Of Sheep and Shepherds

[Flammifer]

Anthony, Why are you resisting reading this passage as a Biblical reference? There is plenty of evidence that it is. Tolkien himself says, "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." (Letter 142).

In this passage, we see him making the work more religious and Catholic in the revision, as he changes the metaphor comparing Men and Hobbits from "big peas and little peas" in the original draft, to "sheep and shepherds" in the final version.

Now, first time readers will presumably not have read Letter 142 before encountering this passage. However, all those with even a smattering of Sunday School or religious education, who grew up in the Judeo/Christian civilization, should immediately connect "sheep and shepherds" when used as a metaphor for Men and the Divine, to Biblical references.

It was not idle fancy or the racing on of the pen that led Tolkien to use the "Sheep and Shepherds" metaphor. It was a deliberate choice in revision. Tolkien was pretty careful in how he used words and references, and even more so when revising.

So, there is plenty of evidence strongly suggesting that this is a Biblical reference. It is harder to think that it is not a Biblical reference than that it is, given the evidence we have.

 

[Jim Deutch]

he changes the metaphor comparing Men and Hobbits from "big peas and little peas" in the original draft, to "sheep and shepherds" in the final version.

Aha! Now this is real evidence of authorial intent! A line jotted down may be disputed, but a change from a perfectly serviceable secular metaphor to a clearly Biblical one almost has to be deliverate.* But as you've written upthread, it's confusing what he could possibly mean by it...

[*] meant "deliberate" but I love the Freudian typo so I left it in!

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Jim, As a total aside, I had an amusing thought when I considered possible interpretations had Tolkien left the metaphor as "big peas and little peas". That might be a reference to Gregor Mendel, who invented much of the science of genetics through experiments breeding pea plants! (Of course, I would be much less certain about this reference, as less evidence, and as the metaphor of peas is less likely to register on the reader as 'Genetics'! than the metaphor of sheep and shepherds is as 'Biblical'!)

In this interpretation, we could then assume that Men and Hobbits are genetically related as two varieties of peas, and be left to wonder about the genetic relationship of Elves (who we know can interbreed with Men). We might end up hypothesizing about the half-Elven 'well one quarter should have pointy ears, one quarter round ears, and half semi pointy ears? Or, is that right'? When we got to the appendices, we might expect to find family trees of Elrond's family showing dominant and recessive genes.

Of course, Tolkien changed the metaphor. So, he is not interested in the scientific and genetic and biological relationship between Men and Hobbits and Elves. By giving us a Biblical metaphor, he is drawing our attention to the spiritual relationship instead.

 

[Beech27]

I've looked a bit through some of Tolkien's other famous writings, and discovered this passage from On Fairy Stories, which I think is interesting, if not wholly applicable:

Before we reach such states we need recovery. We should look at green again, and be startled anew (but not blinded) by blue and yellow and red. We should meet the centaur and the dragon, and then perhaps suddenly behold, like the ancient shepherds, sheep, and dogs, and horses – and wolves. This recovery fairy-stories help us to make.​

​

The point here, of course, is that shepherds are remarkably observant when it comes to their charges, and the threats to them. They see things, and they see things. The meaning and wonder in the mundane isn't hidden to them.

And so the quote here emphasizes that elves are of course not like humans and hobbits; but moreover, they aren't responsible for them, and they're not really even that interested, for the most part. We might even say--as we know, of course--that recovery in Middle Earth is impossible for the elves. They simply must go, as their time is ending.

It is perhaps also worth noting that Tolkien does refer to the resurrection as the greatest eucatastrophe of all, and that the Gospel contains a fairy story to embrace the essence all others. I'm still not sure, to be honest, that I can form a coherent thesis based on that--or that enough evidence exists to support one--but it's all very interesting.

 

[Flammifer]

I like your thoughts here Beech. I agree that Elves are not that interested in Men or Hobbits. That is how things are in Arda Marred. But, is that how things are meant to be? If Arda were not a fallen world, if Morgoth had never sung discord in the Music of the Ainur, nor wreaked evil upon Arda, what should have been the relationship between Elves and Men and Vala and Maia?

Is the disinterest of the Elves in Men a sin? One would think that the correct relationship between 'Children of Iluvatar' should be love and fellowship? But it is not. Or not often.

Maybe we should wonder about that, when Lindir implies that Elves are neither sheep nor shepherds.

Also, are there any 'shepherds' for Men? The Valar seem to be shepherds for Elves. They have built them a wonderful home in Valinor. They protect them (sometimes) and look after them (to some extent). But, are they being 'shepherds' to Men (or to Hobbits)? Or, did they wash their hands of Men after the downfall of Numenor? "Let's leave them to Eru. We don't understand them at all."

We don't really know enough, if we are first time readers, to ask some of these questions, but Lindir's stance that Elves are neither sheep nor shepherds should lead us to start to wonder, and to wonder if that does not imply something wrong.

All this seems to continue the theme that the Immortal do not really understand the Mortal. This theme started with Bilbo's Mortal perspective on Earendil the Mariner, and now seems to be re-inforced by Lindir's stance that Elves are neither sheep nor shepherds.

What is happening as the Third Age draws to a close, is that the separation of Immortals from Mortals is accelerating (the Elves are sailing, sailing, as Sam says). At some point in the Fourth Age, it will be near complete. This separation is almost entirely the plan and device of the Valar. But, is this how it was meant to be? Why did Eru create two races of 'Children of Illuvatar', one Mortal, and one Immortal, on the same world, if he meant them to be eventually permanently separated?

I see those as some of the metaphysical questions generated by TLOTR (and Silmarillion stuff)? At the time we first encounter Earendil the Mariner, I think we get the first hints of some of these things.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Anthony, Why are you resisting reading this passage as a Biblical reference?

You mistake the reason behind my resistance. Many times you have made statements along the lines of "obviously" and "indisputable". Your position is not without merit, but is certainly not the only possible reading and introduces problems that other readings do not suffer from. It is not your conclusion that I resist, it is your certitude and resistance to any other reading.

There is plenty of evidence that it is. Tolkien himself says, "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." (Letter 142).

In this passage, we see him making the work more religious and Catholic in the revision, as he changes the metaphor comparing Men and Hobbits from "big peas and little peas" in the original draft, to "sheep and shepherds" in the final version.

But the change isn't just peas to 'sheep' and 'shepherds'. It is from peas of different sizes and their equivalent taste, to the appearance of 'sheep' to each other and to a 'shepherd' versus the appearance of 'sheep' to an Elf.
In this respect the meaning is unchanged, and is not inescapably Biblical in nature.

Now, first time readers will presumably not have read Letter 142 before encountering this passage. However, all those with even a smattering of Sunday School or religious education, who grew up in the Judeo/Christian civilization, should immediately connect "sheep and shepherds" when used as a metaphor for Men and the Divine, to Biblical references.

You need to read all of your Bible. The sheep and shepherds metaphor is not simply of Men and the Divine, but of the cared for and the carers, which in some instances are Men and Men (e.g. Ezekiel 34, where it is the general population and the community leaders).

Also, you've got the sequencing of analysis backwards: it is your reading of the 'sheep and shepherds' as a Biblical reference that leads you to read it as a metaphor for Men and the Divine. Without the Biblical filter it is simply a metaphor for difference in familiarity and interest.

It was not idle fancy or the racing on of the pen that led Tolkien to use the "Sheep and Shepherds" metaphor. It was a deliberate choice in revision. Tolkien was pretty careful in how he used words and references, and even more so when revising.

So, there is plenty of evidence strongly suggesting that this is a Biblical reference. It is harder to think that it is not a Biblical reference than that it is, given the evidence we have.

I accept that this is so for you, but I feel it limits your potential understanding of the passage.

If you can indeed come up with a Biblically inspired reading of this passage that doesn't create more problems than it solves I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Anthony,

I agree that there are other possible readings of this passage. However, the reading as a Biblical reference seems highly likely, and well supported by evidence.

Instead of trying to challenge the validity of the reading, why not go with it as a possibility, and explore what it might imply if we make the assumption that it is a Biblical reference?

I am certainly happy to explore what the passage might mean if we make other assumptions.

Also, although there are various other references in the Bible to sheep and shepherds, the references that would be lodged in most readers' minds would be derived from either (or both) John 10 or Psalm 23, in both of which 'sheep' is a metaphor (implied rather than stated in Psalm 23) for Men, and 'shepherd' is a metaphor for Jesus (in John 10 - actually not even really a metaphor, a direct statement by Jesus) or The Lord (in Psalm 23). I think we can discount the various references to the sheep of nomadic tribes or other minor references as not being the metaphor that comes to readers' minds.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

I like your thoughts here Beech. I agree that Elves are not that interested in Men or Hobbits. That is how things are in Arda Marred. But, is that how things are meant to be? If Arda were not a fallen world, if Morgoth had never sung discord in the Music of the Ainur, nor wreaked evil upon Arda, what should have been the relationship between Elves and Men and Vala and Maia?

Is the disinterest of the Elves in Men a sin? One would think that the correct relationship between 'Children of Iluvatar' should be love and fellowship? But it is not. Or not often.

Without conflict there is no story.
Without Melkor's discord would Eru have ever spoken 'Eä'? This and many other questions can never be meaningfully answered.

Maybe we should wonder about that, when Lindir implies that Elves are neither sheep nor shepherds.

Also, are there any 'shepherds' for Men? The Valar seem to be shepherds for Elves. They have built them a wonderful home in Valinor. They protect them (sometimes) and look after them (to some extent). But, are they being 'shepherds' to Men (or to Hobbits)? Or, did they wash their hands of Men after the downfall of Numenor? "Let's leave them to Eru. We don't understand them at all."

There is much indirect evidence in the text to show that the Valar are acting as shepherds for all of the Children, they are just more hands-off with the second Children than the first; Frodo's E-bomb is an example of the Valar acting as shepherds for mortals. This same pattern can be seen with human families in the primary world; parents learn as they go, and children have different personalities and needs.

We don't really know enough, if we are first time readers, to ask some of these questions, but Lindir's stance that Elves are neither sheep nor shepherds should lead us to start to wonder, and to wonder if that does not imply something wrong.

All this seems to continue the theme that the Immortal do not really understand the Mortal. This theme started with Bilbo's Mortal perspective on Earendil the Mariner, and now seems to be re-inforced by Lindir's stance that Elves are neither sheep nor shepherds.

What is happening as the Third Age draws to a close, is that the separation of Immortals from Mortals is accelerating (the Elves are sailing, sailing, as Sam says). At some point in the Fourth Age, it will be near complete. This separation is almost entirely the plan and device of the Valar. But, is this how it was meant to be? Why did Eru create two races of 'Children of Illuvatar', one Mortal, and one Immortal, on the same world, if he meant them to be eventually permanently separated?

The very fact of Mortality for one race and Immortality for the other leads to an eventual permanent separation. The only difference is whether there is a brief period of contact (a century or so) between members of the races before departure of the Mortals.

It is possible to imagine that there are certain social lessons that needed to be learnt, that could only be fully explored over millennia with the same people involved, but that a short-lived race was the intended final result. The Elves may have been the trainers for humanity.

I see those as some of the metaphysical questions generated by TLOTR (and Silmarillion stuff)? At the time we first encounter Earendil the Mariner, I think we get the first hints of some of these things.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Hi Anthony,

I agree that there are other possible readings of this passage. However, the reading as a Biblical reference seems highly likely, and well supported by evidence.

Instead of trying to challenge the validity of the reading, why not go with it as a possibility, and explore what it might imply if we make the assumption that it is a Biblical reference?

I am certainly happy to explore what the passage might mean if we make other assumptions.

Also, although there are various other references in the Bible to sheep and shepherds, the references that would be lodged in most readers' minds would be derived from either (or both) John 10 or Psalm 23, in both of which 'sheep' is a metaphor (implied rather than stated in Psalm 23) for Men, and 'shepherd' is a metaphor for Jesus (in John 10 - actually not even really a metaphor, a direct statement by Jesus) or The Lord (in Psalm 23). I think we can discount the various references to the sheep of nomadic tribes or other minor references as not being the metaphor that comes to readers' minds.

Reading parts of the Bible in isolation from, or ignorance of, the rest has lead to many problems throughout history. The reference in Ezekiel informs the New Testament references, and therefore cannot be safely ignored.

 

[Flammifer]

Without conflict there is no story.
Without Melkor's discord would Eru have ever spoken 'Eä'? This and many other questions can never be meaningfully answered.


There is much indirect evidence in the text to show that the Valar are acting as shepherds for all of the Children, they are just more hands-off with the second Children than the first; Frodo's E-bomb is an example of the Valar acting as shepherds for mortals. This same pattern can be seen with human families in the primary world; parents learn as they go, and children have different personalities and needs.


The very fact of Mortality for one race and Immortality for the other leads to an eventual permanent separation. The only difference is whether there is a brief period of contact (a century or so) between members of the races before departure of the Mortals.

It is possible to imagine that there are certain social lessons that needed to be learnt, that could only be fully explored over millennia with the same people involved, but that a short-lived race was the intended final result. The Elves may have been the trainers for humanity.

Hi Anthony,

Now you are engaging with the assumed reading, and I really appreciate your perspective. I agree with you that the Immortality of one race and Mortality of the other leads to an eventual permanent separation. I guess my question is: Is this due to Arda being a fallen world, or would it have happened this way if Arda had not been marred? I don't think we have much evidence to answer that yet. I don't think we have even enough evidence to ask exactly that question, if we are first time readers, but I do think, that if we assume Lindir's 'sheep and shepherds' to be a Biblical reference, it might cause us to start to wonder if something is 'wrong'.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Hi Anthony,

Now you are engaging with the assumed reading, and I really appreciate your perspective. I agree with you that the Immortality of one race and Mortality of the other leads to an eventual permanent separation. I guess my question is: Is this due to Arda being a fallen world, or would it have happened this way if Arda had not been marred? I don't think we have much evidence to answer that yet. I don't think we have even enough evidence to ask exactly that question, if we are first time readers, but I do think, that if we assume Lindir's 'sheep and shepherds' to be a Biblical reference, it might cause us to start to wonder if something is 'wrong'.

Another thought about the greater corpus:
Perhaps the entirety of Arda is an object lesson for the Ainur, with the Children, in all their forms, being teachers for the Ainur.
As the Ainur have existed before time in Arda began and presumably will continue to exist beyond the end of time in Arda, their sense of the passage of time may bear the same relationship to the Elves, as the Elves to the Mortals.

All of the time of Arda may feel like a single Age does to the Elves, with further compositions defining subsequent worlds.

 

[Flammifer]

Another thought about the greater corpus:
Perhaps the entirety of Arda is an object lesson for the Ainur, with the Children, in all their forms, being teachers for the Ainur.
As the Ainur have existed before time in Arda began and presumably will continue to exist beyond the end of time in Arda, their sense of the passage of time may bear the same relationship to the Elves, as the Elves to the Mortals.

All of the time of Arda may feel like a single Age does to the Elves, with further compositions defining subsequent worlds.

Hi Anthony,

I have enjoyed this whole discussion. It prompted me to post on the 'Let's talk about the course' forum on some thoughts on References in TLOTR. I would be interested in your contributions on that subject if you are interested.

 

[Jim Deutch]

If Arda were not a fallen world, if Morgoth had never sung discord in the Music of the Ainur, nor wreaked evil upon Arda, what should have been the relationship between Elves and Men and Vala and Maia?

FanFic (not even CritFic) answer: there would never have been Elves, Men, Valar or Maiar. The Music would've been great. All the Ainar would have been awed and contented. Eru wouldn't have said "Ea" because there'd have been no reason to make it "real", the Ainar would never have been sorted and named, and the Children probably wouldn't even have been part of the Music at all. At least I've always understood the second and third themes of the Music to be something to do with the Children of Illuvatar, and these themes are given only as response to Melkor's discord.

Ah; I see that Anthony has said this already:

Without Melkor's discord would Eru have ever spoken 'Eä'?

All this seems to continue the theme that the Immortal do not really understand the Mortal.

"Discretion was not the better part of the Valar." [Joel Polowin]

 

[Flammifer]

Just a further thought on references, and particularly on whether the 'sheep and shepherds' in Lindir's reply was a conscious Biblical reference in Tolkien's mind.

It occurs to me that Americans, now, 60 years after Tolkien wrote this passage, are often less educated in the Bible than the audience Tolkien was writing for. So, some of them may find that the passage does not impact as 'Biblically' as Tolkien might have intended.

America has separation of church and state. So, religion is not taught in State schools. England has a State Religion (Church of England) and religious instruction is required (even to this day, let alone 60 years ago) in State schools. That instruction must be Christian, and Church of England, unless the school has a special license to teach a different religion (Jewish schools, Muslim schools).

The effect of a deliberate reference is not so great if it passes over the heads of most readers. However, Tolkien, writing mostly for English readers, could be pretty confident that a reference to 'sheep and shepherds' would register as Biblical with most of his audience. They would either recall John 10 or Psalm 23, and that would be re-inforced by the line in the hymn 'Jerusalem' (often called the unofficial English national anthem), "and was the Holy Lamb of God in England;s pleasant pastures seen".

In short, part of the impact of a deliberate reference (and part of the evidence that it might be a deliberate reference) is the certainty that it will register on at least some of the readers.

I think Tolkien could have been confident that the reference to "sheep and shepherds" would have registered as Biblical on most of his English readership.

 

[Kate Neville]

This will come up again when we get to the Ents who are the shepherds of trees. And who learned language from the Elves.

Who knows? Elrond might even have kept sheep up on the mountainside, for their wool if nothing else (I doubt Galadriel and her ladies wove those elven cloaks out of her hair), and Lindir might have been well aware that Elf-shepherds could distinguish individual sheep. The pastoral imagery of sheep, as opposed to peas, is more biblical -- but it's done with a very light hand, possibly to give the impression of Elves as being more spiritual. Which we might already have concluded given Gildor's hymn to Elbereth.

 

[tzigi]

Maybe we should wonder about that, when Lindir implies that Elves are neither sheep nor shepherds.

Also, are there any 'shepherds' for Men? The Valar seem to be shepherds for Elves. They have built them a wonderful home in Valinor. They protect them (sometimes) and look after them (to some extent). But, are they being 'shepherds' to Men (or to Hobbits)? Or, did they wash their hands of Men after the downfall of Numenor? "Let's leave them to Eru. We don't understand them at all."

We don't really know enough, if we are first time readers, to ask some of these questions, but Lindir's stance that Elves are neither sheep nor shepherds should lead us to start to wonder, and to wonder if that does not imply something wrong.

I have a lot to say about this whole topic as I am of the opinion that seeing a Biblical reference here is reading something into the text which wasn't intended in it. There's a lot of Biblical references in LOTR but this just isn't one of them.

However this is not what the main topic of my post is about. The thing this discussion is lacking is context. When and in whose presence does Lindir speak those words? Or - to put it differently - who are the main "guests/strangers" (i.e. not regular inhabitants) in Rivendell in this moment? In one chapter we will learn that a lot of people (Humans, Elves, Dwarves etc) have come but for the moment all that the reader knows is that there were 2 sets of "new strangers" (as opposed to Bilbo who by now is settled in there): Aragorn with 4 Hobbits and Gandalf. And here I come to your question: "But, are they [the Valar] being 'shepherds' to Men (or to Hobbits)?" - even if the answer is "no", there is someone who is a "shepherd" to Men and to Hobbits. It is Gandalf.

Lindir speech makes a lot more sense when viewed like this:
- Bilbo banters with him and says: "They’re as different as peas and apples.’" meaning "Men and Hobbits"
- Lindir says that there might be a difference: "‘Maybe."
- but he doesn't see it because it is not a difference he can perceive because he is not a mortal: "To sheep other sheep no doubt appear different,"
- however he realizes that there is someone who isn't a mortal (so "not a sheep" to use his imagery) but who surely can make the difference and that is because he is tasked with shepherding Men and Hobbits i.e. an Istar: "Or to shepherds."
- and then he explains what is the difference between the general Elf perspective here and Gandalf's: "But Mortals have not been our study." - this clearly implies that the shepherd in question here is someone for whom the Mortals were their study. This is clearly one of the Istari, they are the ones who learn about the Mortals in Middle-Earth.

Just take a look at all the other uses of the word "study" (or "studied") in LOTR (I discount only those in which "study" is used to refer to a room at Bag End):

• "But Hobbits have never, in fact, studied magic of any kind"
• "A love of learning (other than genealogical lore) was far from general among them, but there remained still a few in the older families who studied their own books, and even gathered reports of old times and distant lands from Elves, Dwarves, and Men. "
• "The greater families were also concerned with events in the Kingdom at large, and many of their members studied its ancient histories and legends. "
• "He has long studied it, seeking the lost secrets of their making; but when the Rings were debated in the Council, all that he would reveal to us of his ring-lore told against my fears "- Gandalf on Saruman
• "Pippin was standing studying the sky and weather." - this doesn't refer to learning at all, it uses a meaning akin to "surveying, watching with interest"
• "I had to study you first, and make sure of you." [Aragorn in Bree] - this is debatable as it refers to him learning about them but it is mostly about gaining intel on the four Hobbits.
• "But Mortals have not been our study." - the passage in question
• "Have I not earnestly studied this matter?" - Saruman on Saruman
• "But unless you have more skill even than Saruman, who has studied here long, you will find naught that is not well known to me, who am master of the lore of this City. " - Denethor on Saruman
• "But Saruman has long studied the arts of the Enemy himself, and thus we have often been able to forestall him. " - Gandalf on Saruman
• "It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the Enemy, for good or for ill." - Elrond on Saruman
• "‘Not well,’ said the old man: ‘that would be the study of many lives " - Gandalf on Fangorn
• "With a new sense of responsibility he brought his eyes back to the ground near at hand, studying the next move. " - Sam, once again with a meaning closer to the quote about Pippin
• "He studies the signs: the Sword that robbed him of his treasure re-made; the winds of fortune turning in our favour, and the defeat unlooked-for of his first assault; the fall of his great Captain " - Gandalf on Sauron,
• "I did not spend long study on these matters for naught. " - Saruman
• "It went in at last, and Butterbur’s face was a study in wonder." - a fixed phrase

So discounting the other meanings and a fixed phrase we are left with the word "study" referring to learning about other creatures, mostly in depth and most likely referring to the doings of the Istari (or Sauron in the one example). There also the first two quotes from the Prologue which aren't in direct speech and so use a different register (therefore "studied books", "studied ancient histories" instead of "read books/histories"). However the reference to "studying magic" refers back to the Istari. This can be also reinforced using another of Gandalf's quotes (this time without "studying") which shows a part of his approach to Hobbits:
"Hobbits really are amazing creatures, as I have said before. You can learn all that there is to know about their ways in a month, and yet after a hundred years they can still surprise you at a pinch. "
What is important here? "Learning" about the ways of the Hobbits. And while "learn" has many more meanings in LOTR and I won't enter here into the exploration of all 178 occurences (in my electronic edition) of them, I want to draw attention to this one: "He is learned in the lore of the Rings, yet he is not among us " (Galdor on Saruman). The same applies to "knowledge" (47 occurences) - both Gandalf ("Among the Wise I am the only one that goes in for hobbitlore: an obscure branch of knowledge, but full of surprises. ") and Saruman ("We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends.") make it clear that this an important part of what their whole being as Istari is about.

So I am quite sure that what Lindir meant to say was "There might be a difference between Men and Hobbits. I don't see it because I am not a mortal - mortals would surely see it. Oh, and an Istar whose specialization is 'Mortals' would too.".

 

[Arnthro]

Fun thread to read.

To me it doesn't matter if there is Biblical reference. And even if Tolkien is, it doesn't matter (to me). There is no Christianity, Bible, or any other modern religion in this age of Middle-Earth, therefor Lindir isn't making a biblical metaphor.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Arnthro,

I totally agree that Lindir is not making a Biblical reference. The Bible was not written at the time of the Third Age. However, that does not mean that Tolkien was not making a Biblical reference, nor that his readers would not likely read this as a Biblical reference.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Hi Arnthro,

I totally agree that Lindir is not making a Biblical reference. The Bible was not written at the time of the Third Age. However, that does not mean that Tolkien was not making a Biblical reference, nor that his readers would not likely read this as a Biblical reference.

I can only provide a single datapoint, but I'm one of Tolkien's readers and even knowing about Tolkien's devout Catholicism I never read it as Tolkien making a Biblical reference. I don't think I'm alone, and even if I'm in the minority it certainly doesn't invalidate my (our) position.

I actually think the Wizard (Istari) idea put forward by @tzigi has more merit than any suggestion of Biblical intent. A first time reader of LotR would have noticed that Gandalf isn't an ordinary man (he was already old 77 years ago), and therefore maybe not a man at all, so perhaps he is a 'shepherd' for Mortals (including Dwarves).

Lindir seems to be displaying what some people identify as typical arrogance of Elves: 'You mortals change so much in your short lives and then you are gone; there's no point in trying to differentiate between you or waste time getting to know you. I've got robes that are older than you.'

 

[tzigi]

However, that does not mean that Tolkien was not making a Biblical reference, nor that his readers would not likely read this as a Biblical reference.

Neither does it mean that Tolkien was making a Biblical reference. Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe - as a shepherd is just a shepherd here. There is nothing in this image to suggest any Biblical association. To show it more clearly, I'll say that the first thing to do is to check this KJV search for all instances of the word "shepherd" in the Bible. Then, let's see if what Lindir is saying (that a shepherd knows the difference between sheep) is in any way relevant to any of them. The answer is no. The two closest Biblical parallels I can think of (and I was brought up Catholic) are:

• John 10: 14 (I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.) which would be good match here if Lindir suggested the reciprocity in any way
• Matthew 25: 32-33 (And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.) which, on the other hand requires any sort of division and knowledge thereof

Just like not every instance of bread in LOTR is meant to recall the Eucharist (sure, there are many that are meant to do so - Lembas bread in Mordor comes to mind as the easiest example) so not every instance of something that in some single reader recalls the Bible, is a Biblical reference meant by the author.