Mythological Foundations of Tolkien's Work

[Radaghast]

Yeah, notice I did say parallels, not identical. And when I say two parts, I mean Morgoth then Sauron, specifically the Silmarillion. And the central adversary of the Bible is the Devil, personified as anyone who stands against the chosen people of God, I didn't point this out before because I'm 90% sure religion is against the forum rules.

The idea that the Devil is the central adversary of the Bible is something I've been arguing against, especially in the Old Testament which is the Christian adaptation of the Jewish holy texts. According to Wikipedia :

The Hebrew term śāṭān (Hebrew: שָׂטָן) is a generic noun meaning "accuser" or "adversary",[7][8] and is derived from a verb meaning primarily "to obstruct, oppose".[9] In the earlier biblical books, e.g. 1 Samuel 29:4, it refers to human adversaries, but in the later books, especially Job 1–2 and Zechariah 3, to a supernatural entity.[8] When used without the definite article (simply satan), it can refer to any accuser,[10] but when it is used with the definite article (ha-satan), it usually refers specifically to the heavenly accuser, literally, the satan.[10]

It's not something I see any strong evidence of, not that I claim to be any expert, but from what I remember from reading it (and seeing quoted of it), there's nothing to lead me to believe that Tolkien used the Bible as a template. Even the creation stories are different.

 

[Olorgando]

Old and New Testaments.

I meant, as Radaghast has pointed out, how you arrive at two parts for the Silmarillion. These supposedly being "Morgoth then Sauron" does not clarify anything, and certainly can bear no resemblance to Old and New Testament. There is no need to "personify" either incarnation of the devil in any pert of the Silmarillion, both Morgoth and Sauron are personally incarnate in Middle-earth. And both can be and are physically injured, Morgoth by Fingolfin and Thorondor, Sauron several times, ultimately three times resulting in the destruction of his incarnate body.

 

[Andromadus the Invictus]

The idea that the Devil is the central adversary of the Bible is something I've been arguing against, especially in the Old Testament which is the Christian adaptation of the Jewish holy texts.

I REALLY don't want to debate religion, I will if necessary, but it tends to cause more harm than good.

there's nothing to lead me to believe that Tolkien used the Bible as a template.

For certain. As was pointed out, Tolkien himself stated that the Bible was not a template. I simply stated that what was the beginning of Middle-Earth, the Silmarillion, acts much as a Bible of Tolkien's own.

Even the creation stories are different.

Hmmm, of course two different creation stories are different, but the parallels between these two specifically can be particularly uncanny, if you try to read it into it. I do not believe these parallels are intentional, but as a scholar, I believe Tolkien subconsciously borrowed some of these themes.

I meant, as Radaghast has pointed out, how you arrive at two parts for the Silmarillion. These supposedly being "Morgoth then Sauron" does not clarify anything, and certainly can bear no resemblance to Old and New Testament. There is no need to "personify" either incarnation of the devil in any pert of the Silmarillion, both Morgoth and Sauron are personally incarnate in Middle-earth. And both can be and are physically injured, Morgoth by Fingolfin and Thorondor, Sauron several times, ultimately three times resulting in the destruction of his incarnate body.

Yes, of course, Satan does not have a body of flesh and blood, both Melkor and Sauron do. To be fair, I have not had years to ponder these similarities and the legendarium that is Middle-Earth, a lot of the Silmarillion went over my head. I hopefully have a long life of studying Tolkien's works ahead of me; perhaps someday my knowledge will be on the level of someone like our resident @Ent at Large , but that day is not today.

Thanks for reading my paragraph, sorry, I wrote a lot more than I meant to. 😂

 

[Radaghast]

I REALLY don't want to debate religion, I will if necessary, but it tends to cause more harm than good.

I think scholarly discussion of religion is okay.

 

[Andromadus the Invictus]

I think scholarly discussion of religion is okay.

It is, but unfortunately, most people are unable to have a scholarly discussion. This is due to people being unwilling to see another person's viewpoint. I have experienced this in the past, and therefore prefer just not to go there.

 

[Radaghast]

It is, but unfortunately, most people are unable to have a scholarly discussion. This is due to people being unwilling to see another person's viewpoint. I have experienced this in the past, and therefore prefer just not to go there.

I'm just looking at it from a textual standpoint, not from any kind of religious one (we're discussing the mythological foundations of Tolkien's legendarium after all), looking at all possible inspiration for Tolkien's themes and characters. I just don't see very many in the Bible.

 

[Andromadus the Invictus]

I'm just looking at it from a textual standpoint, not from any kind of religious one (we're discussing the mythological foundations of Tolkien's legendarium after all), looking at all possible inspiration for Tolkien's themes and characters. I just don't see very many in the Bible.

Yes, that is why multiple perceptions of a thing is a good idea. As I said before, as a scholar, I believe Tolkien to have subconsciously taken some Biblical inspiration while writing his Silmarillion. Additionally, while I wouldn't back up this argument, there are many people who see Gandalf as an allegory for Jesus with his death and rebirth. While, like I said, I wouldn't back up this argument, another person's viewpoint is refreshing.

 

[Radaghast]

Tolkien would balk at the idea of Gandalf being an analog for the Christ (and said he disliked allegory). He described Gandalf as basically being angel, of the same order of 'angel' as the Valar but with 'less power and majesty' (The Letters of JRR Tolkien, #325)

 

[Andromadus the Invictus]

Tolkien would balk at the idea of Gandalf being an analog for the Christ (and said he disliked allegory). He described Gandalf as basically being angel, of the same order of 'angel' as the Valar but with 'less power and majesty' (The Letters of JRR Tolkien, #325)

I'm aware of Gandalf and his origin and nature. As I said I don't agree, I just enjoy hearing and respecting other people's opinions, especially about some lore that will likely never be solved.

 

[Ent]

I just don't see very many in the Bible.

Yet Tolkien himself said his work is "fundamentally a Religious and Catholic one."
There are actually a great many extractions from "religion" and the bible in his works, from beginning to end.
We just misunderstand what he meant, what he did, how, and why... which was going to be the foundation of my book.
However, I'm now questioning getting that done.

You see... Tolkien said he included the "elements" of Religion and Catholocism... just not 'overt Christianity.'
So the questions simply are: 1. What did he mean by the "elements" of religion, and what are the "elements" he included.
And, those "elements" span religions beyond just Christianty, and can be found in many other religions as well.
Understanding Tolkien is to undeerstand the precision of his application of words.

Elements of Religion include things like: A Creation, Love, Providence (one of the great themes of his text), Faith (shown in several places throughout), hope, a certain level of Prophecy, a means of 'salvation' (shown essentially as a 'works based salvation' in his text), a 'heavenly host' whose purpose is to serve mankind, and an 'earthly one' needing to be served, and much, much more.

There is no denying there is a great "religious element" to Tolkien's work. Is it "Biblically based: ? In part, there are some biblical elements - but not because it is 'bible'l but because they are found "in religion".

Some feel Tolkien was "unable to get over himself and his background," and HAD to toe the line to his biblical roots. I have 26 books in my library I've reviewed, all essentially driven from this misconception.

I submit Tolkien totally 'overcame his background' to deliver what he presented us. And in ways many don't want to admit because it yanks their precious carpet out from under them, and shakes their personal foundations to the core.

And just a p.s. - 'healthy discussion of religion' IS OK here, as long as it relates to Tolkien and his work. A healthy discussion of the Bible and its differences from Tolkien's work would not necessarily be out of order - but it MUST be understood not all of us agree on what the bible says, and how it is to be interpreted. SO - many if not most of us take a "healthy avoidance" posture on the issue.

I've 45 years of deep study, teaching, some work in the original languages on the Bible, and assistance on translation of it for BubleHub's new translations - The Berean Study Bible and Berean Literal Translation - oh and also the NASB 1977 Modernized, where I assisted in updating much of the archaic language to more modern English - so if anyone has any questions feel free to PM me... but I can assure you of this: all you will get from me regarding the Bible, even after all these years of work, is how I have been led to interpret it through diligent effort in prayer and work in those original languages, understanding what they meant in their day (and not what they mean now in ours.)


Finally, I submit the Religious foundation for Tolkien's work and the Mythological foundation for Tolkien's work are entirely separate things, and anyone discussing them should understand that.

There are those who feel all Religion is myth. There are others who do not believe this.
So the very nature of trying to mix the two sets up an immediate and unresolvable conflict.

Be aware of this, and do not allow the Religion of Opinion to overtake your good common sense, goodwill, and forbearance of one another.

Thank you.

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

According to Hammond and Scull, Tolkien alluded to the OE poem The Wanderer in the chapter The King of the Golden Hall which also makes many allusions to Beowulf.

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

It is, but unfortunately, most people are unable to have a scholarly discussion. This is due to people being unwilling to see another person's viewpoint. I have experienced this in the past, and therefore prefer just not to go there.

The factor may be human nature rather than discussion of religion given this type of behaviour occurs in other contexts.

 

[Andromadus the Invictus]

The factor may be human nature rather than discussion of religion given this type of behaviour occurs in other contexts.

Correct. The art of conversation is the art of understanding the opposing viewpoint and remaining civil no matter how or what you discuss.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I think scholarly discussion of religion is okay.

It is, to the extent that the emphasis is on Tolkien's views, and sources. Otherwise, no.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

I personally find some similarities between Gordafarid from Shahnameh and Eowyn. I couldn't find a reliable and good source to share in here, so I might have to read and translate The story here myself and it would take a while and I'm currently busy.