Tuvo the wizard king

[William Cloud Hicklin]

so you See, not all of us blindly accept the political maneuverings of the Mannish Councils of Nicea

As if Nicea were remotely relevant to the Canon. The damnable Dan Brown again. The Manichaeans, Marcionites and Gnostics had been rejected long before: Nicaea was convened to settle the Arian/Athanasian conflict over the Trinity.

The Canon was already established in its essence by the time of Irenaeus. The NT Canon was assembled very slowly, and analysis of the scriptues quoted by the Patristic Fathers lays out a pretty clear outline of what was a slow process of accretion, not rejection. First the Pauline epistles, followed by the Synoptic Gospels; John and the pastoral epistles took longer to gain general acceptance. Revelation wasn't accepted until rather late.

None of the Fathers ever relied on or considered the Gnostic pseudo-gospels to be canonical or authoritative. The only books from the Early Church which didn't make the cut were the Didache and Hermas' Shepherd. The Didache because it is simply a compression of the Synoptics into a synthetic text; Hermas because he had no apostolic authority (all the books of the NT canon were supposed to have been written by or under the supervision of an apostle: the chain of 'eyewitnesses' was considered crucial. In fact the earliest writers hold up "this is what John told me" as superior to any written text.).

As to the OT, the Christians had really nothing to do with it: first the (Jewish) Alexandrian Canon, and later the (Jewish) Jamnia Canon.

(Incidentally, Enoch and Jubilees are considered canonical by the Ethiopian Church)

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

As if Nicea were remotely relevant to the Canon. ...

The Canon was already established in its essence by the time of Irenaeus. The NT Canon was assembled very slowly, and analysis of the scriptues quoted by the Patristic Fathers...
None of the Fathers ever relied on or considered the Gnostic pseudo-gospels to be canonical or authoritative. The only books from the Early Church which didn't make the cut were the Didache and Hermas' Shepherd. The Didache because it is simply a compression of the Synoptics into a synthetic text; Hermas because he had no apostolic authority (all the books of the NT canon were supposed to have been written by or under the supervision of an apostle: the chain of 'eyewitnesses' was considered crucial. In fact the earliest writers hold up "this is what John told me" as superior to any written text.).

As to the OT, the Christians had really nothing to do with it: first the (Jewish) Alexandrian Canon, and later the (Jewish) Jamnia Canon.

(Incidentally, Enoch and Jubilees are considered canonical by the Ethiopian Church)

all this is very enlightening in its bookish focus on particulars - but where are your erudite analyses of the social and political conditions of their "slow, accreted" production? as i said, there are politics involved in the production of any "authoritative" text (and in your case, the flippant disregard for the patriarchal social apparatus which gave rise to the widely accepted legitimacy of the "authoritative" texts. oh, and i do include Tolkien, given his topological deference to the Biblical codex in his masterful (to be sure) issuance of the Legendarium....

i'll let you Bend your..considerable ... Thought on the homologies which tie Nicea, the Bible codex, and the Legendarium. you may catch my Meaning in the meanwhile

Mithalwen, Grey Maiden - YOU ROCK!!!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! WARNING! WARNING! PoMo ALERT!!!!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There's an "off-topic" skwerl peeking around the corner - please remember to include a Tolkien reference in your posts!

[Bêthberry]

Elaine Pagels' Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas offers some interesting analysis on the creation of the biblical canon.

Her work makes me wonder who will write a study of Christopher Tolkien's work? As a scholar, he must have a considerable method and manner of organisation and work. While he explained his methods in HoMe (but not in The Silm), perhaps it will fall to another scholar to examine his papers and see how he made the cuts, if his explanation does in fact pertain to the Tolkien pere texts in his collection, and--the most intriguing point to me at the moment--what are the problems with releasing Tolkien's translation of Beowulf.

The questions about Tuvo remind me of Tolkien's thoughts on creation in OFS. Tolkien essentially says that we subcreate in imitation of the divine creation (relying on memory here, don't have the niggling details at hand). But can we look at Tolkien's method of creating the Legendarium, with its constant re-vision over time, and refer that back to, say, Eru, whose music seemed always to expanded over time? Just a thought. Would Tolkien have rejected the character of Tuvo because, somehow, he felt the character was heretical or non-canonical?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

1). A book to be published in May, Arda Reconstructed. will be a line-by-line analysis of the published Silmarillion and its assemblage from the source-texts, at least as those are published in HME.

2). The Beowulf translation is on indefinite hold essentially from practical and process considerations, which I can't really say more about

3.) Pagels unfortunately in both her books works from a fanciful premise: that the Gnostic gospels were contemporary with the canonical gospels and therefore in direct competition with them. But in fact they belong to the Third Century, and of course reflect a syncretism with pagan Gnosticism which was seen immediately and correctly to be entirely inconsistent with the already-established Pauline/synoptic canon: Irenaeus the leading condemnatory voice of many. The essence of Gnosticism - 'knowledge', meaning secret knowledge, was that the Truth was confined to a small circle of adepts; the hallmark of a Gnostic gospel is Jesus purportedly calling aside the nominal author and telling him, "Here's the real deal, but you can't let those othe dopes know." Utterly at variance with the Pauline/synoptic tradition, which is as close to "authenticity" as we're likely to get. That of course doesn't stop innumerable people writing books claiming dark conspiracies and 'suppression of the truth,' when in fact the Christian Gnostics were the Scientologists of their day.

The principal value of Thomas is that it might - might - be in part derived from the hypothetical Q-gospel and therefore include more authentic text where it parallels the Synoptics.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

12)

2.) The Beowulf translation is on indefinite hold essentially from practical and process considerations, which I can't really say more about

3.) Pagels unfortunately in both her books works from a fanciful premise: that the Gnostic gospels were contemporary with the canonical gospels and therefore in direct competition with them. But in fact they belong to the Third Century, and of course reflect a syncretism with pagan Gnosticism which was seen immediately and correctly to be entirely inconsistent with the already-established Pauline/synoptic canon: Irenaeus the leading condemnatory voice of many. The essence of Gnosticism - 'knowledge', meaning secret knowledge, was that the Truth was confined to a small circle of adepts; the hallmark of a Gnostic gospel is Jesus purportedly calling aside the nominal author and telling him, "Here's the real deal, but you can't let those othe dopes know." Utterly at variance with the Pauline/synoptic tradition, which is as close to "authenticity" as we're likely to get. That of course doesn't stop innumerable people writing books claiming dark conspiracies and 'suppression of the truth,' when in fact the Christian Gnostics were the Scientologists of their day.

The principal value of Thomas is that it might - might - be in part derived from the hypothetical Q-gospel and therefore include more authentic text where it parallels the Synoptics.

The dating of the Gospel of Thomas has not been definitively ascertained; scholars in addition to Pagels place it in the first century with other canonical gospels while others place it in the second century. Late Daters tend to be those who wish to deny authenticity to the gnostic gospels. It's rather like those who object to seeing or acknowledging that Tolkien did, towards the end of his life, work to niggle his faith into his legendarium. They deny Christian elements by saying they were parcelled in after the fact and after Tolkien had experienced his authentic inspiration, so that his latter work does not really represent his true intentions.

The fact is the gnostic gospels were written for the same reason the other gospels were: to explain, to articulate the writer's response to the events of Jesus' life. Some used mythic or symbolic narrative techniques. (And, by the way, gnosticism was hardly an elaboratedly worked out system of theology, so it cannot be said to to have one essential element or doctrine, such as the allegation of secrecy you provide.) As such, a truly objective history of the period should and must include them to present a full depiction of the ferment of the time. (Note, I am not saying they must be declared canonical, I am simply saying they deserve to be recognised as part of zeitgeist.) Analogies to our contemporary religious enthusiasms don't really do justice to legitimate discussion. No matter what I think of Scientology (or the gnostics, for that matter), a scholarly study of religion in the US in the twentieth century would have to include Scientology, just as it would have to include Seventh Day Adventists and the plethora of other "cults" that have developed in the US. After all, Scientology has a legitimate tax exemption from the US Government as a religion. (One doesn't have to accept that status, but one does have to acknowledge it and refute it, not maintain silence as if it does not exist.)

Just as, if one wanted to pursue a study of Tolkien's academic oeuvre, it would be incomplete without consideration of his translation of Beowulf. I can track down his professional publications on, for instance, Middle English dialects, but to compare his understanding of language there with his translation of OE, I would have to go the Estate to request permission--unless the work is part of his papers at Marquette University--and if permission were denied, well, then the work would not be complete. Withholding the Beowulf translation means that any attempt to articulate fully his philosophy of language would be limited.

Mithalwen, I do know some of Karen Armstrong's books but not her book on the Bible. Perhaps you could explain her idea of a canon within a canon for us once you have finished reading the book?

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Eäralda Halatiriva

i'll let you Bend your..considerable ... Thought on the homologies which tie Nicea, the Bible codex, and the Legendarium. you may catch my Meaning in the meanwhile

there is my reference to the Legendarium "PoMo" or No..... mister Hickin's reaction is, I believe, making my point about the hold of the One over threatened, Mannish minds, besides clearly having not a faintest idea of what I am speaking.

Bêthberry! that was a lovely segue into my exact Thoughts concerning the notion of sub-creation and the Children of the One...the Valaquenta and Ainulindalë does state that each Age contains Chords that spontaneous arise, having no specifically conscious placement there by the Ainur: a type of Age-specific "Emergence" or "Auto-poeisis"(to use a more literary term for it)

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Eäralda Halatiriva

Bêthberry! that was a lovely segue into my exact Thoughts concerning the notion of sub-creation and the Children of the One...the Valaquenta and Ainulindalë does state that each Age contains Chords that spontaneous arise, having no specifically conscious placement there by the Ainur: a type of Age-specific "Emergence" or "Auto-poeisis"(to use a more literary term for it)

Explaining inspiration does seem to be a bit problematic for both religion and literary studies. And for a minute there, I almost thought that would lead you to a mention of Tolkien's Mr. Bliss.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Oh now I will really have to read it.... ok. I'll give it a go.. but maybe it would be easier if I sent you the book and you explained it to me?

I am, alas, a lazy soul and would far rather benefit from the sweat of someone else's brow than work up some on my own.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

The only Tolkien papers at Marquette are those related to The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, Farmer Giles and Mr Bliss. All the rest (including Beowulf) are in the Bodleian.

Although I can't get into the specific reasons the publication of Beowulf was called off, I can assure you it wasn't out of any desire to 'suppress' it; and, indeed, it's available for scholars on the same terms as the rest of the Bodleian's manuscripts. Sooner or later the obstacles to publication will be worked out, I'm sure.

Ah, well then I must remember that when I am able to attend an Oxenmoot with the Tolkien Society and drag along some OE enthusiasts I know this side of the pond. Or perhaps we could persuade an eminent Downer who has some credentials in OE to attempt an assault on the Bodleian such as he attempted on Tolkien's grave.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

To liken it to NT scholarship is not quite on point: after all, the NT material from the crucial period simply doesn't exist!!

But I was under the impression that there are sizable gaps in the historical records of Tolkien's work, particularly for his early years as an academic. And of course his epistles are not complete by any means.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Good luck! But I recommend you arrange reader's privileges ahead of time, or you may be disappointed.


Although I really have no idea how much Tolkien academic stuff is there, or in France, on the whole the old boy never threw *anything* away: the preface and commentary to Sigrid and Gudrun come from his lecture-notes on Old Norse poetry fom the 20's; and Drout's Beowulf book was drawn from the various drafts of the famous lecture. I would expect that virtually all his lecture notes survive; they just haven't seen publication (yet).

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I am, alas, a lazy soul and would far rather benefit from the sweat of someone else's brow than work up some on my own.

So am I, as you may have gathered by my offer ...but since a coating of snow scarce enough to cover a hobbit's toes has brought my land to a standstill... I may get down to some "bread and butter" reading.

If you do obtain admission as a reader http://www.ouls.ox.ac.uk/bodley/serv...ions/procedure

and I did so they can't be too demanding let me know if you are still required to make a solemn declaration in your mother tongue that you will not set fire to the library or take kindling therein.. the idea really hadn't occured until they suggested it ...

[Bêthberry]

That's so sweet of you, Mithalwen, to find that link, and thank you Mr. Hicklin for the advice.

This is what makes the Downs such an exceptional community, from one side of the pond to the other.

Perhaps I can reciprocate and offer suggestions on how to handle your 30 cm of snow, seeing as we regularly have three to four feet and I live in a mild winter area. Makeshift toboggans for use at Hampstead Heath can be made from laundry hampers (plastic ones of course) and even garbage bins, although rubber tire tubing (inflated) is a scream. A snowball fight in Trafalgar Square would be a blast, too, with Nelson looking on.

Tolkien however seemed to think snow a malevolent thing, given Caradhras and Helcaraxë, much like Tuvo the wizard king. Pity.