10 Commandments for Middle-Earth?

[The Saucepan Man]

I'll bet that there were people in Middle-earth who did not believe in Eru or, for that matter, the Valar.

Quite possibly, although they would be rejecting the first hand testimony from those who had interacted with the Valar. But this would no doubt have become more the case as the Elves passed to the West, the more direct connection with Eru and the Valar diminished and their existence became a matter of legend for those who did not retain faith.

[Bekah]

There are people on earth who have rejected first hand interaction with God. They have even rejected his Son.

~ Elentari II

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bekah and Saucepan Man,

It wasn't so much a question of believing or not believing, rather it was a question of knowing or not knowing. At least that was true by the late Third Age.

Certainly the Elves knew about the Valar and Eru. And Faramir's practice of standing and facing the West before meals also implies a knowledge, at least of the Valar, on the part of those Men descended from the Edain.

But what about the other peoples of Middle-earth, the great majority of people who lived at that time? Let's take the hobbits whom I'm most familiar with. Frodo and Sam were actually unusual in making their pleas to Elbereth. It almost seems that they grew in that knowledge as their journey progressed.

Shippey discusses the fact that Tolkien wanted to explore a world where people had to fight and give of themselves without really having assurances about what came after death. That is the situation most of the residents of Middle-earth were in. They had to go by the little voice inside them, because there weren't any formal "religious teachers or institutions or beliefs." By the Third Age, there were no temples or mounts to Eru as there had been on Numenor. Most of the hobbits had never heard the true tales of Elvish Lore. Indeed, until Bilbo translated them, they were not available in Westron in any organized way.

The good guys on Middle-earth are not distingished by their beliefs. Rather they are distinguished by their actions. In one of the Letters Tolkien states that, by the time of LotR, the good guys do not have formal worship. Instead the chief way of showing support for the cause of goodness was physical opposition to the incarnate figure of Sauron. It is deeds that formed the core of a "good" person in Middle-earth, not belief per se.

Tolkien also mentions in a footnote to this same letter that only a few hobbits familiar with Elves had any real idea about the Valar and Eru. Most simply hadn't heard and didn't know.

To tell the truth, I kind of like the idea of a world where people are judged and represented by what they do, and not just the words that come out of their mouths, since the latter may or may not reflect what is actually in their heart.

Cami/Sharon

[ April 23, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Bekah]

I agree, and if you will allow me, I belive Jesus said something of the same sort, with a parable about a guy who asked his sons to do something. The first guy said yeah, I'll do it, then didn't, the second said no, but did it anyway later on. Which was better? (Rhetorical question this time round.)

But they did know that they would go to the halls of Mandos. They probably had more certainty than us where they would go.

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, I agree with what you are saying, Child of the 7th Age. There most probably were denizens of the Third Age that had no real understanding of Eru and the Valar and so neither accepted nor rejected them. And the inhabitants of the Shire (on the whole) do seem likely candidates in this regard.

This fits in with what I was saying about beliefs being eroded over time, as the more direct connection with Eru and the Valar diminished. In the First Age and (largely) the Second Age, most ME inhabitants would have regarded the existence of the Valar (and by association, Eru) as a matter of fact, since there was a close interaction with those who had known the Valar (ie the Elves). As the Third Age progressed, and Elves became more reclusive and other communities grew up who had little contact with them (eg Rohan and the Shire), then that direct knowledge would have decreased. This process would then have accelerated as the Elves passed to the West. ME became a world of Men, who had no direct knowledge of Eru or the Valar and whose belief would therefore have had to have relied on faith rather than knowledge.

The good guys on Middle-earth are not distingished by their beliefs. Rather they are distinguished by their actions.

Absolutely. But, in terms of the original question, were their actions guided by any set of moral or faith-based imperatives handed down by Eru? My argument is that no moral imperatives (no killing, no stealing etc) were required because they would have evolved naturally, as communities came together, in order to ensure the survival of those communities. And no faith-based imperatives (obedience to Eru etc) were required because, originally, the inhabitants of ME had direct knowledge of the existence of Eru and the Valar and so either accepted or rejected them. As that direct knowledge diminished, it became a matter of faith, albeit derived from that original knowledge (ie teachings handed down from one generation to another). Where those teachings wee rejected, or where they were not (for whatever reason) passed on, then societies would have been free to develop their own beliefs.

I hope that makes sense. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Edit:

But they did know that they would go to the halls of Mandos. They probably had more certainty than us where they would go.

Well, Elves certainly knew their fate. But the same could not be said for Men, just as (absent faith) it cannot be said for us today.

[ April 25, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Bekah]

I was under the impression that men also went to the halls of Mandos, but perhaps I'll have to read the Sil again.

You know, we didn't have the commandments until centuries after God created the world, assuming that Genesis is true. [I don't think arguments about the validity of this book is appropriate right now.] Probably because until then, God had thought that we could get along without God having to spell out our duties (for lack of a better word) for us. So I just find that part of your post interesting, Saucepan Man.

Cheers,

~ Elentari II

[The Saucepan Man]

You know, we didn't have the commandments until centuries after God created the world, assuming that Genesis is true.

Good point, Bekah. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] In the same way, I would speculate that Eru felt no need to issue any Commandments by way of guidance during the period of ME's history covered by JRRT's writings, while belief in Him and His values were still based on direct knowledge of His existence. Perhaps, as that belief gradually became a matter of faith rather than knowledge, and increasing numbers of the peoples of ME turned away from it, He would have felt it necessary to issue Commandments of the type given to Moses.

Edit: Thank you Bekah, and others who have posted on this thread, for making me think in serious terms about the analogies between the Bible and JRRT's writings, much against my natural inclination [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] . I am now beginning to appreciate events such as the Downfall of Numenor and the despatching of the Istari much more as strategies implemented by Eru, through the Valar as His representatives on ME, to address a waning belief in Him and the values for which He stands. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Bekah]

Yeah. There are Biblical analogies, though I'm sure Tolkien didn't do them intentionally. His faith, however, was such a big part of him that they probably slipped out anyway.

Thank you. I like discussing this, because so far no one has flamed up about it. Well, that's one of the reasons... [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Another is that I happen to be Christian and it's interesting discussing something like this with people of diverse opinions.

~ Elentari II

[mark12_30]

up.

[Man of the Old Hope]

As was previously pointed out, the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue) have not yet been given because the First through the Fourth Ages of Arda constitute a mythical time before our historical time, and the Decalogue is firmly planted in historical time.

But to a large degree, the question and the responses miss the point of the Decalogue. We do not have in the Ten Commandments a universal moral code for humanity (however well such commands as "You shall not commit murder" and "You shall not commit adultery" work for creating stable human societies). The ancient world was replete with moral codes, usually promulgated by kings or philosopher-scholars (see, for example, the Code of Hammurabi). The Ten Commandments constitute part of what is understood to be God's revelation to and covenant with a particular people: the Jews. However "useful" they may be as a "moral code", the Ten Commandments cannot be abstracted from their context; i.e., the Torah.

The particularity of the Decalogue is noted right from the introduction of the Commandments, in Exodus 20:

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me."

There is no people in the First, Second, Third or Fourth Ages of Arda who have been so brought out of the slavery of Egypt.

[HerenIstarion]

EDIT:
And me thinking I've bumped this thread up! Thanks Helen . As for me, hasty is the word - I've read first page of it and haven't noticed it had two! But last comment in the Post Scriptum refers to the actual last post on the second page. I will not change original post for you to see my hastiness and following silliness. mea culpa
END OF EDIT

I see a good one, I dig a good one up...

But, to be honest, I stalked Estelyn down here

Possible patterns of future development for this discussion:

1. 10 Commandments (titular, hence mostly would-be-welcome) and actual instances of their application in the books
2. David Day and how much we dis/like him

cheers

PS. As for the last comment:

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me

compare with [imaginary] quote:

I am Eru the One, who brought you out of Beleriand, out of the house of ruin, you shall have no Sauron before me

Suppose it was quoted to Ar-Pharazon by Amandil?

But the point is, the Commandment does not imply Jews 'shall have no other gods' cause the one they have now have rendered them good service. The commitment is requested on the mere fact Lord is Creator, and men are creatures. The men need their God to exist (in M.E Flame Imperishable is what makes world Be). The reminder of deliverance just underlines Love the Lord has for his creatures, but 'you shall not have...' is not based on that - we would be obliged not to have others on mere fact we are His creatures, even if (God forgive) He were not loving us.

cheers