# In Middle Earth would Jesus be a hobbit?



## Rivendell_librarian (Nov 11, 2020)

Despite any overt Christianity (religion?) in the LoTR etc one can perceive a Christian/religious subtext. Jesus was a servant from a humble background who practiced what he preached - namely self sacrifice for the common good. Hobbits were similarly humble people who served and loved each other: they did not normally have delusions of grandeur and Frodo was only so tempted when the Ring was at its most powerful in Mt Doom.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Nov 11, 2020)

Just a word of caution: Tolkien's use of religious symbolism is as within our purview as his use of mythological motifs, but discussing a "Hobbit New Testament" could easily lead to treading on sensitivities, for some members. 

You might consider rephrasing the question somewhat.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Nov 11, 2020)

edited


----------



## Alcuin (Nov 12, 2020)

You’d almost certainly be stomping on Tolkien’s “sensitivities”. In _Letter_ 181, he wrote, 
Gandalf faced and suffered death; and … was sent back… But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an _infinitely_ greater thing than anything I would dare to write.​This letter, by the way, was written to Michael Straight, the editor of _New Republic_, whom I assume was _not_ a Christian, since he was by his own admission a Soviet spy: those committed to Communism are by default not committed to Christianity. 

Tolkien’s answer to Rayner Unwin’s daughter Camilla in _Letter_ 310 also shed some light on this. Camilla had to write a paper for school on the subject, “What is the purpose of life?” Since this predates the Monty Python movie on the subject, she resorted to asking Tolkien, who replied that to answer the question
requires a _complete_ knowledge of God, which is unattainable. If we ask why God included us in His Design, we can really say no more than because He Did.

If you do not believe in a personal God the question, “What is the purpose of life?” is unaskable and unanswerable. ​Tolkien did, however, address the question of redemption in the essay “The Debate of Finrod and Andreth”, which was published in _Morgoth's Ring_. In it, Finrod visits a woman named Andreth (an aunt of Barahir, the father of Beren One-hand: Barahir was a child when this visit took place in the house of a kinsman, the grandfather of Emeldir, only a little younger than he, who later married him and became the mother of Beren One-hand: I like to think that perhaps these two children together overheard this conversation), in whom Finrod’s brother Aegnor had fallen in love but subsequently refused to marry. Andreth is in her fifties and though she still loves Aegnor deeply, she has grown somewhat bitter. In their conversation, Finrod reveals that the Elves are _not immortal_, but _longevial_: they _must_ remain until Arda ends; after that, they have no idea what will become of them, and this they dread. Andreth then tells him that Men long before had rebelled against Eru by following Morgoth: this is how the Darkness among Men began, something the Elves quickly noticed in their character. But then she told him of “the Old Hope” that Eru Himself would enter into Arda and redeem Men and Arda. Finrod is stunned: How can the artist enter his art, or the singer his song? This, I think, is clearly Tolkien’s homage to Christianity in his mythos and legendarium.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Nov 12, 2020)

You could use that argument to say the four canonical gospels shouldn't have been written.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 12, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> You could use that argument to say the four canonical gospels shouldn't have been written.


R_l, JRRT was adamant whenever the topic may have bee broached that he was *NOT* writing anything that contravened, revised, expanded on or in any way "fiddled" with what he considered to be orthodox (Roman Catholic, therefore the lower-case o) Christian faith. He took much of what he would consider "heathen" mythology and transformed it in his legendarium. One has only to compare the "Story of Kullervo" as it appears in the original Finnish Kalevala, then JRRT's version of it (in the 2015 book edited by Verlyn Flieger), and any version of "The Children of Húrin". He made it very clear that this is a pre-Christian world (it would not only be far earlier than Moses, but Abraham, too; Noah is debatable); modified, sanitized if you will, by Christian belief, as had also been the case with "Beowulf". But "Jesus as a Hobbit" strikes me as being the kind of allegory that he would react to not just with that old Imperial British saw "not amused", but with horror!


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Nov 12, 2020)

But "if God is an _infinitely_ greater thing than anything I would dare to write" doesn't that apply to everyone including, say, C.S. Lewis?

"Pre-Christian" but with some fairly modern manifestations such as post-offices (chapter 1 of The Hobbit).

As to what Tolkien would think I don't have the wherewithal to pronounce on that.


----------



## Alcuin (Nov 13, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> "Pre-Christian" but with some fairly modern manifestations such as post-offices (chapter 1 of The Hobbit).


Yes, there are a number of anachronisms in _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_. One of the best known is Bilbo’s reaction during Thorin’s speech in “An Unexpected Party” in _The Hobbit_:
At _may never return_ he began to feel a shriek coming up inside, and very soon it burst out like the whistle of an engine coming out of a tunnel. ​Needless to say, there were no trains in Middle-earth. Postal services, however, are ancient: the Persians, the Romans, and the Inca all possessed quite advanced postal services. (I believe the Chinese did, too: Hisoka Morrow can correct me if I am mistaken.) They worked both officially (that is, for political, military, and diplomatic messages), but also for private individuals who could afford to pay, although I am aware that some messages in Roman times were conveyed by travelers from place to place: that at least is what is recorded in St Paul’s letters; but of course that practice continues until this day. 



Rivendell_librarian said:


> But "if God is an _infinitely_ greater thing than anything I would dare to write" doesn't that apply to everyone including, say, C.S. Lewis?


I don’t follow your logic. Why should Tolkien’s sense of propriety constrain Lewis or anyone else?


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Nov 13, 2020)

Hello Alcuin,

Yes but "post-office" makes me think of Postman Pat or Miss Lane in Candleford. I agree that there were postal systems in ancient times as a means of carrying messages.

As to your second point then why should Tolkien's assumed sense of propriety constrain this thread?


----------



## Alcuin (Nov 13, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> Yes but "post-office" makes me think of Postman Pat or Miss Lane in Candleford. I agree that there were postal systems in ancient times as a means of carrying messages.


I think the anachronistic sense of _Postman_ is precisely what Tolkien means to convey. No uniform, perhaps, but the same sort of regular carrier – and twice a day at that. (It has been noted elsewhere that Tolkien never mentions any matter of taxes or levies, though I suppose tolls might have applied at the Bridge at Tharbad, for instance. Nor does he discuss who paid the Shirriffs, the Bounders, or the aforementioned Postmen.)



Rivendell_librarian said:


> As to your second point then why should Tolkien's assumed sense of propriety constrain this thread?


I’m not picking a fight with you. I find the question you pose ill-considered and in poor taste, pointed out that it would most likely have offended Tolkien’s sensibilities, and placed that observation into perspective using his own words. That you do not, at this point in your life, share that sense of propriety is clear enough, though perhaps that may change as you age: it would be to your advantage. If it is any consolation to you, when I was a young man I might well have asked such an impertinent question myself. Age improves friends, wine, and wives, as long as you don’t rot. But if you are still determined to forge ahead in this vein, that is your business.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Nov 13, 2020)

Hello Alcuin,

You don't know how old I am. How old do you think I am? Given your assumption above I think I deserve an answer.

As to "offending Tolkien's sensibilities" the context of that quotation in letter 181 is *the writing of the Lord of the Rings, *specifically Gandalf's struggle with the balrog and its aftermath. I didn't think Tolkien told Lewis or others not to write about Christianity including the incarnation. I'm not talking about Jesus being in one of Tolkien's Middle Earth stories. Rather I'm looking at the characteristics of the free peoples of Middle Earth and asking which one is closest to Jesus as described in the gospels, including His teachings.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Nov 13, 2020)

My unease about this thread didn’t stem from fear of it descending into questioning the age or maturity of members, but let's not go there, either, please.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Nov 13, 2020)

I agree - given this is an anonymous internet forum.


----------



## Elthir (Nov 13, 2020)

Not that anyone said otherwise, but I don't think the postman and the train are equivalent examples: one exists within Bilbo's Middle-earth, the other exists in a simile written by a modern translator -- who wants to "draw a picture" with the tools of the trade, so to speak.

I agree similes of this type can/might be jarring in any case (if a giant knight in full armour is compared to a tank, for instance), but it doesn't mean the author has mistakenly placed an object out of time. Again, not that anyone said otherwise!


*BRUTUS: Peace! Count the clock.*
*CASSIUS: The clock hath stricken three.*
*TREBONIUS: ‘Tis time to part. *

B. Shakespeare


----------



## Ealdwyn (Nov 13, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> Yes, there are a number of anachronisms in _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_. One of the best known is Bilbo’s reaction during Thorin’s speech in “An Unexpected Party” in _The Hobbit_:
> ​At _may never return_ he began to feel a shriek coming up inside, and very soon it burst out like the whistle of an engine coming out of a tunnel.​​


And the description of the fireworks in LotR, that the dragon _passed like an express train_.
It's even more out of place in LotR than it is in TH.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 13, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> But "if God is an _infinitely_ greater thing than anything I would dare to write" doesn't that apply to everyone including, say, C.S. Lewis?
> 
> "Pre-Christian" but with some fairly modern manifestations such as post-offices (chapter 1 of The Hobbit).
> 
> As to what Tolkien would think I don't have the wherewithal to pronounce on that.


To take the last point first, neither do I, unless JRRT committed something to writing explicitly.
Otherwise, there remain only (more or less) educated guesses.
That Frodo had some Jesuanic *aspects* is acknowledged by JRRT; the same goes for Gandalf's "resurrection" (he shares with Frodo the "sacrificial" aspect you mention. But all this is, I suppose, what he meant when that the Christianity is absorbed into the story, but not explicit, in that often-quoted letter (no. 142 of 2 December 1953, to Father Robert Murray, S.J., who had read parts of the LoTR in galley proofs and typescript prior to publication). Aspects, mind you, and JRRT was also always at pains to point out clear differences.

Something entirely different would be to introduce, as it were, an allegorical figure of Jesus into Middle-earth, in the strict sense (in which JRRT himself used allegory) of making equations - and you do seem to imply, of mull the possibility, that it could be "*some* Hobbit = Jesus" in Middle-earth. That is where I'm pretty certain that JRRT would have balked (or in his case baulked) at in pretty drastic language compared to his usual mode of expressing himself.

Which brings me, to jump to your first point, to C.S. Lewis.
I believe that Lewis's overt use of Christian allegory, say in the Narnia series of books, or in his other "everyman's theologian" writings or, during WW II, radio broadcasts, is what contributed to the cooling-off (on JRRT's part) of the close friendship in later years. I'm at a disadvantage here, as the only writing by Lewis that I own is the "Cosmic Trilogy" (overall title of the three space travel books Lewis wrote in my single-volume Pan paperback edition from 1990), so I can't judge for myself, and only know what JRRT wrote about these writings by Lewis (see the very short excerpt from letter no. 265).

As to the Hobbits being anachronistic in Middle-earth, from what I've read the best description of why this is so is in Tom Shippey's "The Road to Middle-earth" (three editions 1982 / 1992 / 2003). It seems that even in the professed children's book that "The Hobbit" (also) is, JRRT found it necessary to have, in the figure of Bilbo, someone who was recognizable as "an avatar of us" in the legendary world of Faerie, to smuggle the story beneath the skeptical "modern(ist)" radar. It is starting to become a quaint notion, as Bilbo's characterization as "Victorian to Edwardian" was already old-fashioned at the time of the book's 1937 publication, and never mind 83 years later!


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Nov 14, 2020)

Just to make it clear I'm not suggesting an allegorical figure of Jesus in any of Tolkien's ME tales, along the lines of Lewis' Aslan,

As to the cooling off between Lewis and Tolkien I thought that was more due to Lewis' relationship with, and later marriage to, the divorcee Joy Gresham. Tolkien had been critical of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe when it was read at the Inklings but it was later that Lewis wrote a letter to Tolkien praising LoTR and Tolkien interceded on Lewis behalf so he could weekend in Oxford while holding down his professorship in Cambridge. The direct train line existed in those days.

The end of Tolkien's letter 276 gives a different picture from 265.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 14, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> Just to make it clear I'm not suggesting an allegorical figure of Jesus in any of Tolkien's ME tales, along the lines of Lewis' Aslan,


I didn't really think that were suggesting this; but your short thread title does invite misinterpretations ... tut, tut, tut 


Rivendell_librarian said:


> As to the cooling off between Lewis and Tolkien I thought that was more due to Lewis' relationship with, and later marriage to, the divorcee Joy Gresham. Tolkien had been critical of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe when it was read at the Inklings but it was later that Lewis wrote a letter to Tolkien praising LoTR and Tolkien interceded on Lewis behalf so he could weekend in Oxford while holding down his professorship in Cambridge. The direct train line existed in those days.


I did say *contributed* to the cooling-off. What may have put off JRRT most about Lewis's relationship with Joy Davidman (Gresham) was that Lewis had been in some ways the consummate bachelor (not *confirmed* bachelor as per some euphemistic English-language tabloid-speak). While appreciated by the Tolkien children as he did not speak to them condescendingly, he was very ill-at-ease with Edith. And suddenly, he seemed to "demand" of the other Inklings an unqualified acceptance of his late-age love Joy, a bit too much of a flip-flop for at least JRRT, and probably several others.


Rivendell_librarian said:


> The end of Tolkien's letter 276 gives a different picture from 265.


Not quite a *different* picture, I would think.
An additional one about the complex relationship between a covert to Catholicism in early youth and an atheist reverting to Ulster Protestantism. I think JRRT's later *cooling* of the relationship hardly ever clouded his judgement of the good things of it pre-cooling. It's a common mistake in my experience that people's judgements of earlier times can be clouded by later experience. In the case that in those earlier times the other person had already been a self-serving fraud (something difficult to be certain of), it could be valid. But simply later changes of views should not change what was valid earlier.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Nov 15, 2020)

Well, at least if your Jesus is historical version, I'd say yes. Yet there're at least 2 possible ways that Jesus would have shown up in ME in JRRT's background cultural view-Istari's incarnation like the Wizard or a political ruler that would lead the whole ME into eternal peace and justice born from royal bloodline. I'm pretty sure there're such formally academic source support my point, yet it's mandarin. Shall I bring it on?^^


----------



## Ealdwyn (Nov 15, 2020)

If we're talking a historical (and racially accurate) version, then Jesus wouldn't have been of a royal bloodline and neither would he have originated in the west of ME, he would have been of one of the races of Easterlings.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Nov 15, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> Well, at least if your Jesus is historical version, I'd say yes. Yet there're at least 2 possible ways that Jesus would have shown up in ME in JRRT's background cultural view-Istari's incarnation like the Wizard or a political ruler that would lead the whole ME into eternal peace and justice born from royal bloodline. I'm pretty sure there're such formally academic source support my point, yet it's mandarin. Shall I bring it on?^^


Hi Hisoka!
A translated version would be better! But there may be a machine translator Mandarin->English


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Nov 15, 2020)

Hello Olorgando,

The title of the thread is clear but it's always a good idea to read the OP as well!

The missing favourite 'uncle' theory is a new one to me. I think the conventional view is that the catholic Tolkien disapproved of divorcees remarrying on religious grounds e.g. John Garth's essay on Tolkien and the Inklings. There are no rules about being too old when it comes to marriage.

Tolkien Letter 265:
_"It is sad that Narnia and all that part of C.S.L's work should remain outside the range of my sympathy, as much of my work was outside his"_

Tolkien Letter 276
_"The unpayable debt that I owe to him was not ‘influence’ as it is ordinarily understood, but sheer encouragement. He was for long my only audience. Only from him did I ever get the idea that my ‘stuff’ could be more than a private hobby. But for his interest and unceasing eagerness for more I should never have brought The L. of the R. to a conclusion"_

Lewis on first reading the LotR:
_Uton herian holbytlas indeed. I have drained the rich cup and satisfied a long thirst. Once it really gets under weigh the steady upward slope of grandeur and terror (not unrelieved by green dells, without which it would indeed be intolerable) is almost unequalled in the whole range of narrative art known to me. In two virtues I think it excels: sheer sub-creation—Bombadil, Barrow Wights, Elves, Ents—as if from inexhaustible resources, and construction—the construction Tasso aimed at (but did not equally achieve) which was to combine the variety of Ariosto with the unity of Virgil. Also, in gravitas. No romance can repell [sic] the charge of ‘escapism’ with such confidence. If it errs, it errs precisely in the opposite direction: the sickness of hope deferred and the merciless piling up of odds against the heroes are near to being too painful. And the long coda after the eucatastrophe, whether you intended it or no, has the effect of reminding us that victory is as transitory as conflict, that (as Byron says) ‘There’s no sterner moralist than pleasure’ and so leaving a final impression of profound melancholy._ 

Though Lewis did have some particular criticisms but this was not the outright rejection of Hugo Dyson or John Wain. Lewis concludes:

_And even if all my objections were just (which is of course unlikely) the faults I think I find could only delay and impair appreciation: the substantial splendour of the tale can carry them all. Ubi plura nitent in carmine non ego paucis offendo maculis._

_I congratulate you. All the long years you have spent on it are justified. Morris and Eddison, in so far as they are comparable, are now mere ‘precursors’._

The above is hard to square with being outside Lewis' "sympathy".


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 15, 2020)

When I mentioned Lewis, it was precisely to make the point that Lewis *had* used pretty overt Christian allegory in his Narnia books, something I believe JRRT disapproved of. And to point it out again, I wrote that this *contributed* to the cooling off of their friendship, without making any guess as to how large a part it played in the whole picture.

As far as the cooling (as I pointed out, mainly on JRRT's side) of the friendship, Lewis's relationship to Joy Davidman (Gresham) was a fairly late development. Much earlier was what JRRT once wrote, in his letter of very late 1963 (no. 252, a draft) to his son Michael, "We were separated *first* by the sudden apparition of Charles Williams, and *then* by his marriage." Williams died in 1945, and had moved to Oxford with the London Branch of the OUP in September 1939. Lewis and Williams had at least exchanged letters as early as 1936. This was twenty years before the civil marriage ceremony (which also had some practical reasons). And I'm sure Williams was foremost (not *solely*) on JRRT's mind when he stated that "Lewis was an impressionable man". Lewis was the only one of the three major Inklings who was ever really influenced by the other two, and JRRT clearly did not approve of Williams's influence, as he also disliked most if not all of Williams's published writings. That dislike did not extend to the man himself, with whom JRRT was at least on cordial terms, as he also remained (and more than that) with Lewis.

I don't know about "favorite" uncle. Mainly because I don't know (and I doubt anyone outside the Tolkien Family knows) how often Lewis called at the Tolkien household, or the other way around how often JRRT called at The Kilns (my guess is much more seldom). My point was that though the Tolkien children liked him because he did not talk down to them, Lewis was very ill at ease with Edith. He may have sensed that Edith was faintly jealous of the time JRRT spent with Lewis, mostly but not solely at Inklings meetings. JRRT was at least in accordance with Lewis on this point, that family matters were kept out of these meetings. For all that has been written about JRRT as a loving and caring father, which he was, he did compartmentalize his life into family and "business", almost air-tight. It was then Lewis who "broke protocol", broached to compartmentalization that JRRT had followed for about thirty years since they had first met. Yes, JRRT reservations about the remarriage of divorcées were more fundamental, but this flip-flop on Lewis's part also very likely contributed to JRRT's irritation.

As to letter 265: it is one example of those I tend to take with a grain of salt. There is no commentary as to the circumstances of its writing, except that it is an excerpt from a letter dated 11 November 1964 to one David Kolb, a Jesuit. JRRT might have worded this differently to a different correspondent, or later, as letter 276 shows. But for that moment, in those circumstances it was JRRT's (written) impression of Lewis's sympathy, or lack thereof, for his own writing. Lewis could also, as has been commented, be quite severe, if not bellicose, in his criticisms. While Lewis might have viewed this as "all in good sport", the temperamentally different JRRT might have taken some of this to heart more than Lewis realized (or JRRT told him). Lewis could by turns be very sensitive, but also at least occasionally surprisingly insensitive.

To return (somewhat) to the thread title: Lewis *had*, in the figure of Aslan the Lion, introduced an allegory of Jesus (as far as I can tell second- or third-hand) into his Narnia books. This contrasts to JRRT's writings, and shows one aspect of their differences in temperament. Lewis himself was aware of, to use his own words, "my bow-wow dogmatism", adding that (the?) one person who could take him down a peg (or several) when he was "barking" was his very close friend Owen Barfield (whom many consider the fourth major Inkling, but who due to business in London could only rarely attend meetings), who would slice-and-dice Lewis's argument - actually more often dogmatic pronouncements - by forcing him to define everything, and not letting a single (often unstated) assumption on Lewis's part to pass by - and Barfield was probably more familiar with the unstated assumptions than anyone else.

Would JRRT ever have introduced the equivalent of an Aslan figure into his legendarium? I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Nov 15, 2020)

Ealdwyn said:


> ould have been of one of the races of Easterlings


Ehh....you know that during the period of Jesus, Jewish had been defined according to their religion instead of bloodline for more than centuries, right?I wonder if your thought is according to assumption that Jews are Semitic people mainly despite that they got widely defined according to religion 🤔
If Jewish people considered religion conversion much more prior than bloodline, I'd say the historical Jesus might appear in ME as a mixed-blood with higher chance.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Nov 15, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> Ehh....you know that during the period of Jesus, Jewish had been defined according to their religion instead of bloodline for more than centuries, right?I wonder if your thought is according to assumption that Jews are Semitic people mainly despite that they got widely defined according to religion 🤔
> If Jewish people considered religion conversion much more prior than bloodline, I'd say the historical Jesus might appear in ME as a mixed-blood with higher chance.


I wasn't really thinking in terms of religion. I was thinking more geographically, that he would originate from a region and climate that approximates to the Middle East.


----------



## Hobbit_of_Mischief (Dec 18, 2020)

Wow! Am I not the only Christain here?! This is amazing!
Anyway, I'm thinking Jesus wouldn't be a Hobbit. Hobbits and pretty much all the other races (except wizards) are more like us. We're all just normal human beings. We're not perfect in any way. So, I don't think Jesus would be one of those races. Now, I took out wizards because they are basically immortal. They're more like angels. Sure, they're not perfect either (like Saruman for example) but the point is they're powerful. But not as powerful as the Creator of the Universe. So, I would say Jesus would be just Jesus. The Son of the One and only God, who is powerful, spirit, eternal, personal, caring, and unique. God is above everything. So, I don't think he'd be a certain race like a Hobbit or dwarf or man, etc.
But I do agree with Aslan as Jesus in Lewis' Narnia series. Because they do pretty much the same thing. They created the world, sacrificed himself because of His love for everyone, and to defeat Satan (or the White Witch if we're talking about Narnia), and rose from the dead.
Hope this helps


----------



## 1stvermont (Dec 18, 2020)

Hobbit_of_Mischief said:


> Wow! Am I not the only Christain here?! This is amazing!
> Anyway, I'm thinking Jesus wouldn't be a Hobbit. Hobbits and pretty much all the other races (except wizards) are more like us. We're all just normal human beings. We're not perfect in any way. So, I don't think Jesus would be one of those races. Now, I took out wizards because they are basically immortal. They're more like angels. Sure, they're not perfect either (like Saruman for example) but the point is they're powerful. But not as powerful as the Creator of the Universe. So, I would say Jesus would be just Jesus. The Son of the One and only God, who is powerful, spirit, eternal, personal, caring, and unique. God is above everything. So, I don't think he'd be a certain race like a Hobbit or dwarf or man, etc.
> But I do agree with Aslan as Jesus in Lewis' Narnia series. Because they do pretty much the same thing. They created the world, sacrificed himself because of His love for everyone, and to defeat Satan (or the White Witch if we're talking about Narnia), and rose from the dead.
> Hope this helps



No, you are not the only one, there are a few of us on this forum not surprising since Tolkien was a devout Christian and he said anyone who read his works would know it.


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 18, 2020)

Hobbit_of_Mischief said:


> Wow! Am I not the only Christain here?! This is amazing!
> Anyway, I'm thinking Jesus wouldn't be a Hobbit. Hobbits and pretty much all the other races (except wizards) are more like us. We're all just normal human beings.


Whatever Christianity has said about the First Easter and what followed, during his lifetime Jesus also appeared as a normal human being. One performing miracles, as per the Gospels, but that would not have made him one-of-a-kind exceptional at the time. However other "miracle workers" managed theirs, there were people who believed that these others could perform miracles too.

An aside: This veiling of his true nature, only revealed after resurrection, may have led some people to see Gandalf as having Jesuanic aspects, at least. But strict allegory breaks down very fast when one considers all the differences (though Jesus certainly was "impatient", to put it mildly, with the money-changers at the temple). Same goes for Frodo, who has bee seen as having aspect of Jesus, but again the differences loom larger.

Taking a step back, one could construe a *very* superficial analogy between Hobbits and the Israelites at the time of Augustus: a small, dimly (if at all) perceived group of people, with some oddities, at the far rim of the Empire, be it viewed from Gondor or Rome. But again, taking an even slightly closer look makes the analogy also break down hopelessly.

But in Middle-earth terms, Jesus was one of the Big Folk. Perhaps the only human who truly understood Hobbits was Aragorn (with a lot of help from Gandalf). The Gondorians were already getting things wrong at the time of the Field of Cormallen, and just forget later. I would see that as a severe handicap for any Hobbit ever becoming a figure of reverence as Jesus became. And taking up the old adage "the prophet counts for nothing in his native country", the Shire would be the worst place in Middle-earth for anyone with prophetic ambitions to start a "career". There were certainly some revolutionary, or radical, aspects to the teachings of Jesus, at the very least in his time. Hobbits revolutionary? Hobbits radical? They probably would not even have understood those words ...


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Dec 19, 2020)

No you're not the only Christian here Hobbit_of_Mischief! And I'm pretty sure the actual Jesus (whose birthday is in a few days' time - well official birthday that is) looked like any other man, being fully man as well as fully God!

To be clear I wasn't thinking of inserting Jesus into the LoTR like Aslan in Narnia. Rather I was asking which of the peoples of Middle Earth is the best for Jesus' incarnation. And rather than men I choose hobbits for the reason given in the OP.


----------



## Halasían (Dec 21, 2020)

Well, this was rather entertaining. 😆
I'm not sure why an assumption of being the 'only' christian on TTF could be made from the topic and discussion. The term 'christian' is used to describe both hateful me-first types and loving folk who feed the poor. The term is pretty much meaningless because there will always be a question as to who gets to determine wh is and what a 'true christian' is.


Anyway, to answer the question asked in the thread topic, I'd say no, because I can't see Jesus (at least the Jesus I have come to know) as one to sit around in one particular geographic area (The_Shire) eating several times a day (breakfast, 2nd breakfast, etc.) and relaxing with a bowl of Longbottom leaf between meals.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Dec 22, 2020)

I believe that it is God in the end who knows who is or isn't a true Christian, but people can self identify as such if they so wish.
This is straying a bit from the OP though,

Happy and healthy Christmas everyone!

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ *19*The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”


----------



## 1stvermont (Dec 22, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> I believe that it is God in the end who knows who is or isn't a true Christian, but people can self identify as such if they so wish.
> This is straying a bit from the OP though,
> 
> Happy and healthy Christmas everyone!
> ...



Agreed, I once knew an ardent atheist who also truly believed himself a catholic though he did not believe in anything the church taught. He knows his own. But i think the apostle's creed is the generally accepted human definition of a Christian.


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Dec 22, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> R_l, JRRT was adamant whenever the topic may have bee broached that he was *NOT* writing anything that contravened, revised, expanded on or in any way "fiddled" with what he considered to be orthodox (Roman Catholic, therefore the lower-case o) Christian faith. He took much of what he would consider "heathen" mythology and transformed it in his legendarium. One has only to compare the "Story of Kullervo" as it appears in the original Finnish Kalevala, then JRRT's version of it (in the 2015 book edited by Verlyn Flieger), and any version of "The Children of Húrin". He made it very clear that this is a pre-Christian world (it would not only be far earlier than Moses, but Abraham, too; Noah is debatable); modified, sanitized if you will, by Christian belief, as had also been the case with "Beowulf". But "Jesus as a Hobbit" strikes me as being the kind of allegory that he would react to not just with that old Imperial British saw "not amused", but with horror!



And this is in addition to Middle-earth *not* being “Our Earth“ nor Eä “Our Universe.”

Tolkien’s comments on it being a “Possible Past,” indicate it to be *explicitly not* “Our Universe” nor “Our Earth.” As do his many comments regarding Sub-Creation as it involves Middle-earth, and the comments that this “world” (Middle-earth) is an _*imaginary*_ world.

Tom Shippey addresses this with regard to Middle-earth being *expressly Heathen*. No one, not even the Elves, being destined for the “_Heaven_” of Christianity’s own “Creation Myths,” and thus none attaining the “salvation” available to Christianity, whether Modern or Archaic.

Tolkien addresses the attempts to “Allegorize“ Middle-earth and all of the beings inhabiting it, or having “entered into it” from an adjacent “Spacetime.” He points-out that he cannot stop them from making or imposing such an Allegorical “Myth” upon Middle-earth. But not being able to stop them is not the same as endorsing their *opinions*.

That last bit being what many were attempting to acquire in making such claims to begin with, which Tolkien resolutely denied their ”requests” for his “blessing” of their revision.



In addition... The “Definition of a Christian” does eliminate (currently) Atheism and Deism.

Although given the malleability of Catholic Theology, it does seem to be moving in the direction of abandoning the Creed (with or without the Filioque), which currently forbids Atheists and Deists from the Sacraments, which includes “_Salvation_”, and/or “_Grace_,” as the requirement for membership, thus allowing Atheists and Deists to join the Church, and receive the Sacraments, including communion.

But that is only one defines “Christian” solely by the Creed, and not one of the broader Protestant definitions.


<Edit>

In addition, the identity of Jesus is locked-up in his being categorically _Human_ and _Male_, or, in Middle-earth terminology: A Man, and from Mankind.

The vast majority of early Christian Heresies dealt explicitly with this notion. Tolkien himself in the _Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth_ denotes that the eventual embodiment/incarnation of Eru within Middle-earth would be _a Man/Human_. And while Tolkien castigates himself for even writing such a clumsy allegory as this, it does illustrate he isn’t going to be deviating from the Orthodoxy and Established Theology of the Catholicism and Christianity of his day.

So it would be a rather _inappropriate_ “thing” for Tolkien to consider in terms of the embodiment/incarnation of Eru Ilúvatar as “Christ” in Middle-earth.

And I do understand people’s desires to see expressed their own favorite tropes, idioms, or “story arcs” within the setting of Middle-earth (the amount of FanFic and /Fic alone is evidence of this...), but the vast majority of these fall under the heading I gave above of people attempting to force their own Allegorizations or Opinions onto Middle-earth.

And while we have evidence that Tolkien had expressly hoped that Christopher would carry-on with the addition of new content for Middle-earth (like the events of Númenór’s return to Middle-earth in the Second Age, and the conflict between _The Faithful_ and _The King’s Men_, or the events of the Early-Mid Third Age), and to correct the mistakes he had identified before his death (like the First Age being about 2000 to 3000 years too short), this sadly did not happen. Christopher felt himself unworthy of such a task, and he did not himself produce an _official_, designated “authority” for future work on the subject.

So eventually we are going to see an explosion of different “Middle-earths” if the works ever enter the Public Domain (JRR’s desire to see his son, CJR, continue to produce original work was explicitly to prevent the overall product from ever entering the Public Domain). Maybe the sporadic release of Materials yet published will help prevent this for the next few decades.

But “Is Jesus a Hobbit.” No. While that is somewhat whimsical, it is rather at odds with Christian, and specifically Catholic, Theology. Such a thing would be heretical to Catholicism, which as an institution has little in the way of a _sense of humor_ about the _Identity_ and _Nature_ of Jesus.

MB


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 22, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> I believe that it is God ...


I don't.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 22, 2020)

Folks, let's try to keep this thread on topic -- such as it is. As I said earlier, discussion of Tolkien's views, and the influences those had on his work, is within our purview, but arguments about religion, _per se, _are not. They caused a great deal of acrimony and hurt feelings here, in the past, and were eventually prohibited, as laid out in the forum rules. 

I'm afraid if this goes much further, the thread will have to be locked.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Dec 22, 2020)

I wouldn't be offended if the topic was locked, or not locked.


----------

