Maiar & Valar

[Minyacirith]

Call me stupid, but what is/are Maiar & Valar? Is there a difference? [Have not read Silmarillion in a while]
Wait! there IS a difference. I can't remember it though. smilies/frown.gif

You shall not pass! ~Gandalf to the Balrog

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Minyacirith ]

[*Varda*]

Well, *looks in Silmarillion*

About the Valar

Thus it came to pass that of the Ainur some abode still with Iluvatar beyond the confines of the world; but others, and among them many of the greatest and most fair, took the leave of Iluvatar and descended into it. But this condition Iluvatar made, or it is the necessity of their love, that their power should thenceforward be contained and bounded in the World, to be within it forever, until it is complete, so that they are their life and it is theirs. And therefore they are named the Valar, the Powers of the World.

The Great among these spirits the Elves name the Valar, the Powers of Arda, and Men have often called them Gods. The Lords of the Valar are seven; and the Valier, the Queens of the Valar are seven also.

Basically the Valar were made by Iluvatar, and some of them e.g. Manwe, Varda, Yavanna, Aule etc. went into Arda and shaped it and made it what it is.

About the Maiar

With the Valar came other spirits whose being also began before the World, or the same order as the Valar but of less degree. These are the Maiar, the people of the Valar, and their servants and helpers

Some Maia were Olorin (Gandalf), there was also Melian, to name but two.

Hope this helped a bit

[Aldagrim Proudfoot]

To sum up (no offense *Varda*) Valar are a higher order.

[Legolas]

The Ainur (the race of Maiar and Valar) are Eru's first creations...they came from parts of his mind, and are gifted in the area of that part's focus. Melkor was an exception...he had a bit of it all. They existed before Arda and helped Eru make Arda through the Music of Arda.

The greatest 14 of these Ainur rule Arda as the Valar. There have been 15 Valar, but Melkor, the "mightiest dweller in Arda, equal to Manwë in power," turned away from the mission of Eru to pursue his own agenda - Tulkas was sent as the fourteenth after his departure.

The Valar are...
Lords (Valar):
Manwë Súlimo - Greatest of the Valar
Tulkas Astaldo - Strongest
Lórien/Irmo - who the garden of Lórien in Valinor is named for (and obviously, the woodland in Middle-earth)
Aulë the Smith - Maker of Middle-earth and the Dwarves
Oromë/Araw - discovered the Eldar
Ulmo - Lord of the Waters
Mandos/Námo - Doomsman of the Valar

Queens (Valier):
Varda Elentári/Elbereth - Queen of the Stars, Manwë's wife
Yavanna Kementári - Queen of the Earth, Aulë's wife
Nienna - 'Lady of Tears', taught Olórin (Gandalf)
Nessa - Tulkas' wife
Vána the Ever-young - Oromë's wife
Vairë - weaves the tales of history
Estë the Gentle - Irmo's wife

The greatest eight are known as the Aratar, said to be equal in reverence:
Manwë, Varda, Ulmo, Yavanna, Aulë, Mandos, Nienna and Oromë.

Among the Valar, there are relations...
Oromë and Nessa are brother/sister.
Mandos, Irmo, and Nienna are brother/brother/sister.
Yavanna and Vána are sisters.

The rest of the Ainur (those not in the 14) are Maiar...some mentioned by Tolkien are Sauron, Gandalf (Olorin), Radagast (Aiwendil), Saruman (Curumo), Alatar, Pallando, Osse, Eonwe, Uinen, Gothmog and Durin's Bane (along with the rest of the Balrogs), Salmar, Tilion and Melian.

The Valar and Maiar live in Valinor in Aman.

[*Varda*]

no offence taken aldagrim smilies/smile.gif i think i went on a bit lol smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Minyacirith]

So you're saying that the Valar are, like, beings that control or direct different ... *looking for a good word-he can't find one* ... stuff about the world? like Ulmo is the ocean and stuff. That makes sense. So.. does that mean Melkor is the same as ... Lucifer? smilies/evil.gif
(I kind of expected *Varda* to know a little bit about the Valar. Well, I guess so!)

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Minyacirith ]

[Daniel Telcontar]

Although Tolkien didn't like allegories, I think we may safely think of Melkor as Lucifer. They were both the mightiest, and both rebelled, taking others of their kind (angels/maiar) with them. I myself have often made that comparison when thinking of what Melkor has meant for Middle Earth.

[Minyacirith]

Figured so. I can see why Men would think of Varar as gods & goddesses. Ulmo = Poseidon is the most clear. But if they think of themas gods, they haven't seen Manwe.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Minyacirith ]

[Daniel Telcontar]

That is also why Ar-Pharazon dared rebel against the Valar. He had no idea of their strength.

[obloquy]

Out of curiosity, Daniel, where is it said that Lucifer was the 'mightiest'?

[Ithaeliel]

I just learned something! Thank you Legalos!

[Daniel Telcontar]

I have not been able to find a quote of Lucifer being the mightiest, but Isaiah 14 says something of him, e.g. calls him the son of morning, and I have often heard him being called the mightiest. Also, who would dare rebel against the highest neing if not the second highest being?

I am sorry that I am not being able to give you any useful answer.

[Ruthwen]

Lucifer was God's favourite, so I expect he was the mightiest. I'm not sure, though. I still need to read Paradise Lost.

[Daniel Telcontar]

I also began reading, but for the time being Milton will have to wait. He does write some interesting things do. I think many could learn from reading it.

[Aldagrim Proudfoot]

Lucifer also means somethinglike "bright star" or something like that.

[Naaramare]

Lucifer: "Light Bearer". ^^ Actually an old Italian word, and probably a mistranslation in the Bible (he was Sammael, originally . . . ) but I digress

[Aldagrim Proudfoot]

Actually, the word Sammael isn't in the Bible either. He was cast down from Heaven though. I think people just said he was the best to try and figure out why he rebeled against God.

[Minyacirith]

The reference to Lucifer being the highest angel is in Ezekiel somewhere. Sorry, I'l have to look it up. Lucifer isn't NAMED, but that's who the passage is referring to.

[obloquy]

Where does it say that he was God's favorite?

[Aldagrim Proudfoot]

Do you know where in Ezekial?

[obloquy]

I think I know the portion you're talking about in Ezekiel. It's chapter 28, verses 11 through 19. But it appears to be a parallel drawn between Satan and the king of Tyre, and I don't see how it places Satan above all other angels. He is said to be 'the anointed cherub,' but he is not spoken of as 'favorite,' 'mightiest,' or even an archangel. Is this what you were referring to in Ezekiel, Minyacirith?

[merlilot]

If another person's input helps at all, I believe it does say somewhere that Lucifer was the mightiest.

And whether or not JRRT liked allegory, a lot of his work can definitely be seen as such, without stretching. Illúvatar = God. Melkor/Morgoth = Satan/Lucifer/whateveryouwannacallhim. Tulkas = Michael. Etc. Of course, whoever you say corresponds to whoever depends on your vision of both, but whatever. The Valar can also easily be set equal to pagan gods. Ulmo = Poseidon. Varda = Hera...You get it.

[obloquy]

Well, what would help is if someone could show me where the Bible says that. I realize that it seems to be generally agreed upon that Satan was originally the mightiest, most favored of angels; I am skeptical, however, that this concept is contained in the Scriptures.

[Daniel Telcontar]

Just wondering: Does it make any difference to you, if the scripture confirms or not about Lucifer?

[obloquy]

I would very much like to know.

It would also be good to clear up whether this notion which so many people agree upon is actually a Bible teaching.

[Daniel Telcontar]

I agree with that; When so many people agrees upon such a matter, it is a good thing to know if it is stated in the Bible.

We do know that Melkor was the mightiest, if that is any comfort to you, Obloquy.

[obloquy]

That I did know. =)

[Daniel Telcontar]

We must only hope that you are not the only one who knows, because then a lot of people has to start reading the Sil again, from the beginning. smilies/biggrin.gif

[*Varda*]

obloquy, if you really want to know, I'll try and find a reference somewhere. I kind of feel the same way as you, I want to know if it's actually stated somewhere or just a generally agreed upon theory.

[obloquy]

I really would, Varda. Thank you.

[Daniel Telcontar]

You have no idea what you have just gone into... Seriously, I used a loooong time looking through Ezekiel, and I did not find a passage fit enough. It may sound easy, but you will need luck, Varda. But thanks for doing this, we are becoming more and more interested. smilies/wink.gif

[*Varda*]

Well I've not found any particular references yet (if there are any). But this webpage might be useful, it has lots of bible references to the devil etc. and the answer could be in there somewhere.
http://www.bright.net/%7e1wayonly/satanprofile.html

[obloquy]

Like I said, I think the Ezekiel scripture that was referenced was 28:11-19, but it doesn't shed much light on the issue. I am not incapable of looking for myself, but I would like to know at least where I should be looking. Does anyone know that this notion comes from the Scriptures, or did you all just hear it someplace?

[Daniel Telcontar]

I would not trust that site to much, varda. They have made a mistake. Maybe it is just a typing mistake, but if not...
They say he is the ruler of the kingdom of air, but when you read the passage they use, you will notice that it has been misinterpreted. It says: When he used to follow the ways of the ruler of the kingdom of air (god), not that Satan is the ruler of air.
I do not trust a site that much, if they make such mistakes. But then again, it could be a typing mistake.

[*Varda*]

As yet I've found nothing that says Lucifer was the mightiest. I've found references that speak about his power and how perfect he was
Ezekiel 28 'You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty'
You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God;

In man's place, Satan became the temporary ruler of the world. The devil's temptation of Yeshua in the wilderness clearly shows this:

LUKE 4:5 Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish." (NKJV)

There's more info at http://www.aristotle.net/~bhuie/satan.htm

The article seems to show that Satan ruled over the world and was more powerful than all the other angels. Unfortunately the Bible is kind of hard to interpret.

Revelations also has some useful passages, but I don't think anyone will ever find a passage that directly refers to Lucifer as being the mightiest. But i'm interested now, so i might look for a while longer.

Since there seems to be no passage about this (or if there is, it's obscure and hard to find) why does everyone assume Lucifer is the mightiest? What led you to this conclusion?

[Thingol]

I've read Paradise Lost, and in the poem it states that Satan was the mightiest of the angels. Satan rebels after the prophesy of the coming of the son of God. (ie Jesus) Satan ddn't like being second to God, and he couldn’t stand being third. I’ve never read more than Genesis in the Old Testament and I know Paradise Lost isn’t a biblical writing, but Milton was a biblical scholar, and I trust him.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[*Varda*]

During another internet search i found this.

Isaiah 45:7 and Deuteronomy 30:15, however, pose a serious theological problem for Christians who maintain that God did not create Satan, the angel of evil. According to Christian doctrine, Satan was the highest ranking angel who, through his own act of spiritual defiance and outright disobedience, became the chief adversary and slanderer of God and the embodiment of evil in this world. In Christian theology God never created evil; He is only the author of righteousness and perfection, as you maintained in your question. Therefore, God could never create something as sinister as the devil himself. Rather, Satan’s unyielding wickedness is the result of his own spiritual rebellion.

found on http://www.outreachjudaism.org/satan.html

My main problem with this is that it doesn't actually give any references to any scriptures so there is still no real proof, it's just an opinion.

[obloquy]

but Milton was a biblical scholar, and I trust him.

Be careful with this line of reasoning.

The article seems to show that Satan ruled over the world and was more powerful than all the other angels.

Satan ruling this wicked world doesn't really have any bearing on his pre-rebellion position in Heaven.

[Bêthberry]

Greetings All,

If I could interject with a reference here and later return with a longer post of explanation....

Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton, has written on the historical development of the idea of Satan in The Origin of Satan.

She argues, with biblical references, that in the Hebrew Bible, Satan does not appear as he is known in later Christendom after Mark, as the leader of an 'evil empire.' (Her term) The word satan refers in Numbers and Job to a servant of God who plays an adversarial role in human affairs. It does not refer to a particular character, although a satan prods God to test Job. Slowly the word was used to account for the division and destruction in polical and social order in Israel, with the word being invoked to characterize opponents, so that ultimately, Satan became personalized as God's antagonist in the gospels, over whom Christ triumphed.

This is a crude summation. Sorry I'm in a hurry. I will provide some of her references later tonight. Perhaps someone else can find some online links to Pagels' work.

Bethberry

[Daniel Telcontar]

The word Satan means opponent. That is why the devil was given this name, since he is the opponent of God and humans. But Lucifer must have had a high rank, to lead an rebellion. Maybe not the highest, like Michael, but at least not far from him. Otherwise I doubt one third of the angels would have followed him in rebellion.

[Bêthberry]

Sorry for such a long post, but here are some sources about Lucifer/ the fallen angels.

Here's the entry from the online Catholic Encyclopedia on Lucifer: Lucifer

(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for "the light of the morning" (Job 50:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (II Petr. 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the "Exultet" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life. The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1:14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state
from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).


From the same source, on which angels are named in the Bible:

The only Scriptural names furnished of individual angels are Raphael, Michael, and Gabriel, names which signify their respective attributes. Apocryphal Jewish books, such as the Book of Enoch, supply those of Uriel and Jeremiel, while many are found in other apocryphal sources, like those Milton names in "Paradise Lost".

As I recall from my time doing research on Milton, Paradise Lost was placed on the list of books proscribed by the Church because of its doctrinal irregularities. Milton ain't Holy Writ.

And, finally, from the same source, here's part of the entry on 'Devil.'(There is no separate entry for 'Satan.') I think this makes clear how much of our knowledge of 'Lucifer' has Scriptural authority and how much derives from later theological developments.
Devil

(Greek diabolos; Lat. diabolus).

The name commonly given to the fallen angels, who are also known as demons (see DEMONOLOGY). With the article (ho) it denotes Lucifer, their chief, as in Matthew 25:41, "the Devil and his angels". It may be said of this name, as St. Gregory says of the word angel, "nomen est officii, non naturæ"--the designation of an office, not of a nature. For the Greek word (from diaballein, "to traduce") means a slanderer, or accuser, and in this sense it is applied to him of whom it is written "the accuser [ho kategoros] of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night" (Apocalypse 12:10). It thus answers to the Hebrew name Satan which signifies an adversary, or an accuser.

Mention is made of the Devil in many passages of the Old and New Testaments, but there is no full account given in any one place, and the Scripture teaching on this topic can only be ascertained by combining a number of scattered notices from Genesis to Apocalypse, and reading them in the light of patristic and theological tradition. The authoritative teaching of the Church on this topic is set forth in the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council (cap. i, "Firmiter credimus"), wherein, after saying that God in the beginning had created together two creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is to say the angelic and the earthly, and lastly man, who was made of both spirit and body, the council continues:
"Diabolus enim et alii dæmones a Deo quidem naturâ creati sunt boni, sed ipsi per se facti sunt mali." ("the Devil and the other demons were created by God good in their nature but they by themselves have made themselves evil.") Here it is clearly taught that the Devil and the other demons are spiritual or angelic creatures created by God in a state of innocence, and that they became evil by their own act. It is added that man sinned by the suggestion of the Devil, and that in the next world the wicked shall suffer perpetual punishment with the Devil. The doctrine which may thus be set forth in a few words has furnished a fruitful theme for theological speculation for the Fathers and Schoolmen, as well as later theologians, some of whom, Suarez for example, have treated it very fully. On the other hand it has also been the subject of many heretical or erroneous opinions, some of which owe their origin to pre-Christian systems of demonology. In later years Rationalist writers have rejected the doctrine altogether, and seek to show that it has been borrowed by Judaism and Christianity from external systems of religion wherein it was a natural development of primitive Animism (q. v.).

As may be gathered from the language of the Lateran definition, the Devil and the other demons are but a part of the angelic creation, and their natural powers do not differ from those of the angels who remained faithful. Like the other angels, they are pure spiritual beings without any body, and in their original state they are endowed with supernatural grace and placed in a condition of probation. It was only by their fall that they became devils. This was before the sin of our first parents, since this sin itself is ascribed to the instigation of the Devil: "By the envy of the Devil, death came into the world" (Wisdom 2:24). Yet it is remarkable that for an account of the fall of the angels we must turn to the last book of the Bible. For as such we may regard the vision in the Apocalypse, albeit the picture of the past is blended with prophecies of what shall be in the future: "And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: and they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him" (Apocalypse 12:7-9). To this may be added the words of St. Jude: "And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude 1:6; cf. II Peter 2:4). In the Old Testament we have a brief reference to the Fall in Job 4:18: "In his angels he found wickedness". But to this must be added the two classic texts in the prophets: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations? And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. But yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit" (Isaiah 14:12-15). This parable of the prophet is expressly directed against the King of Babylon, but both the early Fathers and later Catholic commentators agree in understanding it as applying with deeper significance to the fall of the rebel angel. And the older commentators generally consider that this interpretation is confirmed by the words of Our Lord to his disciples: "I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven" (Luke 10:18). For these words were regarded as a rebuke to the disciples, who were thus warned of the danger of pride by being reminded of the fall of Lucifer. But modern commentators take this text in a different sense, and refer it not to the original fall of Satan, but his overthrow by the faith of the disciples, who cast out devils in the name of their Master. And this new interpretation, as Schanz observes, is more in keeping with the context.


Now, what this has to do with Tolkien ....

Bethberry

PS. I am not saying this is the only reference. It is, however, an authoritative reference for Catholic Christendom and so is a place to start when trying to figure out where a tradition of interpretation comes from. Aside from the Bible, that is.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[mystra]

i thought they were the same thing. oops! smilies/biggrin.gif

[obloquy]

Quite hardly the same thing, mystra. =)

Yes, Daniel, I agree that Satan must originally have been of high rank (after all, the scripture in Ezekiel does call him "the anointed cherub"), but we have still yet to see any reason to call him mightiest or favorite.

Thank you, Bethberry, I hadn't thought to look to the Catholic Encyclopedia. It still doesn't show directly where the notion comes from, but I get some idea.

and reading them in the light of patristic and theological tradition.

Tradition seems to me to be a hindrance to Bible understanding.

Or perhaps it is from one or more of the apocryphal books, several of which are quoted in the article. There is a reason these books aren't included in the accepted Bible canon.

Now, what this has to do with Tolkien ....

Yes, I realize we're pretty far off-topic. Thank you for indulging me. I do agree with Daniel that, if we were going to parallel Tolkien with the Bible, Melkor would be Satan. It seems obvious enough. However, if this particular belief (that Satan was in origin mightiest or the favorite of God)is a Catholic teaching, Tolkien would likely have believed it, and therefore would probably have thought along much the same lines as Daniel did in his earlier correlation of Melkor's and Satan's pre-rebellion station among the angels.

[Bêthberry]

Here's what else I could find on Lucifer's status in the CE:

The language of the prophets (Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28) would seem to show that Lucifer held a very high rank in the heavenly hierarchy. And, accordingly, we find many theologians maintaining that before his fall he was the foremost of all the angels. Suarez is disposed to admit that he was the highest negatively, i.e. that no one was higher, though many may have been his equals. But here again we are in the region of pious opinions, for some divines maintain that, far from being first of all, he did not belong to one of the highest choirs--Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones--but to one of the lower orders of angels. In any case it appears that he holds a certain sovereignty over those who followed him in his rebellion. For we read of "the Devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), "the dragon and his angels" (Apocalypse 12:7), "Beelzebub, the prince of devils"--which, whatever be the interpretation of the name, clearly refers to Satan, as appears from the context: "And if Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? Because you say that through Beelzebub I cast out devils" (Luke 11:15, 18), and "the prince of the Powers of this air" (Ephesians 2:2). At first sight it may seem strange that there should be any order or subordination amongst those rebellious spirits, and that those who rose against their Maker should obey one of their own fellows who had led them to destruction. And the analogy of similar movements among men might suggest that the rebellion would be likely to issue in anarchy and division. But it must be remembered that the fall of the angels did not impair their natural powers, that Lucifer still retained the gifts that enabled him to influence his brethren before their fall, and that their superior intelligence would show them that they could achieve more success and do more harm to others by unity and organization than by independence and division.


You can go to the article on "Devil" for the various suppositions on what motivated the rebellion of the angels.

Bethberry