|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beren IV
Gondor
Aug 27 2008, 6:42pm
Post #126 of 157
(8725 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So what did the three 'C's look like?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Tolkien admittedly gives us precious little in the way of physical description of his various races, but it is quite apparent that the Elves are strikingly beautiful and that the Orcs are profoundly ugly.
The "three C's" - Celegorm, Caranthir, and Cúrufin - wind up behaving truly despicably as they more-or-less bring down the civilization of the Elves in Beleriand. If Orcs are what results when Elves truly become evil, did these three sons of Fëanor begin to physically resemble Orcs as well as in their behavior?
Once a paleontologist, now a botanist, will be a paleobotanist
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Aug 27 2008, 6:48pm
Post #127 of 157
(8731 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for that effort, a.s., it helps a lot. Using your (and the Catholic Church's) definition of Free Will, and based on what I know of Tolkien's published texts, I agree with you, and apparently with Verlyn Flieger (although she didn't specify what she meant by Free Will) that Elves don't have that: they can't change their ultimate fate (except for the exceptions, like Lúthien and Arwen). I wonder if Carl Hostetter (who is Catholic) is using the same definition? And if Tolkien's unpublished works to which he refers indicate that Elves do have some say in their eternal fate? I now realize I wasn't paying enough attention to Hostetter's talk.
On the other hand, I think FFH raises a good point, that the characters in Tolkien's stories seem unaware either of eternal reward and punishment, or of the lack thereof; and I'll repeat myself in response to your comment that:
If Elves cannot change their eternal destination because they cease to exist when the world ceases to exist (which was my understanding of Elven nature, prior to Mythcon), and the above is one possible definition of free will, then by that definition Elves do not have free will.
Most of Tolkien's readership has no reason to believe this. Galadriel expresses doubt that she can get back to Valinor, but at the end of the story off she goes, having made the right choice. How can readers be expected to think that she nonetheless will be shut out, killed off in the end?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Aug. 25-31 for "The Choices of Master Samwise".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Aug 27 2008, 6:54pm
Post #128 of 157
(8730 views)
Shortcut
|
|
if they cannot go to Hell, they do not have free will
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Men cannot be redeemed from Hell. Once you go to Hell, you go there for all eternity. Angels or men. Angels had one choice: follow Lucifer or obey God. The ones who obeyed stay in Heaven; the fallen Angels are in Hell forever.
I agree that is not the same choice that Man has; we have lots of chances to avoid Hell. But once we make the final choice, we are the same as Angels in that regard. Once we are in Hell, we are in Hell.
I did mention that I personally do not believe in Hell, didn't I?
IF Elves do not have eternal souls which continue after Arda ceases to exist (a big if, apparently) THEN they cannot be compared to Angels as they do not need to repent. They make their own virtual Heaven or Hell of Arda, and then they die. They face no final judgement.
I have already said that if Elves do not leave Arda, then perhaps they have free will in an Elven definition, which is hypothetical. But I suppose all free will is.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Pooh began to feel a little more comfortable, because when you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Aug 27 2008, 6:58pm
Post #129 of 157
(8731 views)
Shortcut
|
The key to turning beautiful Elves into ugly Orcs seems to have been long years of torture and mutilation. For example, after 14 years of being held captive by Morgoth, the Elf Gwindor was unrecognizable by his kin. (Though he was still "good".)
However, Orkish behavior does seem to be what turns regular looking Men into ugly Orcs.
One might suggest that it would take a very long time of acting evil to turn a beautiful Elf ugly as opposed to the relatively faster shake-and-bake method of torture and mutilation.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Aug 27 2008, 7:33pm
Post #130 of 157
(8848 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So do The Elect have free will?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Men cannot be redeemed from Hell. Once you go to Hell, you go there for all eternity.
What about the Offertory of the Requiem Mass:
"Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory, free the souls of all the faithful departed from infernal punishment and the deep pit."
I agree that is not the same choice that Man has; we have lots of chances to avoid Hell. But once we make the final choice, we are the same as Angels in that regard. Once we are in Hell, we are in Hell.
Like Aquinas said: “Therefore the damned, perceiving God in His punishment, which is the effect of His justice, hate Him, even as they hate the punishment inflicted on them.” Once you're that far gone there's no turning back.
I did mention that I personally do not believe in Hell, didn't I?
There are many who do not believe in the rationality of Eternal Punishment. (But then does one has to argue against the rationality of Eternal Reward?)
IF Elves do not have eternal souls which continue after Arda ceases to exist (a big if, apparently) THEN they cannot be compared to Angels as they do not need to repent. They make their own virtual Heaven or Hell of Arda, and then they die. They face no final judgement.
I seem to remember that Elves will add their voices to the Music when Arda is remade. Not a bad immortality that.
I have already said that if Elves do not leave Arda, then perhaps they have free will in an Elven definition, which is hypothetical. But I suppose all free will is.
The Elves will become part of the Music, part of Arda Remade.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
(This post was edited by Darkstone on Aug 27 2008, 7:36pm)
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Valinor
Aug 27 2008, 7:44pm
Post #131 of 157
(8895 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ah, but what about the Outer Darkness?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The sons of Feanor feared to break their oath, because they bound themselves to be plunged into the Outer Darkness if they failed it. Therefore there is a potential bad fate for reallllllly bad elves, so there must be a good fate that they enjoy if they dodge the bad fate.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Valinor
Aug 27 2008, 8:15pm
Post #132 of 157
(8771 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien admittedly gives us precious little in the way of physical description of his various races, but it is quite apparent that the Elves are strikingly beautiful and that the Orcs are profoundly ugly.
The "three C's" - Celegorm, Caranthir, and Cúrufin - wind up behaving truly despicably as they more-or-less bring down the civilization of the Elves in Beleriand. If Orcs are what results when Elves truly become evil, did these three sons of Fëanor begin to physically resemble Orcs as well as in their behavior?
To some extent maybe they did, but not entirely. Abraham Lincoln once said that "Everyone is responsible for his own face after forty." Part of that would not apply--after forty, the wrinkles that we mortals develop follow our life's habitual expressions, yet elves don't wrinkle. Part would apply, however, for our habitual expressions also shape which muscles in our faces bulge or atrophy. Multiply this by centuries, and the three C's could become fairly grotesque. The scowls and sneers would really shape out ugly over time, even as they do on people whose bone structure ought to go with beauty. And have you ever noticed that bullies always peer from heavy-lidded eyes, as if they cannot bear to open them the whole way, see the whole truth? These bad boy elves would have developed quite an orkish squint.
(I was rather disappointed in Bilbo's make-up job in the final movie--he didn't look like someone who had aged in Rivendell, but sort of like a melted hobbit. In my dreams he has many, many laugh lines, layered around his mouth like petals on a rose, or radiating from his eyes like starlight, and the lines of his brows have an amusing kink in them, from the habit of raising one eyebrow in his cockeyed view of the world. But hey, that's just my dreams.)
Yet other factors in orkish ugliness wouldn't affect the three C's. They would not have become bent-backed and bandy-legged from living in tunnels, for instance.
Then there's the matter of hygiene. One may presume that, like elves, orcs don't suffer from the same diseases that plague mankind, the "frail folk" that elves look down on. That would make hygiene an aesthetic decision, not a survival necessity. Morgoth or Sauron could keep orcs in all kinds of foulness without the bother or expense of clean-ups; they might develop fungoid deformities, eruptions of the skin, lumps and bumps and runny sores--yet none of this would kill them, merely make them still more irritable.
And I still maintain that if you have an immortal creature who never suffers a toothache or loses a tooth unless it gets knocked out, then he must generate teeth continually, like certain animals do, and need to gnaw on wood periodically to keep them trimmed. I assume that orcs have fangs because they don't chew on a nice piece of wood every night like good little elven girls and elven boys learn from their mothers to do, just as we would brush our teeth. And the claws result from ages without manicures.
Also let's not leave out the matter of diet. Eating rotten, junky food (whatever was most convenient to churn out to fuel the armies of a Dark Lord) might not kill an orc, but it would tend to promote a horrible complexion, body odor, and figure problems. I expect that the Sons of Feanor had healthier eating habits.
There's also the matter of breeding. Morgoth and Sauron bred orcs to suit an agenda other than aesthetics. Elves breed themselves, and aesthetics do matter to them. Guess who has the prettier children?
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
visualweasel
Rohan
Aug 27 2008, 9:15pm
Post #133 of 157
(8716 views)
Shortcut
|
( [..] In my dreams he has many, many laugh lines, layered around his mouth like petals on a rose, or radiating from his eyes like starlight, and the lines of his brows have an amusing kink in them, from the habit of raising one eyebrow in his cockeyed view of the world. But hey, that's just my dreams.)
Thanks for that. 
Jason Fisher
Lingwë - Musings of a Fish
The Lord of the Rings discussion 2007-2008 – The Two Towers – III.4 “Treebeard” – Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
|
|
|
visualweasel
Rohan
Aug 27 2008, 9:27pm
Post #134 of 157
(8731 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I disagree fundamentally, but we can still be friends :)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
if they cannot go to Hell, they do not have free will
I don't see Heaven or Hell (assuming they exist) as having anything whatsoever to do with the nature of free will. Where you end up in the hereafter may be a consequence of your choices, sure, but to me, free will is simply the ability to act predominantly free from external duress. Defining free will in those terms may be Catholic, but for me, Heaven or Hell is beside the point. In fact, one might say that the more you believe in Hell, the less free you are, since extraordinary fear of Hell would be a kind of duress, attenuating free choice. Wouldn't it?
Or let me put this another way: you said that you don't believe in Hell, so by Catholic dogma, how do you have free will? 
Jason Fisher
Lingwë - Musings of a Fish
The Lord of the Rings discussion 2007-2008 – The Two Towers – III.4 “Treebeard” – Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Aug 27 2008, 9:30pm
Post #135 of 157
(8721 views)
Shortcut
|
...in the same class as Morthoron's effort, and I'm sure it only won (in just one of three categories, remember) because there were no other entrants.
Fëanor
Felt that he could pay no more.
To surrender the silmarils he wasn't eager.
Why? You'd have to ask Hostetter and Flieger.
The second line in particular doesn't work, because what had Fëanor already paid? Also, though Joe Christopher argues that near-rhyme is preferred to rhyme in clerihews, the first and second lines aren't that near.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Aug. 25-31 for "The Choices of Master Samwise".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Aug 27 2008, 9:35pm
Post #136 of 157
(8714 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, but there is always a Tolkienic contradiction...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Such as Tolkien's apocryphal ending and then regeneration of Arda (the Middle-earth version of Ragnarok) which has Feanor breaking open the Silmarils and a new day dawning. Was he the only Elf allowed to exist at that point, and did Manwe bump him off after he completed his task? Then there's also the dwarvish belief that they will help Aule refashion the new world. Do dwarves have free will and a destiny, or do they just return to the spit and stone used by Mahal to make them?
It would seem the argument that Elves have their end when Arda ends is like a sieve, always watering those darn weeds of contrariness.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: "Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
JOHN WILKES: That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
John Wilkes (1727-1797)
|
|
|
Aelfwine
Rivendell
Aug 27 2008, 9:37pm
Post #137 of 157
(8930 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think that's an accurate definition of Free Will from the Church's perspective.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Man's eternal destiny -- i.e., Heaven or Hell -- is certainly a consequence of his exercise of Free Will; but this very fact demonstrates that Free Will precedes and is therefore distinguishable from this ultimate consequence. In other words, Man does not have Free Will because he can select for Heaven or Hell (and certainly not only because); rather, Man can select for Heaven or Hell only because he has Free Will.
Nor could that definition of Free Will obtain among the Elves and Men of Middle-earth, since so far as they knew, there was no moral distinction, indeed no distinction at all, in the ultimate destiny of Men: all Men departed "beyond the circles of the world", and so far as anyone knew they all existed there in the exact same state regardless of their moral choices. (Similarly, all Elves remained bound within the circles of the world: so Men have no more moral consequence of their actions than do Elves: again, so far as Elves and Men in Middle-earth then knew.)
But in any event it is plain that Tolkien was not speaking only of ultimate destiny: he wrote that Men were given a "virtue to shape their lives amid the powers and chances of the world" (emphasis added), not merely to select for an ultimate destiny beyond the world.
Furthermore, Tolkien's own discussion in the unpublished note on "Fate and Free Will" certainly makes no claim or even implication that Free Will obtains only when there is an ultimate consequence to its exercise. Rather, there, "free will" is defined as obtaining when (and only when, but by implication always when) a determination of course (action or inaction) is made for a "fully-aware purpose", amid the physical conditions and processes of the world (ambar) and the network of chances within "fate" (umbar). As Tolkien says in Letters, Free Will is "derivative" (i.e., I take it, of God's will and of His creation of the world and of rational creatures which He endows with will) and therefore always operates "within provided circumstances". As these unpublished notes explain, these "circumstances" are both ambar 'the world' and umbar 'fate': and these are "provided", of course, ultimately by Eru himself. Obviously, exercises of Free Will so defined can have moral valuation, can even be "sinful", within the world and apart from questions of one's ultimate destiny, since they can either accord with or violate the moral standards of the world that ultimately also derive from Eru.
They can also have moral consequences within the world, not just for ultimate destiny, and not just for Men: consider, for example, when Tolkien conspicuously notes that had Feänor chosen to surrender the Silmarils, things might have gone better for him subsequently, even though in the event he could not actually have surrendered then, since Morgoth had by then already stolen them. Feänor was presented with a choice, amid ambar and umbar, and whichever decision he made had a consequence for him, even though neither choice would in the event have effected the restoration of the Trees. That sure sounds like a moral consequence to me, even if as an Elf it had no (known) effect on his ultimate destiny.
--
Carl F. Hostetter
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Aug 27 2008, 9:50pm
Post #138 of 157
(8693 views)
Shortcut
|
I can accept that my definition of free will is mistaken; that the ability to sin and be condemned for it is a consequence of free will and not a determinant.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Pooh began to feel a little more comfortable, because when you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Aug 27 2008, 10:09pm
Post #139 of 157
(8688 views)
Shortcut
|
|
oh stop! It won because it was funny, it was topical
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and everyone got a chance to laugh one more time about the ongoing weekend debate.
And only incidently because there were no other entrants in your category!!
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Pooh began to feel a little more comfortable, because when you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Aug 27 2008, 10:27pm
Post #140 of 157
(8691 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But, what we really need to decide once and for all...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Do Balrogs have wings?
*The Dark Elf ducks in anticipation of flying coffee mugs and statuary*
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: "Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
JOHN WILKES: That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
John Wilkes (1727-1797)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Aug 27 2008, 10:29pm
Post #142 of 157
(8684 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Or better, do they have the free will to use them?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: "Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
JOHN WILKES: That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
John Wilkes (1727-1797)
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Aug 27 2008, 10:42pm
Post #143 of 157
(8675 views)
Shortcut
|
|
it would depend upon how you define free will
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and we are back at the beginning.
I am not certain there is any such thing as free will, not really. Not per se. I don't think the debate is very interesting outside of a belief in Providence (or "God's plan for the world"). It's only the way free will and Providence work that interests me, because it's such an unsolvable mystery.
And I don't think it matters if it's just an illusion anyway. I don't think our lives would change. If I convinced you tomorrow that free will was just an illusion, would you run out and kill someone? No (well, probably no!), you would continue to act in the decent manner of most ordinary human social animals. We do what we do, and then try to explain it. One explanation: God made me and gave me free will. But it could just as easily be: that's just the way humans are programmed to act in given circumstances and any illusion of choice is just a story we tell ourselves.
I mean, I am aware of the deeper philosophical questions about man's nature that have been debated for millenia; I am interested in ethics. I am interested in how man lives an ethical life in social groups. But I personally see no dilemma if there is no Providence at work, after all. Then free will is just a term we are applying to something inherent in human nature.
Carl has already informed me that my definition is incorrect; I can accept that. I can accept that eternal damnation is a consequence of free will and not a required component.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Pooh began to feel a little more comfortable, because when you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Aug 27 2008, 11:23pm
Post #144 of 157
(8849 views)
Shortcut
|
they cannot sin. So maybe they don't. Or maybe the ability to sin isn't part of free will at all. Maybe I always just thought that. And now I don't. Or don't think I think that. I think I thought it at one time, but now can't remember my original thoughts (as opposed to Original Sin. I remember that.)
I am now aware of how much I don't know and wish I had not tried to argue the Flieger side.
I think we are praying the Offeratory for the souls in Purgatory, to be honest, and not those in Hell. Hell is eternal and irrevocable; we cannot free those in Hell.
I am almost positively absolutely sure I know that. 12 years of Catholic Education can't really leave one as stupid as I appear to be at this moment.
I don't think.
Which may be the problem.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Pooh began to feel a little more comfortable, because when you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
|
|
|
Aelfwine
Rivendell
Aug 28 2008, 12:00am
Post #145 of 157
(8692 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Please don't be so hard on yourself, "a.s."!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We're all just "thinking on screen" here, feeling our way around a very complex and profound and, ultimately, for any Catholic, mysterious issue -- to say the least, in light of the history of thought on the matter! -- and one that frankly may not have a single, "yes or no" answer with respect to Tolkien, at least, not a single answer that applies to all his writings through all the decades of his work on the legendarium. You're certainly helping me find my way through the tangle (even if at times chiefly in reaction to what you write), so please keep at it!
--
Carl F. Hostetter
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Aug 28 2008, 12:18am
Post #146 of 157
(8678 views)
Shortcut
|
Perhaps I was just feeling a little petulant. I don't really think I'm stupid. I should not pretend to be...people may take me for being serious and agree with me.
I may not have known what I thought I knew about free will, however. So it is a good thing to think out loud, however humiliating it might be.
LOL
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Pooh began to feel a little more comfortable, because when you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
|
|
|
Beren IV
Gondor
Aug 28 2008, 2:41am
Post #147 of 157
(8770 views)
Shortcut
|
that all of the Children of Ilúvitar would partake of the Second Music, which implies that the Elves will continue to exist at least until that point.
Once a paleontologist, now a botanist, will be a paleobotanist
|
|
|
Beren IV
Gondor
Aug 28 2008, 2:45am
Post #148 of 157
(8657 views)
Shortcut
|
There are accounts that almost all of the named Angels fell from grace at one time or another, perhaps all except for Michael (even Gabriel). Most of these accounts have been declared apocryphal, though. If my understanding of what that meant is that it means that these accounts are simply unsubstantiated and non-canonical, but not necessarily false. If taken as true, then that would imply that some Angels, at least for some infractions, can fall from grace and later be forgiven. This may not be true for all infractions, obviously.
Is my understanding of what the word "apocrypha" means in this context wrong, or does what you have just said indicate that these particular "apocrypha" are not merely apocryphal, but are in fact heretical?
Once a paleontologist, now a botanist, will be a paleobotanist
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Aug 28 2008, 3:51am
Post #149 of 157
(8670 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Dark Elf recalls his Catholic education...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There are accounts that almost all of the named Angels fell from grace at one time or another, perhaps all except for Michael (even Gabriel). Most of these accounts have been declared apocryphal, though. If my understanding of what that meant is that it means that these accounts are simply unsubstantiated and non-canonical, but not necessarily false. If taken as true, then that would imply that some Angels, at least for some infractions, can fall from grace and later be forgiven. This may not be true for all infractions, obviously.
Is my understanding of what the word "apocrypha" means in this context wrong, or does what you have just said indicate that these particular "apocrypha" are not merely apocryphal, but are in fact heretical?
Let me put on my Christian thinking cap. Let's see...Apocrypha, according to the earliest definition means "that which is hidden". There are many books of Apocrypha that are considered either "protocanonical" or "deuterocanonical" (either originally accepted as canonical or accepted later). There were many Councils of the Roman Catholic that wrestled with the idea of adding or deleting books (the Council of Nicea, for one), but the Council of Trent in 1565 basically set the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible in...ummm...stone. Protestant and Greek Orthodox bibles have different levels of acceptance for the same Apocrypha, and its all rather confusing. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed the age of many of the Apocrypha as predating Christ (such as the Book of Enoch, for instance). Generally, these are the books of Apocrypha:
Tobit
Judith
The Additions to the Book of Esther (contained in the Greek version of Esther)
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach
Baruch
The Letter of Jeremiah
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
1 Esdras
The Prayer of Manasseh
2 Esdras
In addition, there are books banned from the bible (whether because of heresies such as the Arian Conspiracy, or, in the case of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, because it confounded the patristic and conservative church leaders). There are hundreds of these, but the most popular at the time of their expulsion from biblical canonicity were:
The Life of Adam and Eve
The Book of Jubilees
The Book of Enoch (my personal favorite)
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Protovangelion of James
The Gospel of Mary (the Gospel that made Da Vinci Code the literary marvel it is *rolls eyes*)
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Apocalypse of Peter
Whether these should have been removed from the bible is up for conjecture. My friend the bible scholar firmly believes that several of them (including the Gospel of Mary) are genuine, and used them in her doctoral thesis. To me, it's all fiction, and worthwhile enough to argue about as Tolkien is (except people don't kill each other over Tolkien, whereas...well)
P.S. Beren, the book you are speaking of is the Book of Enoch, that speaks of fallen angels, and the bloodthirsty giants, the Nephilim.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: "Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
JOHN WILKES: That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
John Wilkes (1727-1797)
(This post was edited by Morthoron on Aug 28 2008, 3:57am)
|
|
|
Aelfwine
Rivendell
Aug 28 2008, 12:37pm
Post #150 of 157
(8805 views)
Shortcut
|
... It would really be better if you put on your historian thinking cap. The Biblical canon was fixed long before Trent, in fact no later than 363 A.D. And the Gospel of Mary was never considered for inclusion in the canon, because like all the so-called Gospels of the Gnostics, it was denounced early and often as plainly heretical. The criterion for inclusion in the canon was that a text was deemed by the Church to be inspired scripture, not whether it was "genuine" (whatever that means).
--
Carl F. Hostetter
|
|
|
|
|
