Christian and Jewish influences in Tolkien's work?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

SACA,


I fear that when an author says he has an intent or specifically denies an attributed intent by a reader or critic, I have to listen to the author. Really listen to the author, though I may yet make my case. I suspect that it is easier to attribute intent when the author cannot so make clear the purposes intended or not.

Except, of course, when that author is JK Rowling...

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Except, of course, when that author is JK Rowling...

Lol. That's what I was thinking, too.

[inked]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Except, of course, when that author is JK Rowling...

You have what in mind, GM?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by inked

You have what in mind, GM?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess "Dumbledore is gay."

[Curufin]

*rolls eyes*

Oh, for God's sake, who cares about Dumbledore's sexuality? It's not like it has anything to do with the story whatsoever...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

*rolls eyes*

Oh, for God's sake, who cares about Dumbledore's sexuality? It's not like it has anything to do with the story whatsoever...

You don't think so?

[inked]

Not a whit. Find one textual evidence of it.

And JKR's remark was that "she always thought of Dumbledore as gay". She just never wrote him that way. (See accioquotes for the remarks at a reading session in, IIRC, New York.) And the author is bound by the texts written ever so much as the reader.

When the revised editions come out, then we can talk about that aspect of non-disclosure being corrected by the author.

There's not a whiff of evidence otherwise in the published texts.

That'd be the equivalent of saying Sam Gamgee was always "gay" by Tolkien. There is no textual proof of the claim and much to refute it. Same for JKR and Dumby.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

Not a whit. Find one textual evidence of it.

And JKR's remark was that "she always thought of Dumbledore as gay". She just never wrote him that way. (See accioquotes for the remarks at a reading session in, IIRC, New York.) And the author is bound by the texts written ever so much as the reader.

When the revised editions come out, then we can talk about that aspect of non-disclosure being corrected by the author.

There's not a whiff of evidence otherwise in the published texts.

That'd be the equivalent of saying Sam Gamgee was always "gay" by Tolkien. There is no textual proof of the claim and much to refute it. Same for JKR and Dumby.

I agree. I just think she was being obnoxious.

Of course, I also think she just wrote down whatever came into her head without any interest in what she'd previously written, and no concern at all for what might come after, and that she needed an editor with some chutzpah to keep her accountable, but...

But if one allowed it in, it would have huge ramifications for the story. That's the kind of trouble one gets in, when one departs from the text.

[Tessar]

I agree there is no evidence in the books that Dumbledore is gay, and I think it's a bit ridiculous of her to be talking about it after everything is said and done.

... but seriously?... If, and this is an if that I don't think is true because I don't consider Dumbledore to be gay....... but.... IF... Dumbledore were gay, he would be.... like... the coolest gay character EVAR!!!!! O.o

... assuming we exclude the steaming pile of crap that was book 7. Aside from that he was totally awesome.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

There's not a whiff of evidence otherwise in the published texts.

There isn't a whiff of evidence that he is heterosexual either.

[Willow Oran]

Possibly because he is derived from the archetypal 'elderly mentor' and thus harder for most readers to associate with either form of sexuality?

To try and shift this slightly back on topic... the mentoring character in any story is usually the one to provide spiritual guidance to the protagonist, placing constraints of what the author's real and invented cultures see as a moral person on that character's development. Had Rowling been brave enough to write her full idea of Dumbledore's character into the books it would have been a much stronger breakthrough for cultural minorities in mainstream literature. At the same time, it would have given the people arguing for the books being banned one more thing to latch onto. Now personally, I think she was just a lazy author. But one could make the argument that she was prevented from writing a character as she truly saw him by cultural intimidation in which religion can be said to have played a part.

We know authors are (often intentionally) influenced by their internal beliefs, but how do external ideas concerning God and religion effect pieces of writing where the author writes from a secular standpoint? Can these be filtered out or will the author inevitably find themselves forced to stay within certain boundaries? And finally, what effect does theology have on authors who by the nature of their writing must play god?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

We know authors are (often intentionally) influenced by their internal beliefs, but how do external ideas concerning God and religion effect pieces of writing where the author writes from a secular standpoint? Can these be filtered out or will the author inevitably find themselves forced to stay within certain boundaries?

When you're in the business of deciding what "influenced, even unintenionally" a writer, you're way into guessing.

Now, I'm okay with that. I frequently think I know more about what someone has implied than they understand. But, that's what it is.

And finally, what effect does theology have on authors who by the nature of their writing must play god?

I guess it depends on whether you see the writer as 'playing god" or as "channeling" something. Up North, here, there seem to be a few voices that see Tolkien, for example, as reporting something true. That's the same POV of some people re: the Bible. In those cases, there would not be the problem of error based on the author's bias.

However, if you see the authors of these works as a person who wrote things down, then their biases are certainly fair game for interpretation.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Repost: What do you think of this:

We all know Tolkien was heavily influenced by christianity. Now look at the simularities.

1. Israel was split into two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah - So was the Dúnedain in ME

2. The north kingdom, kingdom of Israel was larger - So was Arnor

3. The Kingdom of Israel was eventually over run and scattered - So was Arnor

4. Kingdom of Judah remained - So did Gondor

5. Eldarion's birth united the royal half elvin lines - The birth of Jesus united the two royal lines of king David.

I have been meaning to bring this up but as you can see I have been busy.

Here
The far left is the paleo version of hebrew.

And here...
The top line is the paleo hebrew.

I know I know you will say that the runes are norse and german etc. but keep in mind none of those cultures created letters. The ones in popular use today are aramaic.

[Earniel]

Bah, seeking correlations in shape only between two unrelated scripts is something the majority of philologues are very, very careful about, if they cannot avoid it all together. It's not something that consitutes a solid basis for sound theories. Correlation is not causation.

While the exact origins of Futhark are still speculative, there is to my knowledge no viable theory that it was in origin Hebrew. A common origin is however possible.

And Aramaic is a language, by the way, and not a script. Nor did the Israelites develop the Hebrew alphabet on their own, so I do not see why you saying that the Norse and Germanic cultures didn't create letters (which is IMO a false assumption) is an argument for your position at all.

Not that this has anything to do with Theology, I realise now. I'm sure there are better suited threads for this.

[The Telcontarion]

I do agree to some extent but my only goal really was to show the relations between the texts and suggest some common origin. I will be the first to say I would need more of a correlation and more research.

Off topic a bit but still relates in that we still are talking about the original biblical language and the impact of Israel on the entire world in general and it's influence or non influence on my favorite author.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Bah, seeking correlations in shape only between two unrelated scripts is something the majority of philologues are very, very careful about, if they cannot avoid it all together. It's not something that consitutes a solid basis for sound theories. Correlation is not causation.

While the exact origins of Futhark are still speculative, there is to my knowledge no viable theory that it was in origin Hebrew. A common origin is however possible.

And Aramaic is a language, by the way, and not a script. Nor did the Israelites develop the Hebrew alphabet on their own, so I do not see why you saying that the Norse and Germanic cultures didn't create letters (which is IMO a false assumption) is an argument for your position at all.

Not that this has anything to do with Theology, I realise now. I'm sure there are better suited threads for this.

The Israelites did not create Hebrew period. It was the original language from the beginning. But only the righteous seed (Israel) inherited it.

Here follows the origins of all the original European languages and culture. The Israelite connection, the complete history revealed:

You want academic proof, watch this entire video and the part after.


As I have said before, the Africans were not capturing and selling into slavery other Africans, they were selling the refugees of Israel after it was sacked in 70AD. Over a period of about 1500 years we kept migrating from the east coast of Africa to the west coast. The greater part settled in west Africa and there our enemies eventually rounded us up and put us into bondage.

Many of us were living in Europe at the time and 1000s of Israelite slaves were taken from Europe into slavery. In fact, we are the original kings and queens of those lands. We founded those countries. That was what the renaissance was about. After our downfall it was meant to revise all things, history and the images which is merely a by product of the original rulers (us, Israelites) being brought down and their enemies now coming into full power.

Here follows academic proof.

Do you know what the Book of Ballymote is or the Yellow Book of Lecan for that matter? These are European books of history and genealogy. In the link above were it states the contents of the Book of Ballymote, it mentions the history of the "Jews"/Israelites. Why is that? Because The christian kings were the jews. Also in the Book of Ballymote, there is a copy of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, which states that the original monarchs and peoples of the Gaels were in fact descendants of the Scythians.

The original video above shows you clips of an academic documentary that shows that the Israelites in Europe were descendants of the Scyths and the other evidents (the books I provided here) show that they were intern the founders of the European monarchies and countries. They were all one people, the scattered Israelites after Israel was sacked in 70 AD, who were all black people and the eventual slaves in the Americas.

Psalms 83:2-6
2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. 3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. 4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from [being] a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. 5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: 6 The tabernacles of EDOM, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; 12 Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession.

We lost our identity, it says "no more in remembrance;" the narrator in the embedded video said the exact same thing. We do not know because we lost it during the long migration over the years. We then lost our most recent history as rulers and founders of Europe as it was taken away/beaten out of us during slavery.

So with that it is easy to see that, not just all the European letters but language, culture and myths owe a great deal to the Israelites. Now it even makes more sense why the queen of england sits on the stone of Jacob (which she has no right to do since she is not an Israelite - pretentious lier).

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

The Israelites did not create Hebrew period. It was the original language from the beginning. But only the righteous seed (Israel) inherited it.

Here follows the origins of all the original European languages and culture. The Israelite connection, the complete history revealed:

You want academic proof, watch this entire video and the part after.


As I have said before, the Africans were not capturing and selling into slavery other Africans, they were selling the refugees of Israel after it was sacked in 70AD. Over a period of about 1500 years we kept migrating from the east coast of Africa to the west coast. The greater part settled in west Africa and there our enemies eventually rounded us up and put us into bondage.

Many of us were living in Europe at the time and 1000s of Israelite slaves were taken from Europe into slavery. In fact, we are the original kings and queens of those lands. We founded those countries. That was what the renaissance was about. After our downfall it was meant to revise all things, history and the images which is merely a by product of the original rulers (us, Israelites) being brought down and their enemies now coming into full power.

Here follows academic proof.

Do you know what the Book of Ballymote is or the Yellow Book of Lecan for that matter? These are European books of history and genealogy. In the link above were it states the contents of the Book of Ballymote, it mentions the history of the "Jews"/Israelites. Why is that? Because The christian kings were the jews. Also in the Book of Ballymote, there is a copy of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, which states that the original monarchs and peoples of the Gaels were in fact descendants of the Scythians.

The original video above shows you clips of an academic documentary that shows that the Israelites in Europe were descendants of the Scyths and the other evidents (the books I provided here) show that they were intern the founders of the European monarchies and countries. They were all one people, the scattered Israelites after Israel was sacked in 70 AD, who were all black people and the eventual slaves in the Americas.

Psalms 83:2-6
2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. 3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. 4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from [being] a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. 5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: 6 The tabernacles of EDOM, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; 12 Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession.

We lost our identity, it says "no more in remembrance;" the narrator in the embedded video said the exact same thing. We do not know because we lost it during the long migration over the years. We then lost our most recent history as rulers and founders of Europe as it was taken away/beaten out of us during slavery.

So with that it is easy to see that, not just all the European letters but language, culture and myths owe a great deal to the Israelites. Now it even makes more sense why the queen of england sits on the stone of Jacob (which she has no right to do since she is not an Israelite - pretentious lier).

You are taking an awful lot of credit for the development of today's cultures. What's interesting is everything you choose to omit.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You are taking an awful lot of credit for the development of today's cultures. What's interesting is everything you choose to omit.

Like...

I am not taking credit for "todays culture," I had nothing to day with the chinese or japanese culture to name a few. What I am doing is reclaiming my own. Which yes, is a very significant culture in world history but not because of our, "greatness:"

Deuteronomy 9:5
Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

It was for the wickedness/vain practices/idolatry/chrismas trees of the other nations we were raised up above them.

[The Telcontarion]

All that is gold does not glitter, (Zech 13:9), (2 Tim 2:20) (Is 13:12)
Not all those who wander are lost; (Ba 2:29-31), (Zeph 3:19), (Jer 31:10), (Ez 11:17)
The old that is strong does not wither, (Jer 51:19-20)
Deep roots are not reached by the frost. (Rev 22:16)
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken, (Matt 10:34), (Rev 2:16), (Rev 19:21)
The crownless again shall be king!!! (Rev 14:14), (Rev 4:4)


The bible and consequently the story of Israel, is responsible for much of Tolkien's writings.

"You owe me your fealty."

The Tar Minyaturion.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

The Israelites did not create Hebrew period. It was the original language from the beginning. But only the righteous seed (Israel) inherited it.

Here follows the origins of all the original European languages and culture. The Israelite connection, the complete history revealed:

Not sure why you quoted me if nothing of what you say has anything to do with my post. But I'm with BJ on this. It never ceases to amaze me how people will try and claim other people's achievements and history. Somewhat like all those people convinced the ancient Brittons could never have built Stonehenge without modern technology and therefore must have had help from the aliens, or how the Maya could never have built those temples without help from either the ancient Egyptians or 'nother set of aliens...