# Talk:Christianity in Middle-earth

It's striking that Tolkien uses the term "wafer", and alliterating "white" and "wax", all of the seal used to mark the lembas as royal. Of course Christians associate "wafer" with the viaticum, but Tolkien doesn't say this directly. Perhaps a reliable Catholic commentator has discussed this, but it's getting quite a subtle point for this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, indeed they have. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This quote is I believe significant enough that it should be included somewhere in this article
“In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about freedom …. It is about God, and His sole right to Divine Honour. The Eldar and the Numenôreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other an abomination.”
J R R Tolkien, letter 184, 1956
This whole letter is stunning but these passages are pivotal. Thanks! Salvatoredelcaverno (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that's your opinion. If we can find and cite a scholar who uses this particular quotation then we can certainly include it and explain why the scholar thinks it important. The Wikipedia rules on Original Research preclude the voicing of editorial opinions in articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the Athrabeth in this article?  This article tries to make it seem like Christ doesn't exist in Tolkien's legendarium, but reading of the Athrabeth clearly shows that Christ is not only present in the legendarium, but his presence is fundamental to understanding the legendarium. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The Athrabeth is something that could be mentioned, yes. But the article certainly does not try to eliminate Christ — on the contrary, the article explains in great detail how that hidden figure is in fact present. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The previous version made the claim that Christ is not present in the legendarium.  This is factually incorrect, as Christ is explicitly present in the Athrabeth, which was considered a central and fundamental work for the whole legendarium. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
All right, we don't need to make that precise claim, and Curry may have been overreaching himself there, so I've cut the pertinent phrase. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
It should explicitly say that Christ as a figure is explicitly present in Tolkien's legendarium and that Tolkien considered Christ's presence in the legendarium to be a fundamental aspect of his legendarium.  It is a straight up factual inaccuracy to state that Christ as a figure isn't present in Tolkien's legendarium. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
You're going way too far here. The Athrabeth's frame story sets it in the First Age, thousands of years before Christ. Like many other Middle-earth writings, it can be read as hinting at Christianity, but it does not mention Christ directly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Genuine question.  Have you ever read the Athrabeth or it's sub component Tale of Adanel before?  It's weird that you're trying to gaslight me on this matter.  Christ is explicitly mentioned in the Athrabeth.  It is extremely weird that you're trying so hard to deny this basic fact about this topic. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Please, just stop, this is wholly unhelpful, and your repeated personal attacks are entirely unacceptable. You may be familiar with Internet forums where it is normal to "flame" other users: that is forbidden here. There are plenty of places where you can edit and argue to your heart's content. This isn't one of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I am not wrong though.  The Athrabeth explicitly involves Christ as a figure present in the legendarium.  It is factually incorrect to state otherwise. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
As you're been told repeatedly, stop making unverifiable assertions. If you have evidence, quote and cite it. Your quotation will need to be from the Athrabeth itself, and it will need to include the word "Christ", to support your assertions; then we can put that in the article. Otherwise, stop. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
My assertation is verifiable though.  The Athrabeth is an actual work, that JRR Tolkien actually wrote, and it actually does include Christ as a figure in it.
The Athrabeth states: " 'But there are among us a few (of whom I am one) who have the Great Hope, as we call it, and believe that His secret has been handed down from the days before our wounding. This is the Great Hope: that Eru will himself enter into Arda and heal Men and all the Marring.' " and Christopher writes in his commentary: "Was he referring then to the astonishing conception in the Athrabeth of 'the Great Hope of Men', as it is called in the draft A (p. 352), 'the Old Hope' as it is called in the final text (p. 321), that Eru himself will enter into Arda to oppose the evil of Melkor? In the Commentary (p. 335) this was further defined: 'Finrod ... probably proceeded to the expectation that "the coming of Eru", if it took place, would be specially and primarily concerned with Men: that is to an imaginative guess or vision that Eru would come incarnated in human form' - though my father noted that 'This does not appear in the Athrabeth'. But this surely is not parody, nor even parallel, but the extension - if only represented as vision, hope, or prophecy - of the 'theology' of Arda into specifically, and of course centrally, Christian belief; and a manifest challenge to my father's view in his letter of 1951 on the necessary limitations of the expression of 'moral and religious truth (or error)' in a 'Secondary World'."
It is clear and obvious that "the Great Hope" refers to Christ and that belief in this "Christ-figure" was central to the theology of the Edain in Tolkien's legendarium. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
"It is clear and obvious that" --- this is your personal (editorial) inference. On Wikipedia, this is called ORIGINAL RESEARCH (WP:OR), which is strictly forbidden. Please read the policy, which is central to how Wikipedia works. Then we'll be in a position to discuss things more productively. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
So we should just disregard with Tolkien wrote? What figure other than Christ could "the Great Hope" possibly be referring to? 173.67.130.26 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
PLEASE read the policy. "What ... could [it] possibly be referring to?" --- again, you are asking for an editorial inference, which is explicitly forbidden. Either something is stated, or we can't use it: that's all. It's a universal rule, and many years of editing by thousands of editors have demonstrated that it works. If you don't like it, Wikipedia is not the place for you: it's fundamental to the encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
So you do think we should disregard what Tolkien wrote?  *makes confused face gif face* 173.67.130.26 (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Good grief. We can summarize, quote, and state what scholars wrote, suitably cited. This is not complicated, it's basic stuff. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Is Christopher Tolkien a scholarly secondary source?  Or are we going to disregard his scholarship because it doesn't say what you what it to say?
It is very weird and very telling that you want us to pretend that the Athrabeth doesn't say what it says. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
No! You must not personalize this (that's an attack). But no pretence is involved. We take the text exactly as it is written, without editorial inference (for the third time now). We can take any scholarly or reliably-published commentary, which may freely make any authorial inferences those guys like, and we can quote, attribute, and cite those. What we can't do is make the jump from the text to some inferred meaning ourselves. I'm through with this now, if you need help, please go to the help-desk and chat there, or better, read the policies and think about them carefully: they are clear and logical, and they are proven through much experience. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
So how are we going to solve this civically then?  The Athrabeth says what it says, Christopher Tolkien's secondary commentary agrees with the assertation that "the Great Hope" is at the very least a "Christ-figure" if not meant to explicitly be Christ.  What should we do? 173.67.130.26 (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 Then you can attribute, summarize, and quote Christopher Tolkien, and cite him (in the same style as the citations in the rest of the article) as saying that he believes that "the Great Hope" means a "Christ-figure". Please do this somewhere down in the body of the article, not up at the top in the lead, which is just a summary. The key point for me is that, like everything else in the Middle-earth corpus, Tolkien has avoided mentioning Christ directly. As for the implications, they are everywhere, and the article already says that. I really don't see this as at all difficult. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
What source supports the assertation that there are no Christ-figures in Tolkien's legendarium?  As of right now the assertion that there are no Christ-figures in Tolkien's legendarium is uncited.  I can add the  tag. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
No, please follow the cited sources in the article. The lead (summary, abstract, precis, first section) is only an introductory summary of the rest of the article: everything in the lead is cited down below. This too is basic. I'm afraid that a measure of "competence is required" (WP:CIR) in editing, and you do need to learn what to do before doing damage all over the project, by accidentally breaking things (like the lead section) whose structure and function you are starting to discover. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Is there a higher admin we can bring this to? 173.67.130.26 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Here via the noticeboards. Yes, there are plenty of higher admins, but you probably don't want to attract their attention as you're being disruptive. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a forum for debate.
Turning to the quote you've taken from "Athrabeth". At the very best, it's a foreshadowing; ironically, what modern readers would call an 'Easter egg'. Christ himself does not appear (and would not for several thousand years, at least, as the narrative is set in an imaginary and far distant past). Cf. the Gospel of John, with Christ being his only begotten son. There is nothing anti-Catholic about pointing this out - any more than there is anything racist about pointing out that the Middle-Earth of the books is situated in what is now northern and western Europe. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
|173.67.130.26, your talk of "no Christ-figures" in the legendarium is ambiguous. If you mean "Christ is never mentioned directly", then the statement would be true, but confusingly worded. If you mean "no figures in the text ever represent Christ in some way", then it is false; if you'll look at the article in the section that is actually named Christ figures, you will find a complete analysis of the question, along with three figures (Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn) who together represent Christ, in the cited opinion of multiple scholars, as Prophet, Priest, and King, in what theologians call the "threefold office" of Christ. Therefore, it is essential to be more precise in use of language; and it would be helpful if you were also to familiarise yourself both with what the article already says, which is concise and reliably cited, and with what the different scholars have written. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

'Christianity is a central theme in J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional works about Middle-earth, but the specifics are always kept hidden. '
To me, this formulation entails that the Christian religion itself is a topic that is actually mentioned, discussed and addressed (explicitly or implicitly) in the works and that their narrative doesn't make sense without it, which just isn't true. What may be argued, and what the article shows, is that many elements, episodes and characters are inspired by Christian narratives and therefore similar to certain elements, episodes and characters in Christian narratives, and also that many of the ethical messages are messages that Christianity preaches in the real world, but all of this is simply not the same as saying that Christianity itself is a theme in the work, i.e. that Tolkien is making comments about Christianity or depicting Christianity. I would call this an influence and an inspiration.
Tolkien arguably borrowed elements from Norse mythology, too, but that doesn't make Norse mythology 'a theme' of LOTR. A modern author of fantasy can write stories that are influenced by and resemble those of A Game of Thrones, but that doesn't make A Game of Thrones itself 'a theme' of his work. Tolkien was presumably also influenced by his experience of WW1, but that doesn't make WW1 itself 'a theme' of his work either. A Christian author arguably can't write a work that is not influenced by Christian notions of ethics, but that doesn't mean that Christianity itself is a theme of every work that a Christian author writes.
Similarly, the title 'Christianity in Middle-earth' is inappropriate. It entails that 'the Christian religion itself' exists in the fictional world of Middle-earth, i.e. that at least some characters actually profess it. This is patently false. An appropriate title would be something like 'Christian influence on the Middle-earth legendarium/mythos', or 'Christian influence on Tolkien's writings about Middle Earth', or even 'Christian elements in the Middle-Earth legendarium/mythos'. 78.154.14.90 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Christianity is certainly more than an inspiration and background. It is no good setting up straw men and then knocking them down, as e.g. inventing a rule that a character must profess the religion. Tolkien is far too crafty for that. Wikipedia has to go by the sources that it cites, and the scholars make it clear that his religion runs all through his work, especially LOTR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap, I’m a little confused by your revert. The use of Context: in the section header strikes me as very odd. We don't need to tell readers why each section is in the article — for an article on Christianity in Middle Earth, written by Tolkien, it seems obvious why a discussion of Tolkien’s religion would be present. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Obviousness is one of the most doubtful of all qualities in an encyclopedia. For anyone familiar with a topic, we never say anything except the obvious; but those things are exactly what the encyclopedia article needs for the majority of readers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
But the only context here needed to understand its presence here is that Middle Earth is a fictional work created by Tolkien, something that a) it is nigh impossible to come across this page without knowing and b) even if that were so somehow happen, it is explained in the first sentence of the article. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
This is a lot of fuss about one word and a colon. However since the existing context did not cover the Middle-earth setting (in space and time) of the works involved, I've added a section on that; this makes 'Context' a chapter and the other two bits subsections, which is certainly a canonical structure for the purest of purists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I agree it's a lot of fuss for a small change, as I said I'm not sure why it was reverted in the first place. This change is fine, I'm not sure it does anything removing the "context" bit wouldn't, but no objection and I think having a paragraph of background on Middle Earth is worthwhile addition. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
It's now moot, but as I said in my edit comment, I reverted it as content was the key to the entire chapter. Anyway, now moot. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)