The Lord of the Bible?

[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.

[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?