Tuvo the wizard king

[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?