Thirty silver pennies in a fundamentally religious and Catholic work

[Balfrog]

Huinesoron


"If Tolkien had written 'thirty pounds', you wouldn't see a connection to the Bible. If he'd written about thirty silver spoons, you wouldn't see a connection to the Bible. If he'd written about nineteen silver pennies, you wouldn't see a connection to the Bible."

Not true. There would be only vague connections – yet still tangencies. One or even two tangencies aren't sufficient to put forward a credible theory (in general).


"The three words aren't distinct points which all have an innate Biblical connection - they are a single point which doesn't work at all if broken up."

Let's change the frame of reference of your single point to a new single point. That being the 'Judas Story'. Now we have five facts that possess associated tangencies. The three being '30' 'silver' 'coins'. The fourth being the 'full worth' of the money being put to good use (see below), and the fifth being an underlying 'theme of betrayal' causing the transaction in the first place. Five reasonably strong tangencies in total – which one might reasonably conclude form an important part of the 'Judas Story'.

So what significance does your 'single point' really have? It depends on your perspective and what you want to consider as the frame of reference of a 'single point' – yes/no? In other words your one point could be selected as '30 silver pennies' or the 'Judas Story'. Yet no matter what - there remain five fact-based tangencies in total. It is the number of 'tangencies' that are of importance – not the number or type of 'points' (which can be wholly arbitrary and dependent on the selector). That is where Ms. Seth is coming from – and I agree!


"we are told the full worth of the initial monetary loss, in the end, was put to good use"

"You're going to have to explain that if you want it to be believed, because so far as I can see, 12 pennies go to Bill Ferny (not noted as being a good cause), while the rest go to Merry and vanish from the story."

From TLotR - "But when news of the events at Bree came to Tom's ears, he sent them to Mr. Butterbur, who thus got five good beasts at a very fair price."


"and where did Tolkien explicitlt point out a connection between Butterbur and Judas? Or do you not think that King Solomon of Israel is a Catholic and religious figure?"

Ms. Seth's article doesn't directly connect Butterbur to Judas. I'm not sure where you're getting that from? There is a theme of betrayal – but Butterbur isn't the betrayer – nor is he likened to Judas.

Yes Solomon is a religious figure and is venerated among Christians - but I think we ought to be fair to Ms. Seth. Her entire essay was built around New Testament examples of the Catholic faith. And that's where I was coming from (sorry if I didn't make that clear). I remember, in another essay, she does discuss more ancient biblical connections and includes King Solomon. I think that would be the proper place to discuss your idea.


"In any case back to the issue at hand – if Morthoron can't or won't answer me, perhaps you can. In repetition then:

Was Tolkien learned enough to understand 30 silver coins was strongly associated to the Christian story?

Just give me an answer: Yes or No?"

"Yes."

Thank you for a straight answer.

The thing is after noting 'Yes' and 'such an obvious source' – you've kind of 'convicted' yourself. Any other suggestions must have a sounder basis with documented proof to overturn such an admission. For example: 'less two for food and lodgings' is pure speculation. Can you prove its two and not one or five? In other words, one can manipulate the math however one wishes to come to a value of '30'. A concocted mixture of amounts and mathematical calculations that cannot be related back to anything Tolkien documented or signed off on - is not good enough. Though I must applaud the logic and your effort!

Lastly Ms. Seth has precedence on her side. How can we brush that aside?

A specific physical object essential to Tolkien's sect of Christianity has definitely been deliberately included (namely Lembas modeled as sacramental bread). Moreover he tells us that the most important reason for its inclusion in his tale is the faith aspect. Indeed, there are more tangencies for the 'Judas Story' than the 'Sacramental Bread Story' within TLotR – as far as I can see. If Tolkien hadn't specifically confirmed it – no doubt that a waybread/religious connection would have been thought of as a ludicrous suggestion! Eh?

The fact that she has provided documentary proof that the work is 'fundamentally Catholic' and provided as precedence an example of Tolkien deliberately including a faith-based article in the book – should count for a great deal in any final judgement – that being yours, mine or any independent arbiter.



Morthoron

As usual – you evaded the question. Apologies will be accepted - provided you give an answer.

So once again:

Was Tolkien learned enough to understand 30 silver coins was strongly associated to the Christian story?

Just give me an answer: Yes or No?

If he wasn't – then by Godsteeth tell me why and provide some evidence?

If he was - then tell me why he put thirty silver coins into the story and why he decided to leave that in – even after editing?


I think I've said enough to Huinesoron to cover your points. Your post is, as usual, full of obsessive nonsense allegations. Once again, we can cover the 'shekels and stoned ox' in another thread. As a gentle reminder - this one is about 'thirty silver pennies' !

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Morthoron

As usual – you evaded the question. Apologies will be accepted - provided you give an answer.

So once again:

Was Tolkien learned enough to understand 30 silver coins was strongly associated to the Christian story?

Just give me an answer: Yes or No?

If he wasn't – then by Godsteeth tell me why and provide some evidence?

If he was - then tell me why he put thirty silver coins into the story and why he decided to leave that in – even after editing?

This is not a yes or no question, and it never was. The analogy/allegory you and your cipher Seth wish to force on the situation does not apply to the story at all. The story line does not in any sense require a betrayal and blood money; ergo, reference to Judas' 30 silver coins does not apply. There is no reference to the allegory in Tolkien's letters, and no sense of him needing the allegory to make a plot point in the first place.

There is no need for editing when there is no applicability. And it is not applicable. Nor is it symbolic. You and your imaginary friend Seth are trying to foist a plot point that is not at all necessary to the telling of the tale.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

I think I've said enough to Huinesoron to cover your points. Your post is, as usual, full of obsessive nonsense allegations. Once again, we can cover the 'shekels and stoned ox' in another thread. As a gentle reminder - this one is about 'thirty silver pennies' !

Again, thirty silver "pennies" is not applicable. You make a big deal about whether or no Tolkien was aware of the biblical story. Certainly, if that was the case, and it was something he inserted to prove a point, then "pennies" is not the medium for the allusion. There was no betrayal, and although the amount the Hobbits received may have accumulated to 30 coins of whatever denomination, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the biblical point of view.

It is up to you to prove your fallacy, and you have failed. Miserably.

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

In response to:

"This is not a yes or no question, and it never was."

It is my question – and I have asked for an answer. Period.

Unfortunately you are blinded by your own fierce desire to be 'right'. It appears you're losing sight of reality. If another person on the forum can see: “The fact that 'thirty pieces of silver' is such an*obvious*source for the 30 silver pennies” - how are you utterly unable to?

Now the first statement below is true, but once again you conveniently ignore Tolkien's desire to subtly include Christian elements in the tale.

"There is no reference to the allegory in Tolkien's letters, and no sense of him needing the allegory to make a plot point in the first place."

The following is just hot air. You can't prove what you've written:

"There is no need for editing when there is no applicability. And it is not applicable. Nor is it symbolic."

Apply an identical symbolism test to 'Lembas' and see if you would come to the same conclusion based just on knowledge from TLotR text. After you come up emptyhanded – then perhaps you can explain to us all why Elvish waybread had no religious connotations for the tale!

As for:

"It is up to you to prove your fallacy, and you have failed. Miserably."

That's just melodramatic nonsense – I've seen over and over again.

"Certainly, if that was the case, and it was something he inserted to prove a point, then "pennies" is not the medium for the allusion."

Please expand on this. I am interested in why pennies are not coins Tolkien would have used if alluding to the Gospel story in question. Please let us all know – what coinage is more appropriate!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Unfortunately you are blinded by your own fierce desire to be 'right'. It appears you're losing sight of reality. If another person on the forum can see: “The fact that 'thirty pieces of silver' is such an*obvious*source for the 30 silver pennies” - how are you utterly unable to?

Ironic. You come here ONLY to disembogue Priya'a prattle and then defend each post like they're Gospel -- as if all other explanations for your ipecacic epistolaries are exclusionary. As if....you, yourself, are the author. More on your evident duality later.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Now the first statement below is true, but once again you conveniently ignore Tolkien's desire to subtly include Christian elements in the tale.

"There is no reference to the allegory in Tolkien's letters, and no sense of him needing the allegory to make a plot point in the first place."

The following is just hot air. You can't prove what you've written:

"There is no need for editing when there is no applicability. And it is not applicable. Nor is it symbolic."

No reference. Ever. Which brings us to your next statement:

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Apply an identical symbolism test to 'Lembas' and see if you would come to the same conclusion based just on knowledge from TLotR text. After you come up emptyhanded – then perhaps you can explain to us all why Elvish waybread had no religious connotations for the tale!

There is a basis for Lembas = Viaticum because Tolkien directly references it. He stated readers “saw in waybread (lembas)= viaticum* and the reference to its feeding the will (vol. III, p. 213) and being more potent when fasting, a derivation from the Eucharist,” (Letter 213 to Deborah Webster); therefore, it is not merely yet another bit of clickbait for your half-baked articles. Oh, excuse me, not your articles, Priya Seth's articles. You are only the messenger of the Divine One, come to spread the unimpeachable Word to the heathen and backward Tolkien forums spread across the Internet. There is only one Seth and Balfrog is her prophet.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

"Certainly, if that was the case, and it was something he inserted to prove a point, then "pennies" is not the medium for the allusion."

Please expand on this. I am interested in why pennies are not coins Tolkien would have used if alluding to the Gospel story in question. Please let us all know – what coinage is more appropriate!

The biblical quote is "thirty pieces of silver", not "30 silver pennies". Modern biblical translations that reduced the amount of biblical archaisms and inserted more contemporary verbiage in its place may opt for "thirty silver coins", but then Tolkien would not have desired, nor were there many "modern" translations of the bible handy during his adulthood, and certainly not prior to Vatican II, the Second Vatican Council formed by Pope John XXIII in 1959.

Therefore, "thirty pieces of silver" which would be the correct phrase throughout Tolkien's life, denotes blood money and unholy, abominable betrayal. I just don't see the allusory nature of the purchase of ponies to be equivalent to the betrayal and ultimate crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and I am an atheist.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

PS: Balfrog, people would be much less likely to accuse you of being a sockpuppet of Ms. Seth if you visited the Downs on days other than the days you post new articles from her. Waiting a month for your replies doesn't build a lot of goodwill.

Ah, but that's the crux of the biscuit, or the crux of the cram in this case.

Please, peruse the posting history of Balfrog. He/she/it is spam, only posting the URLs to Seth articles, and only posting thereafter within threads about the articles themselves -- never a separate post to show he/she/it is human, or gives a damn for this forum. If it weren't for the Tolkien angle of each entry, and was instead spamming regarding cut-rate Canadian Viagra(TM) or knock-off Chinese Coach accessories, he/she/it would be banned months ago.

Rather than admitting he/she/it is in fact the author of these Tolkien hit-pieces, he/she/it has instead chosen an alter-ego, an acolyte named Balfrog who will defend her honor without admitting the rabid justifications for each tortured theory and hypocritical hypothesis lies in the fact that defending her own articles would be absurd in extremis. It is much easier to pretend she actually has a fan who posts her articles -- like clockwork and without fail -- rather than deign to admit that she has to shill her own work from site to site.

[Balfrog]

Huinesoron

Whatever 'amount' Tolkien originally drafted might, or indeed might not have, had bearing on his final decision. We have made some progress though. If we can conclude he was aware of the resulting connotations at the time of change and declined to alter the amount through the long years before publishing, then the primary reason for retention would have been a desire to keep the work “fundamentally ... Catholic” in line with the 'lembas letter'. That seems to have been a surpassing desire - beyond any appealing math. However this does not constitute allegory!

Looking back at the phrase 'fundamentally religious and Catholic' from Letter #142 – I'm wondering why he didn't just say 'fundamentally Christian'. Why the emphasis on Catholicism? Since Catholicism arose in Jesus's time and the sacrament of bread is also part of the Catholic ritual – I'm wondering whether Tolkien's focus on inserting symbolism was more geared towards the New Testament. The 30 silver pennies would certainly then be aligned with lembas and the other allusions Ms. Seth provided in our essay of interest – as she does focus on the 'Gospels' – especially one might note the essay title.

The 'lembas letter' all the more drives the weighting towards New Testament stuff rather than the 'Gollum and the Ox' of the Old Testament – a small but significant matter in assessing the evidence of precedence. You are wrong about me not wishing to consider other potential Christian allusions. I am happy to do so if you open up another thread (as I asked Morthoron to do – and which he has so far not done).

Yes as you quite rightly point out the lembas stuff is ludicrous in comparison to the 30 silver pennies. All the more power to Ms. Seth's article. I think though we have reached a reasonable position - that being Tolkien would have been very much aware of 30 silver pieces being one of of the most fundamental aspects of the Christian story. Thus 30 silver pennies was a likely symbolic inclusion.

I wish I could post more regularly (maybe more so after retirement) – but my current circumstances prevent me from doing so. I did commit to Ms. Seth that I would review her work, discuss her essays and make some of the Tolkien community aware of them. I struggle to even do that. But 'puppet' or not – that is no excuse for hostility and ill will.


Morthoron

Another cracking post! More than half of it dedicated to spouting off about inconsequential stuff instead of focusing on that which matters. Full of the usual drivel.

How I love to laugh at your silly attempts to find out wherether I have a pseudonym, aliases, etc.
As if anyone really cares – and as if it really makes any difference in discussing Tolkien.



As usual you evaded my continually asked questions for the nth time. So here we go again - in bold:

“Was Tolkien learned enough to understand 30 silver coins was strongly associated to the Christian story?"

Just give me an answer: Yes or No?"

And to add to that:

“Are pennies coins?" Yes or No?

Bottom-line: you do not know Tolkien well enough to declare "pennies is not the medium for the allusion."

Most normal people instantly know that pennies can be equated to 'coins' and that 'pieces in the Gospels were 'coins'.
Most people know that 'pennies' is a heck of a good match with 'pieces'. Far better than notes, trading beads, iou's etc.
Thus most normal people know that 30 silver pennies equivalence well with 30 silver pieces.

Those who are true Tolkien scholars equally know that “pennies” is approriate for Shire coinage and that an exact word-for-word biblical match would have been unlikely since JRRT stripped out overt religious references. But it is symbolism that's of utter importance – however for some strange reason you unable to bring yourself to admit that 30 silver pennies could be symbolic.

“For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.” Letter #142

You can twist and turn and writhe all you like – but 30 silver pennies is close enough to symbolically represent 30 pieces of silver” in my eyes and I suspect – most others.


Please keep the rubbishy character defamations spewing – because I look forward to every reply.
I take it mostly as a joke – as I never know which parts of your posts are serious!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

How I love to laugh at your silly attempts to find out wherether I have a pseudonym, aliases, etc.
As if anyone really cares – and as if it really makes any difference in discussing Tolkien.

Evidently, as you are unable to counter the accusation, then it is true. You are a fraud.

And I think many folks here do think it matters. I think that as the actual author of the pieces you are trying to shill, it is disingenuous to use a sock puppet to defend your silly theories.

Pretending you are a fan (when it's obvious no fans actually exist) just so you can spew your click-bait on Tolkien forums is bad form.

[Balfrog]

Morthoron


"Evidently, as you are unable to counter the accusation, then it is true. You are a fraud."


What a bunch of clap-trap. Yep - as usual you are wrong!

But just to appease your endless silly accusations that nobody gives a hoot about – here we go. Below's a link to a conversation between Priya Seth and Hammond and Scull back at the very beginning of 2015 – about a year before she even started her web articles.

https://wayneandchristina.wordpress....da-corrigenda/


Satisfied now??? Are you going to apologize or at least admit you are wrong? Or are you going to slink-off quietly just like when your knowledge was found to be lacking by proclaiming Tolkien never-ever used the word 'cockney'?

Of the 'giants' in the literary field of Tolkien studies– very few decide to become forum members and actively post. From what I can see, when they choose to discuss Tolkien – it's done via essays, books and their own personalized web-sites. And even if Ms. Seth did post here – I have little doubt that you'd claim it was Balfrog in disguise.

So tell me:

Are you a fraud because you hide behind a fictitous name?
Are you a click-baiter – because each and every time you post – you advertise your personal web-site?

Wow – talk about the pot calling the kettle black'!


"I am an atheist"

I didn't ask for your religious persuasion – and to be honest – I really don't care. I have little doubt – those who are Christians view Tolkien's TLotR (a fundamentally Catholic work) from a different perspective than those of other faith. As an atheist – I would not expect you to 'see the light'!

As far as I'm concerned Ms. Seth's work constitutes some of the most interesting and revealing articles I've ever seen on Bombadil. The depth she has gone into and the matters she has exposed are stuff well-worthy of discussion. Her essays are about as far from 'spam' as you can get. Singling out two essays in particular – Names, Nymphs and Nature's Lilies, and Match Me a Bilbo in London – these are real eye-openers with genuine substance behind them.

To boot she has provided logical reasoning behind Tolkien's development of Tom Bombadil as well as the missing links to a very important part of the story-line. And I agree with her – after leaving TB, the 'hill episode' (till now) has not been understood by every reader of TLotR – bar the author himself.

I accept that the articles are not for everybody; but with your rigidity – such as being utterly unable to even rationalize the idea of Tolkien deliberately inserting mythological links to a 'green girdle' or '30 silver pennies' being a symbolic allusion to a Christian happening – they definitely are not for you.

Whatever you had fixated in your mind about Tom Bombadil – its seems you are unable to rewire. That or you find it hard to embrace how some folk out there are even more passionate about Tolkien than yourself and possess greater knowledge. Many people have waited a lifetime hoping someone will figure out Bombadil. No – not everything has already been discussed. And yes most forum members, I'm sure, are open to - and want to hear new ideas. Trying to savage the messenger and denigrate the writer through needless and baseless accusations is so .... childish.

Recommendation: Focus on the scholarship within the articles themselves!

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Huinesoron
The thing is after noting 'Yes' and 'such an obvious source' – you've kind of 'convicted' yourself. Any other suggestions must have a sounder basis with documented proof to overturn such an admission. For example: 'less two for food and lodgings' is pure speculation. Can you prove its two and not one or five? In other words, one can manipulate the math however one wishes to come to a value of '30'. A concocted mixture of amounts and mathematical calculations that cannot be related back to anything Tolkien documented or signed off on - is not good enough. Though I must applaud the logic and your effort!

Emphasis added, because this is precisely what I suggested Tolkien did:

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

When Tolkien came by and decided to specify that Ferny had indeed charged triple, he needed new numbers. Two pennies is ridiculously low for a pony, so he doubled it. That means Ferny would charge 12 pennies, and Butterbur would pay Merry (5×4=) 20 - less two for food and lodgings, that comes to 18.

When he saw that basic maths led to a value of '30 pieces of silver' - or perhaps even 32, from which he subtracted two to make the reference stick - I'm sure Tolkien had a quiet chuckle to himself, and kept it in thereafter. But, taking the original draft into account, it seems highly likely that the reference first appeared by chance, falling out of a basic mathematical function.

In other words, taking into account the fact that 'thirty pieces of silver' is a common-use phrase, and the fact that Tolkien did not originally use it, my hypothesis (never a theory, for there's no direct evidence) is this:

-The original draft said Butterbur gave Merry 26 pennies, split as 6 for Bill the pony and 20 for everything else.
-In editing, Tolkien realised that this made the price of a pony rather silly, so he tweaked it to 4 pennies per pony: thus 12 for Bill, 20 for the others.
-Realising this came to just over 30 silver pennies, which would be an amusing biblical reference, he subtracted two to make it fit.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

A specific physical object essential to Tolkien's sect of Christianity has definitely been deliberately included (namely Lembas modeled as sacramental bread). Moreover he tells us that the most important reason for its inclusion in his tale is the faith aspect. Indeed, there are more tangencies for the 'Judas Story' than the 'Sacramental Bread Story' within TLotR – as far as I can see. If Tolkien hadn't specifically confirmed it – no doubt that a waybread/religious connection would have been thought of as a ludicrous suggestion! Eh?

An interesting counterfactual! As it happens, I agree that the idea of a connection between lembas and the sacramental bread is pretty ludicrous. The whole purpose of the host is to be representative of Christ's sacrifice, and/or to actually become the Body of Christ. This is completely unrelated to lembas, which can only be connected to it by very vague ideas - the fact that it's given out on special occasions, and the fact that it's good for you. Lembas has about as much relation to Communion bread as does birthday cake!

Except Tolkien said it, so we have to assume he was telling the truth. Fine, he's the author, he knows what he was thinking when he wrote the book. On that information, it's interesting to note the other magical elven food is an alcoholic drink similar to wine. It wouldn't be a stretch - given the specific connection of 'elven food = Mass' has been explicitly drawn by Tolkien - to speculate that miruvor is part of the same imagery.

But your assertion is (or is coming across as) that any religious analogy that can be drawn more firmly than 'lembas = sacrament' must be accepted as true. Unless it's the one about Gollum. Or the one about oxen.

Tolkien was Catholic, and deeply religious. Imagery from that was always going to make its way into his works, from the local variant on "Let there be light!" down to Finrod Felagund's vision of 'a new heaven and a new earth' in Arda Envinyata. But the use of that imagery does not mean that the story is allegorical, any more than Star Wars is an allegory for the history of the Samurai it was modelled on.

hS

PS: Balfrog, people would be much less likely to accuse you of being a sockpuppet of Ms. Seth if you visited the Downs on days other than the days you post new articles from her. Waiting a month for your replies doesn't build a lot of goodwill.