Christ in Middle Earth

[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?

[Wayfarer]

Because Middle-Earth is (in the mythology) the same as our earth. So while the great heroes of the past often show christ-like traits, Christ himself was going to arrive sometime in the fifth age or so.

Besides... the whole comparison is kind of silly.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

As you repetedly say!

I think if Tolkien had made one Christ like figure (this excludes the Valar and Eru) then ME would have been a spin off form of the Bible. If Aragorn or Frodo were perfect then everything would be a little predictable. Frodo would have taken The Ring straight to Mount Doom and destroyed it with out a second thought.
Aragorn would challenge Sauron and defeat him easily giving Frodo a resonably easier path to Mount Doom. He would then have broken the Black Gate and single handidly(sp.) killed all orcs and other evil creatures in Mordor.
You see what I mean?

[Pytt]

yes, good point TD. tolkien himself was very religious, and when he should create a mythology for England, he ceartainly would take in some elements from Christianity.
besides, in NArnia by C.S Lewis, the comparison to the bibel is even more obvious.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Besides... the whole comparison is kind of silly.

That's an opinion, not a fact

I see your point, TD. You're saying that Tolkien placed some aspects of Christ in each of these character so as not have a flat plot, right?

[Wayfarer]

The facts are silly.

The reason I say that, though, is that it strikes me as patently ridiculous to imagine JRRT sitting down and saying to himself "Hmm... how many Christ figures should I include in this story?". Isn't that picture just a teensy bit amusing?

I don't believe Tolkien was trying to represent Christ in any of those characters. They were simply good people, and because they were good people they had a number of things in common with Christ. It really doesn't have anything to do with portraying multiple Christ figures.

Aslan was meant to represent Christ. Frodo wasn't. I think there's a big difference between the two.

[Beren3000]

Well, now you put that way it DOES sound funny But I still think it holds water.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Aslan was meant to represent Christ. Frodo wasn't.

But Frodo went through great trouble to save the Shire and in the end he had to "sacrifice" his position there and leave to Valinor. Doesn't that sound even A BIT like Christ? An even better comparison is Aragorn=Christ. Both were "prophesied kings" who would bring peace and prosperity once they came. Both wouldn't reveal themselves until their "time has come", etc...
I think there are just too many similarities to ignore here.

[Wayfarer]

The similarity doesn't nescessarily mean that they are meant to be representations of Christ, though. Frodo and Aragorn have things in common with Christ because they are heroic characters. Frodo sacrifices himself for others because that is what a truly good person will do. And so on and so forth.

So if you go back to your original post, and ask 'How is this significant', the answer is 'It's not at all significant'. The fact that some of the characters have things in common with Christ (or another individual outside the story) means nothing aside from the fact that they're a bit a like. None of them are supposed to be a representation of or allegory for Christ (In the way that Aslan was, for example).

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

That's an opinion, not a fact

I see your point, TD. You're saying that Tolkien placed some aspects of Christ in each of these character so as not have a flat plot, right?

I think that's part of it, but more particularly there can only be one Christ, and he isn't incarnate in LoTR yet. So like a good Catholic and a good medievalist, he did in Middle Earth what Christian commentators have been doing to the Old Testement (and by extension) and pagan literature since the beginning: looking at David, Abraham, Moses etc as prefiguring Christ; similarly there are medieval commentaries that take Aeneas as a prefiguring of Christ as well, for example. So in LoTR, a "mythology for England" that is "pre-Christian" and yet looks forward to the story of stories, the eucatastrophe of eucatastrophes!

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

The similarity doesn't nescessarily mean that they are meant to be representations of Christ, though. Frodo and Aragorn have things in common with Christ because they are heroic characters. Frodo sacrifices himself for others because that is what a truly good person will do. And so on and so forth.

So if you go back to your original post, and ask 'How is this significant', the answer is 'It's not at all significant'. The fact that some of the characters have things in common with Christ (or another individual outside the story) means nothing aside from the fact that they're a bit a like. None of them are supposed to be a representation of or allegory for Christ (In the way that Aslan was, for example).

Completely disagree. Basically your point rests on 2 things as I see it: a) the idea of Tolkien sitting and thinking about creating Christ figures is silly and b) Frodo for example isn't like Aslan, the latter who was intended to represent Christ.

On the former, it isn't silly at all considering not only Tolkien's faith, but the fact that the literatures he worked on were all Christian and that in his famous essay On Fairy Stories he holds up the Gospel as the ultimate eucatastrophe and the ultimate Fairy Story. I don't know, but it seems to me that a man who does that much thinking on obviously CHristian things may indeed and in fact consciously think about constructing Christ-figures.

On the second, you seem to be basically saying that because Frodo isn't the same kind of allegory that Aslan is, then he can't be a Christ-figure. But this is wrong on two levels: Aslan isn't a Christ-figure. A Christ-figure is a type, a typology of a character. Aslan isn't a type. Aslan IS CHRIST in another world--there is no representation intended; he is not a type of Christ, or Christ-like, or reminiscent of Christ--he is intended to be read as if he were Christ, the Lion of Narnia.

FB

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

That's an opinion, not a fact

I see your point, TD. You're saying that Tolkien placed some aspects of Christ in each of these character so as not have a flat plot, right?

Right!

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

The facts are silly.

The reason I say that, though, is that it strikes me as patently ridiculous to imagine JRRT sitting down and saying to himself "Hmm... how many Christ figures should I include in this story?". Isn't that picture just a teensy bit amusing?

I don't believe Tolkien was trying to represent Christ in any of those characters. They were simply good people, and because they were good people they had a number of things in common with Christ. It really doesn't have anything to do with portraying multiple Christ figures.

Aslan was meant to represent Christ. Frodo wasn't. I think there's a big difference between the two.

But as Tolkien was a Catholic it would be almsot natural for him to include these figures. He wouldn't need to sit down and say to himself. 'I think I need to include Christ figures,' he'd do it anyway.

[Durin1]

In letters of JRRT, Tolkien himself explains that christian themes were present subconsciously at first but during the revisition of LoTR, consciously so.

Of course if a person is writing a novel, they will have stuff in them that automatically comes from their pre-conceived mind-set - subconsciously For example, a western writer will write about stuff that he/she observes in their western countries or characters will have traits in them that are generally particular to the accepted thought processes (through the evolving of those countries). Hence, we are always talking about Greek mythology or philosophy because that is what we have had contact with and their ideas have rubbed off on us.

Likewise, Tolkien may have had themes which could be termed Christian, but there is also much stuff that would be against the normal Christian belief (reincarnation, for example).

All this is different to the thought that Tolkien wanted to depict obvious Christ-like characters in his works. They may have certain traits but, in a very broad context, these "traits" could be applied to any holy man from the past. What Tolkien was doing, however, was to put aspects of christian "values" into some of his characters, combined with pre-christian, Northern European values of heriosm, valour and so forth.

As for the comparison between the Narnia stuff, CS Lewis was blatantly proselytising the Christian religion through Aslan. Tolkien did no such thing with his characters.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

So like a good Catholic and a good medievalist, he did in Middle Earth what Christian commentators have been doing to the Old Testement (and by extension) and pagan literature since the beginning: looking at David, Abraham, Moses etc as prefiguring Christ; similarly there are medieval commentaries that take Aeneas as a prefiguring of Christ as well, for example. So in LoTR, a "mythology for England" that is "pre-Christian" and yet looks forward to the story of stories, the eucatastrophe of eucatastrophes!

Originally Posted by Durin1

All this is different to the thought that Tolkien wanted to depict obvious Christ-like characters in his works. They may have certain traits but, in a very broad context, these "traits" could be applied to any holy man from the past. What Tolkien was doing, however, was to put aspects of christian "values" into some of his characters, combined with pre-christian, Northern European values of heriosm, valour and so forth.

Good point! I've never looked at it that way before...

[Sister Golden Hair]

Well, every writer brings his beliefs and influences into his writing. Tolkien created a world of good and evil with characters that paralleled these two things. Naturaly, your good characters are going to be good people. He shows this throughout the mythology from the First Age on. Tolkien's world differs in many ways to ours on a Christian level IMO. I see him giving us a world where heaven and hell are on earth, not in the hereafter, and counter parts for most good and evil characters. A more equal balance.

[Beren3000]

Hi, SGH. Haven't seen you around for some time! (Or is it just me? )

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

Tolkien's world differs in many ways to ours on a Christian level IMO.

Care to elaborate on that?

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

I see him giving us a world where heaven and hell are on earth, not in the hereafter

But the thing is after the "fall" of the Noldor, Aman was no longer "on earth", it was "hidden" and only after the sacrifice of Earendil could the Elves find the Straight Road that led back to Aman. IOW, Aman was no longer there, just as Eden. As to Angband or Utumno representing Hell, well...can't argue there!

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Durin1

Likewise, Tolkien may have had themes which could be termed Christian, but there is also much stuff that would be against the normal Christian belief (reincarnation, for example).

I think this is were Gandalf can be compared to Jesus. He was sent from heaven to earth to help the people of earth. He died to save others and was bought back to life. See the comparison?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Hi, SGH. Haven't seen you around for some time! (Or is it just me? )

Hi Beren, and a happy belated birthday to you. Sorry I missed it in the "birthday" thread. I have been around, moderating more than posting though.

Care to elaborate on that?

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.

But the thing is after the "fall" of the Noldor, Aman was no longer "on earth", it was "hidden" and only after the sacrifice of Earendil could the Elves find the Straight Road that led back to Aman. IOW, Aman was no longer there, just as Eden. As to Angband or Utumno representing Hell, well...can't argue there!

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.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

And that's another difference: in our world, there is no Straight Road to heaven in this life, not a physical one anyway.

Well, to what extent can you consider the Straight Road of Tolkien to be "physical"? We don't really know that much about it.

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.

Good points there! Maybe (as others said) Tolkien just meant these Christ figures to be projections of Old Testament figures that were precursors to Christ.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Well, to what extent can you consider the Straight Road of Tolkien to be "physical"? We don't really know that much about it.

Yes, but you can physically reach Valinor from Middle-earth on the "Straight Road." To the best of my knowledge, you cannot get to heaven from earth, that is, without dying first.

Good points there! Maybe (as others said) Tolkien just meant these Christ figures to be projections of Old Testament figures that were precursors to Christ.

Perhaps. I'm more inclined to think that since Christ was the ultimate of good, you are going to get Christ-like characters that are good. I don't think it was Tolkien's intention to actually make them Christ-like. It just parallels it because of the good.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

Yes, but you can physically reach Valinor from Middle-earth on the "Straight Road." To the best of my knowledge, you cannot get to heaven from earth, that is, without dying first.

Yet the elves had to die before they went to the Halls of Mandos and men had to die before they went to wherever they go. Technically Valinor is not heaven in that sense. It's more like paradise.