Tuvo the wizard king

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Reading The Da Vinci Code as a source of Church history is about like reading the Bible as a science text.....

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

for example:

The Testament of Solomon
The Zohar (The Book of Splendor)
The Alphabet of Ben-Sira
Joseph and Aseneth
The Septuagint
Bel and the Dragon
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
Mar Saba letter and The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Judas

or, even better:

The Book of Adam and Eve
Book of Jubilees
Book of Enoch
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Proto-Gospel of James
The Gnostic Scriptures of Nag Hammadi
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Apocalypse of Peter
Second Apocalypse of Peter

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

some of us Elves, in fact, know that All Men Seek the Power of the One, and there hearts are so...easily corrupted...and as to the reading of Science as Text...well, that hairline distinction is between a 'factual' Truth (e.g. orthodox Sciences) and a 'fictional' Truth (e.g. a self-evident work like the Da Vinci Code) in which form of the organization of collective Thought shall prevail over the larger population to the detriment of the other form (sounds a bit like Sauron, or Melkor, init?)


you've pointed out some of these Books, but in that you have made my point - some group in their political meandering have chosen this over that doctrine for political effects, and protection of some status-quo. obviously, Middle-Earth was not unaffected by this reality.

ps - then there is the issue of the Writing of the Legenderium in Biblical-style medieval and Renaissance English, giving it a similar topographical and homological similarity and thus authority

[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?

[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 ...

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Reading The Da Vinci Code as a source of Church history is about like reading the Bible as a science text.....

Quite.... personally I read it as comedy (DVC not the bible...) but I was aware that some people take it rather more seriously. However coincidentally I bought at the weekend "The Bible, the Biography" by Karen Armstrong which given her history, I imagine may be rather more reliable . I haven't got very far yet but the concept of a canon within a canon might have application to Tolkien's work.

by the by I do wonder which early spindoctor managed to get the Song of Songs to make the cut... though I am very glad it did...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Unfortunately we have very little direct evidence of the formation of the Old Testament canon. The oldest extand manuscripts are those from Qumran near the Dead Sea, which only give a partial picture of a dissident sect's library, and only in the 1st Century CE. (Aside from the Dead Sea scrolls, the earliest surviving Hebrew scriptures are medieval, the Masoretic texts).

We do have various copies and part-copies, mostly Christian, in Greek and Syriac; but, again, these are removed from the originals by a very wide span of years. What we do know is that the Septuagint (3rd-1st c. BCE) included a number of books which were excluded from the 'Palestinian canon', the Jewish and Protestant Old Testaments; but when the ketuvim "Writings" were selected the Song made the cut. Why? Who knows? Why is Ecclesiastes in and Ecclesiasticus out?

It does seem to be the case that the concept of a definitive Canon was not yet fixed; the New Testament authors (all of them originally Jews) quote from Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasses, and Psalm 151.