Tuvo the wizard king

[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?

[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? .

[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.

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