Christ in Middle Earth

[Durin1]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

Quick response: LOADS of difference. They're two completely different men, who had completely different lives with extremely little overlap in those terms. (The commonalities in their teaching is a different question). Buddhism doesn't believe in God, certainly not in the same way that Judaism and Christianity and Islam do, so even calling them both "men of God" in that sense is problematic. A bhodisatva CHOOSES to come back and enlighten others; a prophet or Christ were sent by a higher power.

As for the question of "better", no, I'm not. I'm pointing out that merely saying "goodness" or "good'" characters in LoTR are Christ-figures or Christ-like based on their goodness is as insufficient as saying that a character based on Buddha's life is the same kind of Christ-figure. They are not the same thing. There was no intended question of quality or anything of the kind.

FB

Thanks for the clarification FB, although I should have chosen my words more carefully since I am fully aware that Buddha and Buddhism practiced agnostism!!

BTW, of course I was talking about the commonalities of their beliefs and teachings rather than the obvious social and physical differences.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Durin1

As has been already said. The only similarity between the two is that both came back to life. However, their motives and methods were entirely different.
In which case, is he really a Christ-figure?

Well, IMO at least he is. You say the ONLY similarity? Well, that's the thing. The similarity between them is circumstantial (sp?) so this is more in favor of a comparison with Christ. If they were alike in a certain moral quality, I'd then be of the opinion that he's just a good man who resembles Christ because Christ was a "good man" too. But this is clearly not the case: Gandalf's resurrection is too reminiscient IMO of that of Christ to be a coincidence.

[Durin1]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Well, IMO at least he is. You say the ONLY similarity? Well, that's the thing. The similarity between them is circumstantial (sp?) so this is more in favor of a comparison with Christ. If they were alike in a certain moral quality, I'd then be of the opinion that he's just a good man who resembles Christ because Christ was a "good man" too. But this is clearly not the case: Gandalf's resurrection is too reminiscient IMO of that of Christ to be a coincidence.

But you still haven't explained the other similarities which specifically apply to Christ and Gandalf, other than they both returned to life.

BTW, Gandalf returned to life in the sense that his bodily form was returned to him and he continued to function pretty much the way he normally did, albeit with greater enhanced powers. I believe that when Jesus was "resurrected", he was only revealed to his close confidantes and didn't take any more active role in preaching to other people, but gave them the "Holy Spirit" (correct me if i am wrong).

[Attalus]

Interestingly, when I Jeevesed 'Christ Figure,' this was a part of one of the first hits:

When I posed the question about Gandalf, Frodo and Aragorn as Christ figures, I expected to get some flack about bringing Christianity into the discussion; but I DIDN'T expect any debate about the validity of the term "Christ figure" itself, since it's so well established in literary circles. But certainly, the "dying God" and "suffering servant" archetypes existed well before the historical Jesus, and I thank those people who mentioned them for reminding us not to take anything for granted. One thing I DIDN'T want to do in asking that question was try to impose my religious views on the rest of the board, and I think that everyone who responded to my post acted in similar good faith -- so again, I thank you all. :-) As for the actual responses to this question, it seems that those who focused most on the "dying god" aspects in LotR chose Gandalf as the best example, while those who focused most on the "suffering servant" chose Frodo.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Wll both Gandallf and Christ were sent from heaven (or paradise, this is a debatable point) to help the Earth. Both died in their actions and were resurrected. I myself see very certain comparisons!

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Durin1

I believe that when Jesus was "resurrected", he was only revealed to his close confidantes and didn't take any more active role in preaching to other people, but gave them the "Holy Spirit" (correct me if i am wrong).

You're right. But, the Holy Spirit played a guiding role in the life of the disciples after Jesus' Ascension to Heaven; much as Gandalf (the new "enhanced" Gandalf as you put it ) did with the Fellowship.

Originally Posted by Durin1

But you still haven't explained the other similarities which specifically apply to Christ and Gandalf, other than they both returned to life.

Well, you see, that's sort of my point here: Tolkien put a certain aspect or situation from Christ's life in each one of the "Christ figures" in LOTR; so my question is why do that? Why not collect all of these situations and character traits into one character that would be central to the action of the story and that would represent Christ more unequivocally?

Originally Posted by Attalus

Interestingly, when I Jeevesed 'Christ Figure,' this was a part of one of the first hits:

So let me get this straight. You're suggesting that we're taking this Christ figure thing for granted? I respectfully disagree. It's true that archetypes such as "the dying God" and "the suffering servant" as this person puts it do exist in other cultures and literatures that historically precede the time of Christ. However, we know that Tolkien was a devout Catholic. So what are the odds that he was influenced by these mythologies more than by his own religion?

[inked]

Beren3000 and Durin1,

Check out ACTS of the APOSTLES in the New Testament and you will find that Jesus appeared to the women at the Garden, Peter and the disciples, and to 500 brethren at one time, not to mention the two on the Emmaus road, and lastly, to Paul, as one born out of time as he put it. And the folks who witnessed the Ascension, too.

So, there were quite a few witnesses to those Resurrected appearances after all.

John's Gospel records the gifting of the Disciples post-Resurrection and pre-Ascension, while Acts records the outpouring upon and gifting of the Holy Spirit to the Jerusalem believers (often referred to as the birthday of the Church) on Pentecost.

That noted, Beren3000, I think if you try to push the applicabilities to identity or allegory, you do a disservice to Tolkein's intentions. He often revoked the idea of allegory as something he detested whenever he detected it. But he spoke of how applicability was often confused with allegory. It is not that there is not resemblance, just not identification of character as in a=b.

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Well, you see, that's sort of my point here: Tolkien put a certain aspect or situation from Christ's life in each one of the "Christ figures" in LOTR; so my question is why do that? Why not collect all of these situations and character traits into one character that would be central to the action of the story and that would represent Christ more unequivocally?

Because JRRT would have considered it blasphemous to hav true, identifiable "Christ Character" before the actual Incarnation. He was always sensitive to the charge that he was founding or promoting a new religion.

So let me get this straight. You're suggesting that we're taking this Christ figure thing for granted? I respectfully disagree. It's true that archetypes such as "the dying God" and "the suffering servant" as this person puts it do exist in other cultures and literatures that historically precede the time of Christ. However, we know that Tolkien was a devout Catholic. So what are the odds that he was influenced by these mythologies more than by his own religion?

You misunderstand the quote. The writer is suggesting that the two most identifiable aspects of what is loosely referred to as a "Christ figure" in such works as "Billy Budd" are the "Dying God" and the "Suffering Servant." They indeed exist outside the Christian belief system in such figures as Pan but never as far as I know, together. It is the combination of these with great personal integrity and otherworldly wisdom that make up the "Christ figure," and JRRT did not have characters that lived up to all of them, Gandalf coming the closest, but he is, after all, an angelic being. But he does not suffer, and he is no-one's servant but Eru's.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by inked

That noted, Beren3000, I think if you try to push the applicabilities to identity or allegory, you do a disservice to Tolkein's intentions. He often revoked the idea of allegory as something he detested whenever he detected it. But he spoke of how applicability was often confused with allegory. It is not that there is not resemblance, just not identification of character as in a=b.

I see. Thanks for pointing that out.

Originally Posted by Attalus

You misunderstand the quote. The writer is suggesting that the two most identifiable aspects of what is loosely referred to as a "Christ figure" in such works as "Billy Budd" are the "Dying God" and the "Suffering Servant." They indeed exist outside the Christian belief system in such figures as Pan but never as far as I know, together. It is the combination of these with great personal integrity and otherworldly wisdom that make up the "Christ figure," and JRRT did not have characters that lived up to all of them, Gandalf coming the closest, but he is, after all, an angelic being. But he does not suffer, and he is no-one's servant but Eru's.

Ok, now the quote makes more sense to me.

I think I'm convinced now of the point of view that says that they're not full Christ figures as such, but that they rather pre-figure Christ as inked puts it.

[brego]

I dont think that there are any Christ figures. Tolkien said that there was no second meaning to the books, just whats on the surface.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by brego

I dont think that there are any Christ figures. Tolkien said that there was no second meaning to the books, just whats on the surface.

I think you may have misread or misunderstood something in the letters. Where does Tolkien say there are no "second meaning" to the books, just what's on the surface, one dimensional stuff? If he ever said that, he'd be wrong--there are multiple layers of meaning in Tolkien's myth which is why so many of us keep coming back to it. It is just a one dimensional adventure story...well been there, done that. Even Tolkien discusses such layers of meaning in specific examples......

[mewhmag]

there is no allegory in the strict sense in the books - agreed. but there is a lot below the surface that would be lost when reading it without keeping in mind the beauty of nature, sin, grace, freedom...

i think Tolkien would never ever have used a direct christ-like figure in one of his books, that would have totally counteracted his intentions. there are the dangers of overinterpretations as well.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by mewhmag

there is no allegory in the strict sense in the books - agreed. but there is a lot below the surface that would be lost when reading it without keeping in mind the beauty of nature, sin, grace, freedom...

i think Tolkien would never ever have used a direct christ-like figure in one of his books, that would have totally counteracted his intentions. there are the dangers of overinterpretations as well.

What do you mean by a "direct Christ-like figure?"

[mewhmag]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

What do you mean by a "direct Christ-like figure?"

i think the main point are already discussed above, but to add something, didn´t Tolkien write somewhere:

"The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write".

[Durin1]

Originally Posted by mewhmag

didn´t Tolkien write somewhere:

"The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write".

Apologies for my ignorance, but was Jesus said to have been an "incarnation" of God?

I personally find it quite strange that God could be thought of in terms of being incarnate.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Durin1

Apologies for my ignorance, but was Jesus said to have been an "incarnation" of God?

Yes. As a matter of fact, this is the central doctrine in Christianity (if doctrine is the proper name for it!).

Originally Posted by Durin1

I personally find it quite strange that God could be thought of in terms of being incarnate.

Well, in Christianity, (or so I personally feel) we did not think up that God was incarnated. We take it as a given that is beyond the scope of our understanding (again, that's just my personal opinion).

Originally Posted by mewhmag

i think the main point are already discussed above, but to add something, didn´t Tolkien write somewhere:

"The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write".

Where did he write that?

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Durin1

Apologies for my ignorance, but was Jesus said to have been an "incarnation" of God?

I personally find it quite strange that God could be thought of in terms of being incarnate.

Yep, Jesus said that he was the son of God, the Second of the Trinity. "In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you." In the words of the Nicene Creed, "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead."

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by mewhmag

i think the main point are already discussed above, but to add something, didn´t Tolkien write somewhere:

"The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write".

Yes, but that is immaterial to the discussion. A Christ-figure is a type of character whose essential role in the story is in some way modeled or recalls for the reader the Christ event. Theoden and Eomer for example are types of character too, Theoden obviously based on Hrothgar in Beowulf, the aging king helpless and hopeless and in his dotage who is reborn and dies in battle defending his people. THat doesn't mean that every detail of Theoden is based on Hrothgar, nor does it mean that Theoden IS Hrothgar, it means that Theoden and Hrothgar are types of character. So no one in this thread is saying that Frodo or Aragorn ARE Christ, or even their roles in the story to be about the incarnation, but rather that they are literary character types.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

So no one in this thread is saying that Frodo or Aragorn ARE Christ, or even their roles in the story to be about the incarnation

As a matter of fact, I am.

[Attalus]

But that would mean that they would have a divine nature, which is demonstrably false. They are people who take on redemptive tasks, as happens quite often, but suffer to varying degrees (Frodo much, Aragorn hardly at all). They are treated sympathetically, but not worshipfully. In point of fact, Frodo ultimately failed, to be redeemed by Gollum's irrational act. This is not Christlike.