The Christian Comparison Cont.

[Vraith]

In RL, Jesus is necessary because of OUR sins/shortcomings.

Vraith, I believe there are flavours of christianity that do not believe in the original sin thing and that people are born sinners.

there are...most not very accepted...and even to that extent they STILL don't believe the next step.

[Ananda]

I thought eastern orthodoxy was one of those and rather a large group? Not trying to derail your point, though.

For whatever it is worth, I saw a number of sort of parallels or allusions to the jesus figure in the chrons, especially in the first series.

T.ex TC dies and is brought back to life and it happens to be easter. I took it more as a criticism of the 'believers' though, as the doctor complains about how it is easter and how shitty it was to be taken from his golf game or so rather than seeing this 'miracle'. (been a few years since I read it)

[wayfriend]

Certainly, TC didn't die in order to save everyone's soul.

He didn't even die to save the Land. He died to stop Lord Foul. Linden saved the Land.

TC wasn't any kind of exemplar of goodness, either. He didn't demonstrate godliness, or show anyone else how to be godly or live a good life. Covenant had no disciples.

Jesus accepted his mission as savior, and the hard part was convincing everyone else he was. Meanwhile, everyone in the Land knew Covenant was the savior, the hard part was convincing Covenant of this.

Any 'miracles' we might attribute to Covenant - for example, the Rearing of the Ranyhyn - do not parallel any miracles that Jesus performed. And furthermore, the cause of those miracles was Covenant himself, not any god/creator.

Covenant never ... okay, he walked on water. One!

TC dies and is brought back to life and it happens to be easter.

Well... it is Easter when he revives in the hospital. That's an interesting catch. "Easter" has overtones of rebirth and renewal. And Covenant awakes to being a new man, assuaged and strong.

[Ananda]

Certainly, TC didn't die in order to save everyone's soul.

He didn't even die to save the Land. He died to stop Lord Foul. Linden saved the Land.

TC wasn't any kind of exemplar of goodness, either. He didn't demonstrate godliness, or show anyone else how to be godly or live a good life. Covenant had no disciples.

Jesus accepted his mission as savior, and the hard part was convincing everyone else he was. Meanwhile, everyone in the Land knew Covenant was the savior, the hard part was convincing Covenant of this.

Any 'miracles' we might attribute to Covenant - for example, the Rearing of the Ranyhyn - do not parallel any miracles that Jesus performed. And furthermore, the cause of those miracles was Covenant himself, not any god/creator.

Covenant never ... okay, he walked on water. One!

TC dies and is brought back to life and it happens to be easter.

Well... it is Easter when he revives in the hospital. That's an interesting catch. "Easter" has overtones of rebirth and renewal. And Covenant awakes to being a new man, assuaged and strong.

Wayf, I didn't say there was a 1:1 parallel going on. I just said he comes back to life on easter and the doctors complain about being taken from church on easter, not golf (told you it was a long time since I read it!). It goes hand in hand with the revival tent thingie and the people getting mad when what they were preaching about was right in front of them. I brought this topic up in 2011 when I first joined.

Then he found the doctor near him again. The man seemed young and angry. Another man entered the room, an older doctor whom Covenant recognized as the one who had treated him during his previous stay in the hospital. Unlike the younger man, this doctor wore a suit rather than a white staff jacket. As he entered, he said, “I hope you’ve got good reason for calling me. I don’t give up church for just anyone-especially on Easter.”

“This is a hospital,” the younger man growled, “not a bloody revival. Of course I’ve got good reason.”

“What’s eating you? Is he dead?”

“No. Just the opposite-he’s going to live. One minute he’s in allergic shock, and dying from it because his body’s too weak and infected and poisoned to fight back-and the next-Pulse firm, respiration regular, pupillary reactions normal, skin tone improving. I’ll tell you what it is. It’s a goddamn miracle, that’s what it is.”

“Come, now,” the older man murmured. “I don’t believe in miracles-neither do you.”

[ussusimiel]

I think the article makes a good case for the comparison especially the part about Covenant's name:

Although Thomas Covenant rejects, and is in a sense rejected by, religious doctrine, he nevertheless journeys, in a Land touched by God's hand since the creation, toward the meaning of his name. The word covenant incorporates three Greek concepts: mesites, mediator, intermediary, guarantor; engyos, guarantor; and diatheke, irrevocable decision (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 365-73). Though reluctantly at first, Thomas Covenant clearly mediates between the Creator and the Land, between the Creator and Foul, between Foul and the Land, and finally between Foul and the Arch of Time, as Christ Himself mediates between God and man. And the Lords of Revelstone clearly view him as the possible guarantor of their deliverance from Foul, as Christ guarantees salvation. The word engyos, in suggesting legal obligation carried out even at the hazard of one's life (New International Dictionary, 372), approaches the following spirit of diatheke:

A prerequisite of its effectiveness before the law is the death of the disposer. Hence diatheke must be clearly distinguished from syntheke, an agreement. In the latter two partners engaged in common activity accept reciprocal obligations. Diatheke is found only once with this meaning.... Elsewhere it always means a one-sided action. (New International Dictionary, 365)

****************************************************************************


Page 2


A covenant, then, involves self-sacrifice, which is the essence of the divinely enabled agapic love Christ embodies on the cross. Christ's sacrifice seals the new covenant (A Theological Word Book of the Bible, 318). To such sacrificial love Thomas Covenant matures, though his death does not participate in the divine.

Covenant is not necessarily Christ-like, but there are strong similarities. I see some of the same comparisons in Frodo's character in LOTR.

As for that checklist:

Thomas C. Foster has a similar idea. He gives us a checklist:

Ways to recognize a Christ figure
+ Crucified, wounds in the hands feet, side and head : wounds in hands, feet, chest and head
+ In agony (perhaps even great physical suffering) : endless agony
+ Self-sacrificing (big sacrifice, preferably a life, for others) : Uh, yeah!
+ Good with children: well, maybe not. He does save the little girl form the snake though.
+ Good with loaves, fish, water, wine: okay, not this one
+ Thirty-three years of age when last seen: do we know?
+ Known to use humble modes of transportation, feet or donkeys preferred: yep. (Giants instead of donkeys.)
+ Believed to have walked on water: yep
+ Often portrayed with arms outstretched: the Grieve.
+ Known to have had a confrontation with the devil, possibly tempted (in a wilderness--disappears to the wilderness): at least 3 of these
+ Last seen in the company of thieves: I always said I didn't like those Haruchai. Damn foreigners!
+ Creator of many aphorisms and parables: yup!
+ Buried, but arose on the third day: took a few thousand years but he got there.
+ Had disciples, twelve at first, although not all equally devoted: numerous devotees, incl. Haruchai.
+ Very forgiving: forgave Joan.
+ Came to redeem an unworthy world (at the least offers hope): redeemed a very worthy world

That's say 12/16, which make Covenant an 75% Christ-figure, which is close enough for government work, for me.

The article demonstrates clearly how Covenant isn't engaged with the divine and so isn't directly analagous with Christ, but, IMO, the numerous parallels in the story and the the language that SRD uses make the comparison valid.

u.

[wayfriend]

Dang, those are some good points. But it's not quite as straightforward as that. For example, even if you could claim the Haruchai were "disciples", which I would not, they would have been unwanted disciples. Covenant had wounds, but they were not crucifixion, nor even punitive.

Which gets back to, what qualifies as a Christ figure? If all you have to do is be depicted with your arms outstretched, then it's a really trivial matter overall. "Covenant had ears; Christ had ears: Covenant must be a Christ figure!" (I am sure that, for some, the ability to see Christ figures everywhere is a significant aspect of their faith. So I am not at all surprised that the bar is so low.)

But does Covenant's story emulate Christ's story, in part or in total? I don't find it so. I just see trivial points of congruence. Even the bit about walking on water: in the Bible, it was a demonstration of the divinity of Christ; in TWL, it was the Earth's recognition of the strength Covenant lacked. Only when you reduce it to "water and walking" do they seem the same.

Which is not to say that the two stories are completely unrelated. Certainly Christian theology influenced Donaldson.

And, from a literary point of view, the essence of the Chronicles is about how each of us can overcome the futility in our lives to become effective. If Covenant were a divine figure, it would undermine the story's ability to connect to each of us.

[Vraith]

I thought eastern orthodoxy was one of those and rather a large group? Not trying to derail your point, though.

For whatever it is worth, I saw a number of sort of parallels or allusions to the jesus figure in the chrons, especially in the first series.

Yes, the eastern views original sin, sin in general, differently than the western.
But that doesn't matter, because original sin doesn't matter...it's the next step.
AFAIK, there isn't anyone [or at least anyone I've heard of in any surviving version of Christianity] that says: The Creator has responsibility for evil in the world.
And in the versions I'm aware of, Christ's role always is to help fix us, save us from our sins.
TC, The Creator IS responsible for much of the evil that happens.
TC's role is to fix what the Creator did wrong.

So, when you see the comparisons, which definitely are there...those comparisons are actually contrasts: because they MEAN, intentionally, different things. In many ways the similar events for TC/in the chronicles world, are explicitly criticisms of the parallels in a Christian/real world.

[[There are more complicated interps than this, but it is essential to meaning as a whole that in one the Creator accepts some responsibility for evil, in the other that is not so.]]

[Ananda]

In many ways the similar events for TC/in the chronicles world, are explicitly criticisms of the parallels in a Christian/real world.

That's what I said (both now and in 2011)!

The thing is that these 'believers' don't actually believe. TC is the unbeliver, but so are they. TC becomes a believer in the end, but they still shrug at what they profess to believe. Tent scene and hospital scene show that, I think.