolkien's dislike for allegory, I think we can rule this out.

Of all the Good free folk in Middle-Earth, Elrond to my mind represents Good better than anyone else (save Gandalf the White perhaps).

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. He is also a true symbol for Good in Middle-Earth, lord of the elves.

Whether Elrond or Gandalf are the best representatives for Good in the LotR is debatable, but okay.
But I don't think that being a symbol for Good alone qualifies for making a character Christ-like. Though I don't believe in him, Jesus to me represents a very specific kind of good: the Redeemer, mainly. This is a quality I don't see in Elrond at all, and only to a very small extend in Mithrandir (Frodo comes closest, to me). Many of the good characters in LotR have one or the other similarity to Jesus (Legolas did walk on water on Caradhras, didn't he? ), naturally, because the idea of Good that Tolkien had based itself on his Christian belief. But a copy of Jesus, or any other bible character, does not exist in the book.

I for one believe that were it not for his experiences of the World Wars, as well as his interest in Christianity, the LOTR would not have been as it is today. It is possible that he may just have ended up with a longer but comparable tale to The Hobbit.

Your first statement is self-evident, of course. But the second, well, that is a big may in there. I guess that by 'comparable to The Hobbit' you mean: worse. This is pretty unanswerable. It would have been different, of course. Who can say for sure it wouldn't have been better?

Likening characters & past events to the LOTR is all about opinions, where often there is no definitive answer. If there was, then there would be no point in most threads on this website existing. Most of Tolkien's work appears to show ambiguity in order to stimulate interest.

I resolutely disagree. An endless exchange of opinions without goal is pointless and boring, in my mind. There might not be a definitive answer, but that shouldn't keep us from searching for one. We can at least always discard opinions which are faulty.
(I'm not suggesting yours in this thread is by this)

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I resolutely disagree. An endless exchange of opinions without goal is pointless and boring, in my mind. There might not be a definitive answer, but that shouldn't keep us from searching for one. We can at least always discard opinions which are faulty.
(I'm not suggesting yours in this thread is by this)

I believe continuous exchanging of opinions is what helps us get to the ultimate goal - to understand Tolkien's works better by learning new things (so long as they are worthwhile arguements). Ridiculing opinions, to my mind, is the wrong approach. A balanced arguement is probably the best method. Agreeing or disagreeing is acceptable. But discarding???

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by me

I start to get the feeling we're all talking past each other.

I should keep to my own words. I don't think we actually disagree. What you call the ultimate goal to understand Tolkien's works better I called searching for answers even if there might be none - and by this understanding Tolkien's works better.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Ridiculing opinions, to my mind, is the wrong approach. A balanced arguement is probably the best method.

If you felt like I ridiculed your opinion then I apologise - honestly. That was not my intention at any rate.

Agreeing or disagreeing is acceptable. But discarding???

If you're able to prove an opinion wrong or incoherent, then discarding it is the only thing left to do. (Take an absurd example: "In my opinion elf women had beards." is a wrong opinion) In reality, sadly, one can usually achieve little more than rendering an opinion implausible, if at all.