Christ in Middle Earth

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

I'm sure you'll agree with me that there are Christ figures in Middle Earth.
I mean, you can find Christ-like qualities in these characters:

-Earendil
-Gandalf
-Aragorn
-Frodo

And maybe there are others... So my question is, how is this significant? Why did Tolkien choose to portray many Christ figures? Why didn't he just come up with a single Christ figure that would be central to the action instead?

Tolkien, a self-proclaimed Classicist, was espousing the virtues that he found of value in both his Catholic heritage and the classics of ancient mythology and literature. What people deem to be Christ-like in these characters goes back to ancient Hebraic, Greek, and Egyptian teachings (all of which were influential on Tolkien's creation).

The mythology of Middle-earth (which is NOT the "mythology for England" -- that was The Book of Lost Tales) encompasses many aspects of our historical world -- including its mythologies and religions. Hence, you have angels and demi-god-like heroes marching across the landscape in battles which shape the world. You have trips to the underworld (Luthien's prayer for Beren in Mandos, the beseechings of Finwe for Miriel's return) and resurrections (Beren and Luthien, Gandalf, Turin at the end of the First Age, Finrod and other Elves in Aman, etc.) and you have figurative passages through the underworld (Angband, Moria, the Paths of the Dead).

[Durin1]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

Tolkien, a self-proclaimed Classicist, was espousing the virtues that he found of value in both his Catholic heritage and the classics of ancient mythology and literature. What people deem to be Christ-like in these characters goes back to ancient Hebraic, Greek, and Egyptian teachings (all of which were influential on Tolkien's creation).

The mythology of Middle-earth (which is NOT the "mythology for England" -- that was The Book of Lost Tales) encompasses many aspects of our historical world -- including its mythologies and religions. Hence, you have angels and demi-god-like heroes marching across the landscape in battles which shape the world. You have trips to the underworld (Luthien's prayer for Beren in Mandos, the beseechings of Finwe for Miriel's return) and resurrections (Beren and Luthien, Gandalf, Turin at the end of the First Age, Finrod and other Elves in Aman, etc.) and you have figurative passages through the underworld (Angband, Moria, the Paths of the Dead).

I agree with Michael. The mythology of ME is too broad to be specifically focused on purely "christian" themes. Tolkien took ideas from a whole range of histories, subjects etc that he would have absorbed throughout his learning period.

There are always going to be comparisons, some intentional, some not. It is a matter of individual tastes and proclivities that we get out of Tolkien what we want to. I personally don't dwell too much on the religious aspects, although I am very keen on understanding some of the philosophical themes.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by inked

The condensed version is that the turn of unexpected deliverance in fairy stories is a reflection or subcreation of the actual Incarnational fulfilment of that theme: the deliverance of humanity and indeed all creation by the events of the Resurrection. Tolkein coined the term eucatastrophe as the opposite of the expected tragic ending in fairy stories and the Main Event as the Eucatastrophe.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this, inked. I can see your point now.

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

The mythology of Middle-earth (which is NOT the "mythology for England" -- that was The Book of Lost Tales) encompasses many aspects of our historical world -- including its mythologies and religions.

I agree. But I don't see why this rules out the possiblity of Christ-figure(s) in LOTR. After all, as you said, religion was one of the influences on Tolkien's work.

[Durin1]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

I agree. But I don't see why this rules out the possiblity of Christ-figure(s) in LOTR. After all, as you said, religion was one of the influences on Tolkien's work.

I think the point being made is that christ-figures do not take any special prominence in Tolkien's world. His work may contain aspects of the christian religion, but only to a point. Rather, there were many other notable influences on Tolkien when he created the mythology, of which you can see parellels of in his work. Michael Martinez has already alluded to these in his post.

[inked]

Beren3000,

Perhaps it will help if you see these similiarities as anticipatory participation in the work of Christ, which is really what typology in Biblical studies of the OT are about among Christians. This approach can be a tad confusing since we are post-Resurrection folk and see through the rectifying lens of the culmination of the process and thus compare all to its fulfillment. The doctrine of the Incarnation would hold that all of creation was caught up in the spearpoint of history (technically known in theology as the Recapitulation
Theory and advanced in the 2nd Century, IIRC). Try to imagine yourself on the haft side of the spear looking forward to the point. It's difficult, but that is what Tolkein essentially accomplished. Being Catholic (in the Roman Catholic expression of that reality), he could affirm the existence of the good and the gleams of Divine Truth falling onto pre-Christian religions and resulting in anticipatory behaviours of Christ in the Incarnation. A incarnational motif in individuals and cultures that is anticipatory and fulfilled a prophetic person, moment, or goal!

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

That may well be, but that's not what happened. Also, what would the Valar have done with him after setting foot upon the Undying Lands, had he not had the Silmaril. Remeber that he was placed in the sky with the Silmaril bound to his brow as a sign of hope to the people of Middle-earth.

Yet it was not the Silmaril that showed hope it was the fact that Earendil had come to Valinor beyond all hope. Maybe if we want to continue discussing this we should move it to another thread!

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by inked

Beren3000,

Perhaps it will help if you see these similiarities as anticipatory participation in the work of Christ, which is really what typology in Biblical studies of the OT are about among Christians. This approach can be a tad confusing since we are post-Resurrection folk and see through the rectifying lens of the culmination of the process and thus compare all to its fulfillment. The doctrine of the Incarnation would hold that all of creation was caught up in the spearpoint of history (technically known in theology as the Recapitulation
Theory and advanced in the 2nd Century, IIRC). Try to imagine yourself on the haft side of the spear looking forward to the point. It's difficult, but that is what Tolkein essentially accomplished. Being Catholic (in the Roman Catholic expression of that reality), he could affirm the existence of the good and the gleams of Divine Truth falling onto pre-Christian religions and resulting in anticipatory behaviours of Christ in the Incarnation. A incarnational motif in individuals and cultures that is anticipatory and fulfilled a prophetic person, moment, or goal!

WOW! Great post, inked. From the little bit I understood, I think I'll agree with you...but only thus far: if figures in the OT were anticipatory of Christ, and you're saying we have that in ME too, shouldn't ME also have Christ himself? If yes, who do you think it is among the characters we stated so far?

P.S. Did you study theology? You seem so well-informed about it

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Durin1

I agree with Michael. The mythology of ME is too broad to be specifically focused on purely "christian" themes. Tolkien took ideas from a whole range of histories, subjects etc that he would have absorbed throughout his learning period.

I can not but wholeheartedly disagree. If we follow this line of reasoning then we shouldn't ask about Egyptian, Greek, Roman or Norse influences on Tolkien or even about modern ones since the number of influences is broad--nothing could be put down to "norse" themes or a "homeric" influence.
We ask and examine these kinds of questions all the time, even MM has in his books and articles. So to focus on a Christian theme, and I think there can really be little question that Tolkien's faith influenced him, is in fact desireable.

There are always going to be comparisons, some intentional, some not. It is a matter of individual tastes and proclivities that we get out of Tolkien what we want to. I personally don't dwell too much on the religious aspects, although I am very keen on understanding some of the philosophical themes.

Sometimes that's true. Sometimes however there are things that are quite clearly not just "what I want to get out of it". The number of linguistic jokes for example that have been pointed out over the years are not things are just what people wanted to see (although there have been some things like the name Moria that people have wanted to see as from the Bible that Tolkien and others have shown not to be the case at all). But that's the advantage of a board like this and discussion is that we can float a theory and be corrected if it is simply what I want to see, or be told by others that there might be something to it.

FB

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

WOW! Great post, inked. From the little bit I understood, I think I'll agree with you...but only thus far: if figures in the OT were anticipatory of Christ, and you're saying we have that in ME too, shouldn't ME also have Christ himself? If yes, who do you think it is among the characters we stated so far?

P.S. Did you study theology? You seem so well-informed about it

It does, in its future, if Middle Earth is indeed our earth, just as the Fall is also alluded to by Tolkien when the Elves first encounter Men and Men will only say so much about their past and the great darkness that lay behind them. It doesn't come into the story, but Tolkien is clear that it is there in the background, so that the Fall of Numenor is a kind of second fall.

On a literary level though, having a Christ-figure or two or three doesn't mean that Christ must be present. The literary trope is common enough and certainly isn't even restricted necessarily to Christian type literature.

FB

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

Well, Tolkien was a very religious man, but he claimed no intentional allegory in his story. However, he did give it that good and evil element, but somewhat different from the biblical element. We have a god for the world of Middle-earth, but we have two sons -Morgoth and Manwe, one good one evil. We have angels -the Ainur, and they walked within the bounds of the world and they inner-acted with the people of Middle-earth, even one marrying one of the Children. We have an intire race even going to what is our equivalent of heaven in Middle-earth, and they didn't have to die to get there, at least not before the exile. We have one race that is bound to the earth for eternity and another race that goes beyond the confines of the world. (My guess is to the Timeless Halls) at least until Arda Remade. These are just some of the differences I see.

Sorry to be just finding time to address some of this, but here goes:
None of the things you mention here are "non-Christian" though. The two "sons", one good and evil are embodied in the Christian myth: Michael and Satan. Or in Milton and some forms of Calvinism, Jesus and Satan. ANd of course in Christian myth we have angels walking the earth, interacting with the people of earth--just read the Old Testament! And there are several statements in the Bible about angels being attracted to and marrying human women--of course in the Bible this is a negative thing. On the other hand, you have the take that Tolkien and Lewis seemed to subscribe to that all the pagan gods over the world were really angels that had been mistaken for gods. And there are both Christian and Jewish myths that posit another race on earth, with a different need for savation tan our own. So not all that different after all.

Yes, but in the First Age, it was there. And I look at it as still being there, but on a different plain or level, still occupying the same space in the same time. And that's another difference: in our world, there is no Straight Road to heaven in this life, not a physical one anyway.

Sure, but Dante's Purgatory for example is a "straight road" so to speak directly to heaven and is in our world and is sailed to.

[Durin1]

Originally Posted by inked

Perhaps it will help if you see these similiarities as anticipatory participation in the work of Christ, which is really what typology in Biblical studies of the OT are about among Christians. This approach can be a tad confusing since we are post-Resurrection folk and see through the rectifying lens of the culmination of the process and thus compare all to its fulfillment. The doctrine of the Incarnation would hold that all of creation was caught up in the spearpoint of history (technically known in theology as the Recapitulation
Theory and advanced in the 2nd Century, IIRC). Try to imagine yourself on the haft side of the spear looking forward to the point. It's difficult, but that is what Tolkein essentially accomplished. Being Catholic (in the Roman Catholic expression of that reality), he could affirm the existence of the good and the gleams of Divine Truth falling onto pre-Christian religions and resulting in anticipatory behaviours of Christ in the Incarnation. A incarnational motif in individuals and cultures that is anticipatory and fulfilled a prophetic person, moment, or goal!

I'm sorry Inked, but you seem to be reading too much into Tolkien's works, and you seem to be saying that Tolkien is preaching the christian faith, which is not what I read Tolkien for.

First of all, Tolkien created his mythology to satiate his appetite for a distinct mythology for England, which later developed into its own, unique mythology in a mythical period of time. He didn't say: "let's create a story that will have precursors of christian themes and anticipate Christ". I just don't buy that.

In his letter to Milton Waldman, when he comments on other myths, Tolkien explicitly states that he got put off by them because they contained the christian religion (I haven't got the exact quote to hand). In my view this will include anticipating Christianity and Christ.

I will reiterate: many of the themes can be "gleams" of future christian religious practice - very broadly, just the same as they could apply to any religious thoughts of our time. Likewise, they can just be coincedences and/or the process of cultural evolution.

Like I have already said in an earlier post: we look to gain insights to things that we would like to find in Tolkien's works; whether they are there or not

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Durin1

I'm sorry Inked, but you seem to be reading too much into Tolkien's works, and you seem to be saying that Tolkien is preaching the christian faith, which is not what I read Tolkien for.

Durin,

I think that's a leap in logic. To use an analogy, how is Tolkien's using and being influenced by Homeric characters a preaching of Greek religion?

First of all, Tolkien created his mythology to satiate his appetite for a distinct mythology for England, which later developed into its own, unique mythology in a mythical period of time. He didn't say: "let's create a story that will have precursors of christian themes and anticipate Christ". I just don't buy that.

No one is arguing that this is what he did do. The argument is simply that there are Christ-figures in the work, and that his use of typology in this way is to be expected considering his influences. We recognize other influences such as Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Norse, Finnish etc...but this doesn't mean that he sat down and said "let's create a story that will imitate, copy, and use Egyptian and Finnish elements."

In his letter to Milton Waldman, when he comments on other myths, Tolkien explicitly states that he got put off by them because they contained the christian religion (I haven't got the exact quote to hand). In my view this will include anticipating Christianity and Christ.

I think what you are referring to is Tolkien's dislike for the Arthurian cycle in part because of its overt and explicit Christianity. But the typology of a Christ figure isn't based on being explicit--in fact its explicitness by definition would destroy it being a Christ-figure and make it become a representation of CHrist---something completely different. Besides in the same letter he calls Elendil a "Noahic" figure.

I will reiterate: many of the themes can be "gleams" of future christian religious practice - very broadly, just the same as they could apply to any religious thoughts of our time. Likewise, they can just be coincedences and/or the process of cultural evolution.

I don't know. Where in Greek religion do we have a figure that dies specifically to save others and is sent back after death with an enhanced body? A being sent from the gods specifically to help and aid free beings against a being who would enslave them all to his own will? Kind of hard to find.

Like I have already said in an earlier post: we look to gain insights to things that we would like to find in Tolkien's works; whether they are there or not

SUre, and sometimes we ignore things that are there because we don't want to find them?

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Durin1

He didn't say: "let's create a story that will have precursors of christian themes and anticipate Christ". I just don't buy that.

Well I find the similarities between Gandalf (for example) and Christ too close to be coincidental.

[inked]

Durin 1,

I did not mean that Tolkein set out to do as you suggest I meant. I said that using the Christian concept of the "type" for Old Testament characters being foreshadowings of the coming Messiah we could apply the concept to figures in ME. NOT to every figure and not to any figure in all aspects, just as illustrative of general characterisitics. As to the rest, Forkbeard has answered as I would, so I sha'n't repeat his remarks.

Beren3000,

I've never taken formal classes in theology, but I have read it out of interest.
Also, I have been reading Tolkein and Lewis and Inklings for 30+ years, so it rubs off! Have you read Dorothy L. Sayers CREED OR CHAOS? If you do, you'll catch me out in referencing her without conscious recognition that I do so.
Have the philosophy books on LOTR or HP come in? They were fabulous, simply fabulous, and I am re-reading them out of pleasure ( and to find what I read through too quickly to notice the first time!).

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Durin1

I have to agree with you here SGH. But of course in the broad context of what is good, anything could be classed as "Christ-like" or "saint-like", for that matter.

But it can't or shouldn't. FOr example, if you have a character who was considered to be a very holy man, so that people would compete for his rice bowl or his robe, and this character threw his rice bowl into the river to teach the people that these things are not important, he isn't a Christi figure no matter how good that character is. He'd be a Buddha-figure. But general goodness and heroism is not what is meant by the literary trope "Christ-figure".

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by inked

I've never taken formal classes in theology, but I have read it out of interest.
Also, I have been reading Tolkein and Lewis and Inklings for 30+ years, so it rubs off! Have you read Dorothy L. Sayers CREED OR CHAOS? If you do, you'll catch me out in referencing her without conscious recognition that I do so.

I see. And no, I haven't read CREED OR CHAOS; maybe I will some day, but I won't find it here as it will (most probably) be banned from the country if it has any Christian content.

Originally Posted by inked

Have the philosophy books on LOTR or HP come in?

Not yet, but I can't wait for them to come...

[Durin1]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

But it can't or shouldn't. FOr example, if you have a character who was considered to be a very holy man, so that people would compete for his rice bowl or his robe, and this character threw his rice bowl into the river to teach the people that these things are not important, he isn't a Christi figure no matter how good that character is. He'd be a Buddha-figure. But general goodness and heroism is not what is meant by the literary trope "Christ-figure".

What would be the difference between a Buddha-figure and a Christ figure, Forkbeard? They were both men of God (taking away from the belief that christ is the son of God). Are you saying one is better than the other?

[Durin1]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Well I find the similarities between Gandalf (for example) and Christ too close to be coincidental.

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?

[Durin1]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

Durin,

I think that's a leap in logic. To use an analogy, how is Tolkien's using and being influenced by Homeric characters a preaching of Greek religion?

Well he wasn't preaching a particular religion for a start. He was using character and cultural traits when he compared Homeric characters and, for that matter, Egyptian civilisation to compare with the Numenoreans.



No one is arguing that this is what he did do. The argument is simply that there are Christ-figures in the work, and that his use of typology in this way is to be expected considering his influences. We recognize other influences such as Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Norse, Finnish etc...but this doesn't mean that he sat down and said "let's create a story that will imitate, copy, and use Egyptian and Finnish elements."

I recognise this too, 'though my remarks were based on the theological aspects alluded to regarding specific and overt use of christ figures and so-called "christian" themes.

I think what you are referring to is Tolkien's dislike for the Arthurian cycle in part because of its overt and explicit Christianity. But the typology of a Christ figure isn't based on being explicit--in fact its explicitness by definition would destroy it being a Christ-figure and make it become a representation of CHrist---something completely different. Besides in the same letter he calls Elendil a "Noahic" figure.

I think its explicitness would also put many readers off, and he didn't want to appear to be preaching.



I don't know. Where in Greek religion do we have a figure that dies specifically to save others and is sent back after death with an enhanced body? A being sent from the gods specifically to help and aid free beings against a being who would enslave them all to his own will? Kind of hard to find.

But the whole concept of Gandalf is that he is a Maia, an immortal. He is "sent back" by the Valar to complete what he has to do; to make a final end to the evil of Sauron. Christ is not said to have been sent back. Maybe i'm wrong, so any christians out there please correct me, but wasn't the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection part of an overrall strategy? I know that Christ feared death and pleaded to God to help him. Did not God reveal his thoughts to him?



SUre, and sometimes we ignore things that are there because we don't want to find them?

I can't say that I ignore the christian elements or argue that there aren't any resemblences to so-called christ-figures, but for my part I think of this sort of thing only in a very broad and general context.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Durin1

What would be the difference between a Buddha-figure and a Christ figure, Forkbeard? They were both men of God (taking away from the belief that christ is the son of God). Are you saying one is better than the other?

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