Of Sheep and Shepherds

[Jim Deutch]

I've got robes that are older than you.'

+1

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Tzigi,

To your two Biblical references, I would add:

• Psalm 23:

"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
he leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the
paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the
shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art
with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the
presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my
head with oil; my cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the
house of the Lord for ever."

That's probably the best known Biblical reference to 'shepherds' to the lay person. I think it is familiar to the vast majority of Western readers, regardless of religion, and would have been even more familiar to English readers at the time TLOTR was published.

 

[tzigi]

To your two Biblical references, I would add:

• Psalm 23:

And adding it completely misses the point. I consciously left it out because it doesn't contain what it should contain to be pertinent in this case, namely any mention of knowledge, of the ability to differentiate between sheep. To put it in somewhat Lakoffian terms, there are two distinct metaphors here at play:
1. the Biblical one: LORD IS A SHEPHERD
God makes the faithful lie in green pastures, God leads the faithful beside the still waters
(This metaphor is therefore based on the care that a shepherd provides to his sheep and that God provides to his faithful)
2. the Lindir one: MORTALS ARE SHEEP + SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORTAL AND IS NOT A MORTAL IS A SHEPHERD
Sheep know the difference between sheep. Shepherds know the difference between the sheep.
(This metaphor is based on mortals being so similar to one another as sheep are to the outside spectator and on mortals being so different from one another to an insider i.e. another sheep and to someone who studies them i.e. to a shepherd)

Those metaphors are grounded in significantly different points and are basically orthogonal: one relates to the care that a higher being provides to a lower, the other to the knowledge among the lower beings and that the higher being has in relation to the lower (note that it is one-dimensional and this is why I also discounted the two Biblical references I had shown in my previous posts).

That's probably the best known Biblical reference to 'shepherds' to the lay person. I think it is familiar to the vast majority of Western readers, regardless of religion, and would have been even more familiar to English readers at the time TLOTR was published.

All of this is true (as well as the fact that this psalm is the source for many songs - be they church songs or simply popular ones) but it doesn't change the fact that a mere mention of a shepherd in both of those texts (this LOTR quote and Psalm 23) is not enough to establish that one is a reference to another.

We could also - as a theoretical exercise - try to reconstruct a Biblical passage which would be a fitting reference for the statements of Lindir. It would have to be something along the lines of: "God is my shepherd, he knows me well and can find me among others".

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Tzigi,

The reference to (or metaphor of) 'shepherds' is perhaps more complicated.

What is a 'shepherd'? Someone who looks after the sheep.

Now, Lindir is perhaps correct in assuming that a shepherd can differentiate between different sheep. His metaphor is referring to a shepherd being able to distinguish between men and hobbits, who are both mortal (not between, "mortal, and not a mortal' which is what you say). Although, I guess we can assume that a shepherd can distinguish between 'sheep' and 'not sheep'. Lindir's metaphor is assuming that Elves are 'not sheep'.

You don't actually need any Biblical reference to wonder whether Lindir is right in assuming that Elves are 'not sheep'. Men are not Hobbits, but Lindir equates them both with 'sheep' because both are 'mortals'. But how different does immortality make Elves? Are they as different as Orcs? Trolls?

Lindir's separation of Elves from Men and Hobbits on the basis of immortality should make us wonder about how different are they? Are they God's creatures, made in the image of God? How different should immortality make them?

Lindir's metaphor also mentions 'shepherds'. This implies the possibility that there are 'shepherds' who look after mortals. It also implies that Elves are not such shepherds. This also brings up the questions: Are there 'shepherds' who look after mortals in Middle Earth? Who are they? Should Elves be 'shepherds', and be looking after mortals? Are there 'shepherds' who look after Elves? (We already have enough evidence to guess that Elbereth and the Elder King might be 'shepherds' to Elves).

This all fits with Tolkien's comment in a letter that TLOTR is,"an allegory of mortality and immortality".

So, we can ask almost all the same questions about Lindir's metaphor whether or not we take 'sheep and shepherds' to be a Biblical reference.

However, given Tolkien's letter to Robert Murray SJ. (letter 142), "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work: unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision," then, of course, we should always be ready for Catholic or Biblical references, especially in passages we know (like this one) to have been revised. (I would go so far as to venture a guess that this exact revision might well have been foremost in Tolkien's mind as he wrote that letter!)

Of course we cannot 'establish' that Lindir's 'sheep and shepherds' metaphor is a Biblical reference. We can, however, assume that it is very likely to be one.

The impact, if it is a Biblical reference, is just to emphasize, and call attention to all the questions which could have quite legitimately sprung to our minds on reading this passage even if there were no mention of 'sheep and shepherds' in the Bible. (Or, if Lindir's metaphor had been of 'cattle and cowboys'. By the way, the pre-revision metaphor was 'big peas and little peas', with no mention of 'gardeners', so, if we knew the revision history [which, we wouldn't, as first time readers], the inclusion of 'shepherds' alone should peak our interest in the questions implicit in the metaphor.)

Biblical references don't need to 'transpose' a Bible quotation word for word, and exactly into the metaphor used by Lindir. (I doubt that Tolkien would ever be so crude and clumsy.) You seem to think that because no Bible reference exactly corresponds one to one to Lindir's metaphor, this indicates that it is unlikely to be a Biblical reference. Not so! The fact that Lindir's metaphor hits a Biblical register, a Biblical note, just makes it more certain that we should stop and ask all the questions we could easily ask ourselves about Lindir's metaphor if it were not Biblical at all.

 

[tzigi]

Now, Lindir is perhaps correct in assuming that a shepherd can differentiate between different sheep. His metaphor is referring to a shepherd being able to distinguish between men and hobbits, who are both mortal (not between, "mortal, and not a mortal' which is what you say).

Having read your post I first wondered how you could have misunderstood my post so much and now I see I forgot an "S" in there. What I meant to say was that "SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORTALS AND IS NOT A MORTAL IS A SHEPHERD". So no, we are in complete agreement here - a shepherd is meant here as someone who knows the difference between mortals. And there is a second part to my phrase (which you misunderstood): "[a shepherd] is not mortal [himself]".

Now most of your explanation is sadly for nothing, because it relies on a misreading of my text due to a typo so I will resume my rebuttal from the point which doesn't concern it.

Lindir's metaphor also mentions 'shepherds'. This implies the possibility that there are 'shepherds' who look after mortals. It also implies that Elves are not such shepherds. This also brings up the questions: Are there 'shepherds' who look after mortals in Middle Earth? Who are they? Should Elves be 'shepherds', and be looking after mortals? Are there 'shepherds' who look after Elves? (We already have enough evidence to guess that Elbereth and the Elder King might be 'shepherds' to Elves).

Once again, we are in complete agreement here. Yes, shepherds look after mortals, yes we can presumably construct something like this:

shepherds are to mortals
as
Elberth and the Elder King are to Elves

This, once again proves to me that Lindir was talking about the Istari, or more precisely, about the Istar present in Rivendell at this moment - Gandalf.

However, given Tolkien's letter to Robert Murray SJ. (letter 142), "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work: unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision," then, of course, we should always be ready for Catholic or Biblical references, especially in passages we know (like this one) to have been revised. (I would go so far as to venture a guess that this exact revision might well have been foremost in Tolkien's mind as he wrote that letter!)

Of course we cannot 'establish' that Lindir's 'sheep and shepherds' metaphor is a Biblical reference. We can, however, assume that it is very likely to be one.

The impact, if it is a Biblical reference, is just to emphasize, and call attention to all the questions which could have quite legitimately sprung to our minds on reading this passage even if there were no mention of 'sheep and shepherds' in the Bible. (Or, if Lindir's metaphor had been of 'cattle and cowboys'. By the way, the pre-revision metaphor was 'big peas and little peas', with no mention of 'gardeners', so, if we knew the revision history [which, we wouldn't, as first time readers], the inclusion of 'shepherds' alone should peak our interest in the questions implicit in the metaphor.)

Here we start to disagree because while I totally agree that LOTR is meant to be Catholic work (whatever that term might precisely mean - I remember a great academic conference about precisely that topic that I took part in several years ago which still ended up with basically a lot of disparate ideas about how to understand that), I don't think that this passage was revised with any precise Biblical passage in mind. Yes, the basic idea (of a higher being acting as a shepherd to a lower being) is without a doubt a Biblical one but what I disagree with, is seeing a precise Biblical reference in it. And thus here we come to the last part of your post:

Biblical references don't need to 'transpose' a Bible quotation word for word, and exactly into the metaphor used by Lindir. (I doubt that Tolkien would ever be so crude and clumsy.) You seem to think that because no Bible reference exactly corresponds one to one to Lindir's metaphor, this indicates that it is unlikely to be a Biblical reference. Not so! The fact that Lindir's metaphor hits a Biblical register, a Biblical note, just makes it more certain that we should stop and ask all the questions we could easily ask ourselves about Lindir's metaphor if it were not Biblical at all.

We disagree on the basic principle and terminology: a Biblical reference isn't what you assume it to be. A Biblical reference isn't "hitting a Biblical register, a Biblical note". A Biblical reference is precisely what you discount as "crude and clumsy". There were many authors who did this - and did it well to boot. For the simplest example by Tolkien himself think about Ainulindalë which is "a transposition" of a part of the Bible - mostly the beginning of John but also of Genesis.

However this isn't my main point. I would agree with your seeing in what Lindir says a reference to Psalm 123 if there was any mention of the shephed caring for the sheep in what Lindir says. I would agree with your seeing any Biblical reference (in the exact sense of the term) if there was any Biblical fragment (it's not so much about words - which you seem to assume with "word for word" - but about topics, ideas) which emphasizes the fact that a shepherd can distinguish among his sheep. Neither of those is true.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Tzigi,

I think you make a logical fallacy when you say (or imply that Lindir means), "Someone who knows the difference between mortals and is not a mortal is a shepherd".

There might be many categories who know the difference between mortals and are not shepherds. To go back to the analogy, zoologists, geneticists, vets, sheepdogs, (and the Master, the Dame and the Little Boy who lives down the lane - all of whom at least know the difference between 'Ba, Ba Black Sheep', and white sheep), can tell one sheep from another, but they are not shepherds.

Shepherds, even to Lindir, are those who look after sheep. He assumes that they might be able to tell the difference between one sheep and another.

That does not imply that 'Someone who knows the difference between mortals and 'is not a mortal' IS a shepherd.

The correct logical assumption is: Shepherds may be a category that can tell one sheep from another. This, to me, elevates the other common meaning of Shepherd, one who looks after the sheep. This is the one category of those who might be able to tell one sheep from another that seems important to Lindir.

Let's try this in pseudo math:

Lindir: Sheep = mortals; Shepherds = can probably tell the differences between sheep.

Common English: Sheep = a species; Shepherds = Those who look after sheep.

Bible: Sheep = either 1) People - those created in the image of God, or 2) Good people - those who follow God; Shepherd = God, the Lord, or Jesus.

Now, it seems that you agree with all my interpretations of the questions this passage might raise if we just read it carefully without a Biblical reference.

However, you resist (I don't know why) the possible assumption that it is a Biblical reference.

As a Biblical reference it does not need to exactly parallel any Bible passage. It just needs to suggest, 'sheep = people or good people', 'shepherd = God or Jesus'.

As such, what it does (if a Biblical reference) is increase the probability that this metaphor registers on the reader, and the reader asks the questions which they might have asked anyway. It also amplifies, and adds depth to those questions.

So, we might ask anyway, 'If Elves are not sheep, what is the difference between mortals and immortals?' If we assume a Biblical reference, we might also ask, 'So, are Elves goats? Not good people? Damned? If not, then why are they not 'sheep'?

We might also ask, 'If there are shepherds for mortals, are they similar to God or Jesus? Are they different from the shepherds for Elves? If the 'shepherd for Elves is different from the 'shepherd' for mortals, are Elves not God's creatures? (A common question in Medieval Faerie Tales)"

If we speculated, as you do, that Gandalf might be a shepherd for mortals, then we would further speculate, 'How similar is Gandalf to God or Jesus'? (We would find out later that he will have more similarities to Jesus than we currently know, though perhaps not equational similarities.)

In short, assuming a Biblical reference (which seems quite likely to be intended, even if we cannot be certain) only amplifies and adds to our questions and thoughts about this passage. It should not diminish or detract from our interpretation in any way.

Adding to our questions and thoughts is wholly good. So, it is baffling to me why anyone would want to reject the possibility that this is a Biblical reference.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Let's try this in pseudo math:

Lindir: Sheep = mortals; Shepherds = can probably tell the differences between sheep.

Common English: Sheep = a species; Shepherds = Those who look after sheep.

Bible: Sheep = either 1) People - those created in the image of God, or 2) Good people - those who follow God; Shepherd = God, the Lord, or Jesus.

Shepherd cont. = or Priests and other community leaders (Ezekiel 34)

Now, it seems that you agree with all my interpretations of the questions this passage might raise if we just read it carefully without a Biblical reference.

However, you resist (I don't know why) the possible assumption that it is a Biblical reference.

As a Biblical reference it does not need to exactly parallel any Bible passage. It just needs to suggest, 'sheep = people or good people', 'shepherd = God or Jesus'.

or Priest or other community leader

As such, what it does (if a Biblical reference) is increase the probability that this metaphor registers on the reader, and the reader asks the questions which they might have asked anyway. It also amplifies, and adds depth to those questions.

So, we might ask anyway, 'If Elves are not sheep, what is the difference between mortals and immortals?' If we assume a Biblical reference, we might also ask, 'So, are Elves goats? Not good people? Damned? If not, then why are they not 'sheep'?

Not all goats in the Bible are damned. Lindir (the constructor of the metaphor) seems to indicate that Elves are not 'sheep' purely because they are not mortal. Any further meaning is coming from outside, not within, the story.

We might also ask, 'If there are shepherds for mortals, are they similar to God or Jesus? Are they different from the shepherds for Elves? If the 'shepherd for Elves is different from the 'shepherd' for mortals, are Elves not God's creatures? (A common question in Medieval Faerie Tales)"

Even the Bible talks of a shepherd being responsible for both sheep and goats. It can be inferred from Matthew 10 that all creatures are under God's care, and therefore the Medieval questions relate to the continuing clash between long-held pagan beliefs and Christian teachings.
If this is truly a Biblical reference, should it not be favouring the Biblical view that all creatures are God's creatures? Does that not then foreground some of the issues that we know Tolkien struggled with: Namely that if Orcs are God's creatures (and therefore seemingly capable of redemption) should the Free Peoples then be given a free pass to slaughter them on sight?

If we speculated, as you do, that Gandalf might be a shepherd for mortals, then we would further speculate, 'How similar is Gandalf to God or Jesus'?

or Priest or other community leader. He is certainly much closer in similarity to an earth bound guide and protector than any heavenly Creator or Saviour. After all, his death does NOT lead directly to deliverance from the wages of sin (death) and his resurrection is important, but not the whole point of the story.

(We would find out later that he will have more similarities to Jesus than we currently know, though perhaps not equational similarities.)

If we insist on a Biblical comparison, Gandalf's return to life might also be compared to the return of Lazarus, with more success.

In short, assuming a Biblical reference (which seems quite likely to be intended, even if we cannot be certain) only amplifies and adds to our questions and thoughts about this passage. It should not diminish or detract from our interpretation in any way.

Adding to our questions and thoughts is wholly good. So, it is baffling to me why anyone would want to reject the possibility that this is a Biblical reference.

Adding to our questions and thoughts is only good if it doesn't lead to analytical paralysis, preventing us from proceeding further without apply a universal assumption to the further analysis.
The published edition may have indeed been Biblically inspired at this point, but to continue to espouse the view that it is inescapably so limits options for further analysis.

You seem to have misread my objections, if you see them as rejection of the possibility; I only reject the certainty, and the subsequent rejection of analysis that doesn't conform with that.