Christian and Jewish influences in Tolkien's work?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

It certainly is possible and even very likely that St. Maurice was black. I think the likelihood of him being black is strengthened by the geographical location in Egypt that his legion took its name from. Having been enrolled in the Roman Thebes legion, which takes its name from Thebes, the Egyptian city halfway between the Mediterranean coast and the Sudanese border (the further south you venture in Egypt the darker the skin), makes it more than plausible that he had roots from the area or even further south.

It makes for a good point if there are many depictions of St. Maurice as a white-skinned Caucasian-looking fellow. But I fail to see how the more than likely black skin color of St. Maurice (being from Thebes, far south in Egypt) makes you so sure everyone else further north in Egypt, even further north in Palestine and the area must be black as well.. There's not automatic logic in that.

What you are suggesting is the same as saying that the white people in south Africa are original south Africans. All of Egypt were black people, the other groups are invaders. The Arabs in Egypt (the latest invaders) today have only been there for a few hundred years after they invaded sometime in 640 AD. That is why they are found in the north were the capital is.

Yes you are right about the fact that the further south you go in egypt you find darker skin people. That is were the original Egyptians fled to during the invasion. A taxi cab driver in new york confirmed this for me when I inquired about the original Egyptians being the same as the people that are there today - that was what an Arab co-worker of mind said. The cab driver then informed me that he was indeed an Egyptian and that the Arab was lieing. He was the one telling me that the original people are now found mostly on the south and away from the main capitols as they face bigotry there and god knows what else in the past.

Sure enough when I went back and confronted the Arab with this he had nothing to say. But that is history, their history. So even though he knew his history (who knows, he could have been ignorant about it) he still said he was an original Egyptian, the same as those who built the pyramids yet history clearly shows that the Arabs are invaders.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

What you are suggesting is the same as saying that the white people in south Africa are original south Africans. All of Egypt were black people, the other groups are invaders. The Arabs in Egypt (the latest invaders) today have only been there for a few hundred years after they invaded sometime in 640 AD. That is why they are found in the north were the capital is.

Yes you are right about the fact that the further south you go in egypt you find darker skin people. That is were the original Egyptians fled to during the invasion. A taxi cab driver in new york confirmed this for me when I inquired about the original Egyptians being the same as the people that are thee today - that was what an Arab co-worker of mind said. The cab driver then informed me that he was indeed an Egyptian and that the Arab was lieing. He was the one telling me that the original people are now found mostly on the south and away from the main capitols as they face bigotry there and god knows what else in the past.

Sure enough when I went back and confronted the Arab with this he had nothing to say. But that is history, their history. So even though he knew his history (who knows, he could have been ignorant about it) he still said he was an original Egyptian, the same as those who built the pyramids yet history clearly shows that the Arabs are invaders.

I agree with your basic premise that the majority of Egyptians in Cairo today have inherited external traits such as skin color that probably is lighter than what the average Egyptian looked like before the Muslim invasions after the death of the prophet Mohammed.
But that does not mean that most Egyptians necessarily were as black as the average Congolese is today.
If you take a look southwards, beyond the southern border of Egypt you'll at first find very dark-skinned Sudanese (some of the blackest peoples in Africa). Yet just east of Sudan lies Ethiopia with a population of much lighter skin. Go even further east you come upon Somalia, where, again, the population has a blacker skin than Ethiopians but not as much as the average Sudanese (or ancient Nubians). There are many African groups south of the Sahara that do not have very black skin: Populations in Kenya, Eritrea, Uganda, Tchad and Djibouti.
We can agree that Egyptians prior to the Ummayyad invasions of the Arabian Peninsula Muslims (Mohammed & co) were probably darker skinned in general than their invaders, but it does not follow that all Egyptians were of the same skin color.

But you know, be they brown, black or something inbetween, what does it really matter? They were Africans, and there's more diversity in language, culture and appearance among Africans than among Europeans so it seems pointless to generalize.

[BeardofPants]

Not sure what ANY of this has to do with Tolkien, but whatevs.

Nubians were clearly darker skinned than their northern, egyptian, counterparts. This is displayed quite clearly surviving frescos from the middle kingdom. In any case, I think it is fair to say that there was likely a variety of skin colours.

Nubia: Nubians in Egypt

The evidence for Nubians in Egypt may be divided into written sources and archaeological record: the human remains from the latter would provide the most direct or primary sources, but they have not been analysed in numbers or methods suitable for demographic studies.

The classic Middle Egyptian phase of the Egyptian language provides evidence for Egyptian attitudes to the inhabitants of lands immediately south of Egypt: there seem to have been two main words used, Nehesy (nHsy) for inhabitants of the river valley, and Medjay (mDAy) for a group or groups from the deserts east of the Nubian Nile Valley. This indicates the view from Egypt, as mediated through language: it is possible that it represents a simplifying generalisation for a more complex linguistic and ethnic map of Nubia.

The evidence for Nubians living in Middle Kingdom Egypt is open to several interpretations. The name Nehesy - 'Nubian' appears several times: does it refer to a Nubian, either born in Egypt or someone who changed their foreign name? Was it just a 'fashion' to call somebody 'Nubian' or was the child darker-skinned than usual so that the parents decided to give him that name? What does darker skin mean? This question leads to the modern debate over race in ancient Egypt.

Dark skinned people are sometimes depicted in Middle Kingdom art. It is again very difficult to draw any conclusion from this. It seems almost impossible to decide, whether these were Nubians or whether the dark skin is chosen for other reasons ('rebirth'). Further research is needed, with a comprehensive catalogue illustrated in colour for all examples of each period. For the Second Intermediate Period there is good evidence from material culture that inhabitants from the Nubian eastern desert settled in Egypt (pan-graves).

http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/nubia/nubians.html

[BeardofPants]

double post

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Not sure what ANY of this has to do with Tolkien, but whatevs.

Nubians were clearly darker skinned than their northern, egyptian, counterparts. This is displayed quite clearly surviving frescos from the middle kingdom. In any case, I think it is fair to say that there was likely a variety of skin colours.



http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/nubia/nubians.html

I think the reason we're into this discussion is the hypothesis by Telcontarion that much of Tolkien's Middle Earth drew inspiration from Christian and Jewish history, though it's branched off into a discussion about who the real Jews are(if they're black or not?) it seems. We may be off topic

Like the above sources suggest, there is indications that Nubians were darker skinned (which you would expect). I think there's a really good possibility that Egypt was a mosaic of skin colors due to its geographical location, its far-reaching trade and power, and its wars for the extent of time that it (Egyptian Empire) reigned the Near East and North Africa.

[GrayMouser]

I believe that there's pretty strong DNA and bone structural evidence evidence that the modern Egyptians are direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians.

A lot of conquests are turning out to have less racial/ethnic effect than previously thought- like Turkey: while the religion, language, elites, and some customs have changed, the bulk of the population remains descendants of Hittites rather than Turks.

Even vaguely recall reading that there's rather more Briton and less Anglo-Saxon in the modern English than was believed.

[Coffeehouse]

The Turkish nation is a very good example of a people who have not replaced but mixed with the peoples they conquered. Originating from the Central Asian steppes, they moved westwards, but did not replace the peoples they conquered but intermarried and fused in their own Turkish legacy with the local customs and culture. You can see that legacy in Turkey today, as being Turkish is less about what skin color you are or where along the line you became 'Turkish', but adhering to the idea of Turkey or a Turkish societal code (of which Kurdish Turks seem to be notoriously unwilling to subdue to), which in many ways is similar to the idea of America.

Just because a new conqueror appears in a territory already inhabited by another people (Mongols in China, Turks in Asia Minor, Arabs in Egypt or Muslims in India) it must accordingly displace the general racial mix is a wrong assumption. Alexander the Great and the Greeks, for all their conquests, only spiced, but did not replace their new subjects.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The Turkish nation is a very good example of a people who have not replaced but mixed with the peoples they conquered. Originating from the Central Asian steppes, they moved westwards, but did not replace the peoples they conquered but intermarried and fused in their own Turkish legacy with the local customs and culture. You can see that legacy in Turkey today, as being Turkish is less about what skin color you are or where along the line you became 'Turkish', but adhering to the idea of Turkey or a Turkish societal code (of which Kurdish Turks seem to be notoriously unwilling to subdue to), which in many ways is similar to the idea of America.

Just because a new conqueror appears in a territory already inhabited by another people (Mongols in China, Turks in Asia Minor, Arabs in Egypt or Muslims in India) it must accordingly displace the general racial mix is a wrong assumption. Alexander the Great and the Greeks, for all their conquests, only spiced, but did not replace their new subjects.

The original nile valley inhabitants were as black as any other african group. Biblically Mizraim, the forefather of the Egyptians, the second eldest son of Ham (Ham, meaning burned) was as dark as his eldest brother Cush. They were darker than the south african bushman, who no one would say is white or Arabic; the average bushman was a light brown complexion but they are still black. So even if the Egyptians were lighter, they still definately had the negroid curly hair, lips, nose and other features.

This argument amuses me to no end and telling you why I say so brings us back to the issue that is relivant to this thread, iconoclasm. Which I keep asking for comments on but everyone keeps dodging with great skill. I have already mentioned the issue with St. Maurice, being a black Egyptian yet they have a caucasian image of the man. Nimrod, maker of the tower of babel was the eldest son of Cush. Yet I have never seen him depicted as black, in movies or in images, him and his people in movies were always depicted as white; that is iconoclasm. Let any say here that Nimrod, first of the Ethiopians was white and I know I need not continue with this debate. Still no one has commented on the black Palestinians (the original Canaanites, Canaan the last son of Ham).

This is why today all the images of Jesus, Mary and the Apostles (all jews) that were originally black images in Europe, today are white. Iconoclasm is at the root of it all; smashing of the noses off statues in egypt, defacing paintings in europe and in the middle east. So, the cultural effects of the Israelites history on the world and specifically to this thread, on JRRT's work, is not recognized and is lost among a myriad of names, languages and cultures in Europe that all have one origin, the Israelites.

If a coptic child grew up looking at a blond hair blue eyed image of St. Maurice all his life, would he not believe that is how he looked; yet it is shown here in this thread that he was in fact, black. If he believed, that is how he looked then he would also be likely to believe that, if not that all the original Egyptians were white, that the caucasian type had more influence and were more significant than reality allows; certainly he would think the Saint was a white man, with blond hair no less. Is this scenario not likely concerning jesus and his people given the evidents presented. Not just of the jews (which is immence) but similar peoples, whether Egyptian (Maurice), Ethiopian (Nimrod) or Canaanites (In Palestine and Israel).

Just a side note, in the video with the black Palestinians the one being interviewed said quite cleary that his people were taken from Palestine, then into Africa and then eventually into slavery; the jews also took this route, it would seem most by fleeing but undoubtedly others were over taken and brought by force.

So again...lol, please address the issue of Iconoclasm, instead of going on and on about how the Egyptians were light skin africans, lol...yeah right, light skin like their brother Nimrod and the rest of the Ethiopians.

The Israelites were black, that is plane, in the bible.

Amos 9:7
Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel?

It planely says we are like the ethiopians (not the imaginary white Ethipians, you know, Nimrods people...lol - this is stupid, this is so stupid).

Now this is the killer for me.

Lamentations 5:10
Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.

Now when black people are suffering due to a famine/starving their skin gets darker and darker. A white person becomes paler and paler. so this is another cut tothose people who are claiming to be Israelites. They are not but do lie as the scriptures say.

Lamentations 4:8
8 Their visage is blacker than a coal;

"I know it said coal, but just like white chocolate, there is white coal too,"... lol. Anymore stupid statements and I am going to just start being completely frank about all this and why the hell I think it is happening and let you all have it with both barrels. I was content to prove that the Israelite culture, influenced JRRT's work in language, writing and on some as of yet unmeasurable, spiritual level, but now I can really get into it. As to the latter:

"And because all Elves had been found in groups of twelve, twelve became the number they counted with ever after, and 144 was for long their highest number, and in none of their later tongues was there therefore any common name for a greater number."

12 tribes of Israel and the chosen 144,000. The number 144 - which is also mentioned in relation to the dimensions of the 12-gated New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:17) - is of course 12 times 12, or 12 squared.

Like I said, it is all about Israel.

The whole world and all the events since the rise of Israel (even before, since we were chosen before the world was made) was all about us. So suck it!!!!

The runes in tolkien is from us, the Israelites. The migrations, sunderings, divisions and the subsequent different evolved languages of the elves is modeled after the experiences of the Israelites. The strong European culture throughout Tolkien, The kingdoms of the Dunedain, Eldarion, all of it, is inspired by Israel!!!

[BeardofPants]

http://www.public.asu.edu/~usman/ima...ian-kemsit.jpg



*shrug*

[inked]

Well, Phillip Pullman thinks there are Christian influences in Tolkien's work! See here: http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=15002

Of course, PP thinks that's a reason to discredit Tollers! But I'd bet PP would protest anyone discounting his work because it was written by an atheist who thought his world view explained everything as PP discounts Tolkien's Roman Catholicism.

And Tolkien's account of the Creation is certainly Hebraically influenced and blended with Norse and other mythologies in addition to its Christian content - to start at the beginning, as it were.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, Phillip Pullman thinks there are Christian influences in Tolkien's work! See here: http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=15002

Of course, PP thinks that's a reason to discredit Tollers! But I'd bet PP would protest anyone discounting his work because it was written by an atheist who thought his world view explained everything as PP discounts Tolkien's Roman Catholicism.

And Tolkien's account of the Creation is certainly Hebraically influenced and blended with Norse and other mythologies in addition to its Christian content - to start at the beginning, as it were.

I will reply in the "Lwis vs Tolkien vs Pullman: Death Match in the Cage!" thread.

[The Telcontarion]

Read 1st and 2nd kings in the bible. there you will see that the relationship between Gondor and Arnor was firmly based on the events of those books.

While Gondor only came to the defense of Arnor once - during the which kings invasion - in the bible the, the South Kingdom/the kingdom of Judah, came to the aid of the North Kingdom/the kingdom of Israel reeatedly, with the Judite king always stating that "My horses, my people, my swords and the thy people are as one."

Tolkien clearly did not make his version of the story with such a close relationship of them always going to war together (as tolkienites, that was always a dream that they could have a closer more unified relationship), after all it would have been to obvious a rippoff; he had to change it but it's clear. The single most important inspiration of Tolkien's work is the bible and subsequently, the story of the jews.

PS. I noticed no one addressed my previous post about the numbers 12 and the 144. Come on, it's not hard, don't run....hahahaaa!!!

[inked]

El Tel, JRRT did not simply re-write the Bible.

12 tribes/gates
12 apostles/foundation stones of New Jerusalem
144 (12x12) includes the Jews and the Gentiles
1000 incomprehensibly huge number

144,000 in the Apocalypse (aka Revelation) = the symbolic number of the incomprehensibly huge number of those whom God is saving (perhaps equal to everyone in all times and places?)

Not to mention gematria - which ought to give you a field day!

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by inked

144,000 in the Apocalypse (aka Revelation) = the symbolic number of the incomprehensibly huge number of those whom God is saving (perhaps equal to everyone in all times and places?)

Not to mention gematria - which ought to give you a field day!

Give me a field day?

Revelation 7:4-6

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. 6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. 7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. 8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

So 144,000 is not talking about everyone that ever was, just 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel.

Now as for Tolkien rewriting the bible, it sure does seem that he did in a great many different places; 1st and second kings, to be specific in but one instances.

And the point is that 144,000 is a straight rip from the bible and that, it and other things are closely based on the life and prophecies pertaining to the Israelites.

[brownjenkins]

The base twelve system is Summeric in origin. Arabic, as we understand it today, not Israelite. They just embraced the traditions of previous cultures.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The base twelve system is Summeric in origin. Arabic, as we understand it today, not Israelite. They just embraced the traditions of previous cultures.

Yes - simply having a base 12 system need not be a Biblical reference. It would be like saying having a base 8 system is necessarily an homage to spiders.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Yes - simply having a base 12 system need not be a Biblical reference. It would be like saying having a base 8 system is necessarily an homage to spiders.

[Flaming removed. Consider this your final warning. Eärniel] It's like the interviews about the fake moon landing in that documentary "What really happened on the way to the Moon."

[EllethValatari]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

I distinctly recall Tolkien writing of an intense dislike for allegorical interpretations of Lord of the Rings. There are very christian tones in the Ainulindale and some of his writings on Eldarin culture. But I sincerely doubt he meant such a close parallel as you've presented in the plot of his primary work.

Thank you for pointing this out! I was just about to do so and then read your post...yes, I do not think these parallels are intentional or necessary to a full understanding of LoTR and other writings.