Archeology proves Beowulf (and Beowulf proves the Bible)

[Lucian]

Okay, no it doesn't. But on the Archeology proves the Bible thread, Kurious_Kathy had cited Bill Cooper's "After the Flood" (http://ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html) as evidence for the Bible.

I read the chapter on Beowulf with great interest and mounting horror. I knew creationists argued that the dragon was a dinosaur, but I had no idea that Grendel was as well. I didn't want to derail the other thread by further expressing my ire regarding Beowulf (I'm sure proof for the Bible will turn up imminently); however, if I don't get this off my chest, I'm going to combust.

I googled the words "Beowulf" and "dinosaur," and got well over 5 million hits. Some of these question the dinosaur connection, but many are from creationists. As a writing instructor, I was dismayed, but not surprised, by the way these good Christians plagiarize each other. As an Anglo-Saxonist, I was floored by the drivel they spewed about Beowulf.

One piece I found particularly interesting was "Beowulf: Fiction or History?" by Ruth Beechick (http://www.crosswalk.com/1261413/page0/). I gather this is a homeschooling site, so presumably this piece is supposed to educate the young. Perhaps that is why it sounds as if it were written by an 8 year old:

Beowulf had an unusual name. It means bee-wolf. Some old English people (Saxons) called the bear a bee-wolf. A bear’s face was dog-like, or wolf-like, and it often nosed into beehives to eat honey. People thought it was eating bees, so they called it a bee-wolf. The man Beowulf became a powerfully strong fighter, so he gained that name too.

It's true that Beowulf means "bee-wolf" and that bee-wolf is a kenning for "bear." The rest seems a bit fanciful though. (I wonder what "Beechick" is a kenning for). By the way, is it just me, or does she make it sound as if little old ladies in Surrey ("some old English people") are talking about bee-wolves while drinking their tea? Just a further quibble: Saxons lived in Saxony; Anglo-Saxons lived in England.

Beechick refers to and recommends Cooper's work; she does not, however, mention that her piece is a regurgitation of his, with many sentences that have been changed but little. I would have thought that plagiarism was a bad thing to teach children, but maybe it's okay if you homeschool for religious reasons.

I have to take some deep breaths before I get into the "facts" of the poem. (Rant to continue shortly).

[Pure Argent]

Okay, no it doesn't. But on the Archeology proves the Bible thread, Kurious_Kathy had cited Bill Cooper's "After the Flood" (http://ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html) as evidence for the Bible.

I read the chapter on Beowulf with great interest and mounting horror. I knew creationists argued that the dragon was a dinosaur, but I had no idea that Grendel was as well. I didn't want to derail the other thread by further expressing my ire regarding Beowulf (I'm sure proof for the Bible will turn up imminently); however, if I don't get this off my chest, I'm going to combust.

I googled the words "Beowulf" and "dinosaur," and got well over 5 million hits. Some of these question the dinosaur connection, but many are from creationists. As a writing instructor, I was dismayed, but not surprised, by the way these good Christians plagiarize each other. As an Anglo-Saxonist, I was floored by the drivel they spewed about Beowulf.

One piece I found particularly interesting was "Beowulf: Fiction or History?" by Ruth Beechick (http://www.crosswalk.com/1261413/page0/). I gather this is a homeschooling site, so presumably this piece is supposed to educate the young. Perhaps that is why it sounds as if it were written by an 8 year old:



It's true that Beowulf means "bee-wolf" and that bee-wolf is a kenning for "bear." The rest seems a bit fanciful though. (I wonder what "Beechick" is a kenning for). By the way, is it just me, or does she make it sound as if little old ladies in Surrey ("some old English people") are talking about bee-wolves while drinking their tea? Just a further quibble: Saxons lived in Saxony; Anglo-Saxons lived in England.

Beechick refers to and recommends Cooper's work; she does not, however, mention that her piece is a regurgitation of his, with many sentences that have been changed but little. I would have thought that plagiarism was a bad thing to teach children, but maybe it's okay if you homeschool for religious reasons.

I have to take some deep breaths before I get into the "facts" of the poem. (Rant to continue shortly).

Poe's Law. They actually beat us to this particular ridiculous claim.

[Lucian]

I'm back. More from Ms. Beechick:

Beowulf was born in the Middle Ages, A.D. 495, in Denmark.

I love the fact that they know the exact year of his birth. Oh, and where does the poem say he was born in Denmark? His father spent time at Hrothgar's court, but that's not quite the same thing.

Regarding sea-monsters:

A species of sea dragon was the wave-thrasher (ythgewinnes in Old English) that swam along the surface.

Now this may seem like nitpicking, but "ythgewinnes" is genitive. Someone has just grabbed the word from where it appears in Beowulf l. 1434a and reproduced it without thought--and without paying attention to what it means, because it is NOT a name for the sea-serpents:

Sumne Geata leod
of flanbogan feores gewæfde,
yðgewinnes, þæt him on aldre stod
herestræl hearda;
Ed. Fr. Klaeber, 3rd ed. ll. 1432b-1435a

A man of the Geatas [not necessarily Beowulf] deprived one of them [sea-serpents] of life, of wave-strife with his bow, when the hard war-arrow stood in its vitals.

Ythegewinnes, then, is in apposition with life (feores): both are genitives. The sea-serpent isn't an ythgewin; it lost its ythgewin.

Books today have dinosaur names for these various monsters. The flying kinds are called pterosaurs. Most dinosaurs are extinct now or almost so, but now and then some sightings show that a few survivors remain in the world.

Almost extinct??? Oh, never mind. I'll leave the science to others.

On Grendel:

The Danes were so terrorized they thought Grendel was worse than an animal. He was the enemy of God; he belonged in the devil’s hell.

This is kind of funny because she and Cooper and others swear up and down that Beowulf is pre-Christian, and yet the devilish aspects certainly have a Judeo-Christian tinge to them.

Beowulf with his great strength grasped Grendel’s forearm. He knew that was the most vulnerable part. The creature had powerful hind legs, but his forearms were thin and weak.

Where is Grendel described like this? Oh, right, in Cooper's ode to silly:

The monster's forelimbs, which the Saxons called eorms (arms) and which some translate as claws, were small and comparatively puny. They were the monster's one weak spot, and Beowulf went straight for them. He was already renowned for his prodigious strength of grip, and he used this to literally tear off one of Grendel's weak, small arms.
http://ldolphin.org/cooper/ch11.html

But where does the poem mention Grendel's puny arms and strong hind legs?

Then the man deprived of joys came into the hall. The door, fixed with bands forged by fire, sprang open as soon as he touched it with his hands; the one intending evil, when he was enraged, swung the hall’s mouth open.
Trans. of ll. 720-724a. (For the sake of (comparative) brevity and because the quote function does horrible things to the poem's formatting, I have not quoted the Old English.)

Does that sound as if his arms are weak and puny? He also grabs a thane and tears at him before devouring him. Then he grabs Beowulf. Presumably, all these actions involved his arms. There is no suggestion that Beowulf identified Grendel's arm as a weak spot. He chose to fight Grendel without weapons because Grendel didn't use weapons (and, of course, although Beowulf is unaware of the fact, Grendel is invulnerable to weapons). He grabbed what he could and wouldn't let go. Grendel actually tears off his own arm in a desperate bid to escape.

Beechick and Cooper almost completely ignore Grendel's mother, by the way, so I'm not sure if she also is a dinosaur.

[pakeha]

I share your horror about Beowulf and the homeschooling criteria which were brought up on another thread.
As I learned more about Bill Cooper I saw that these Young Earthers, far from being the joke I'd always thought them, actually take themselves very seriously indeed. Home schooling constitutes what % of the schooling in the States?

[Lucian]

On the historicity of Beowulf:

Only one manuscript of the original poem exists.

A completely accurate statement. Give her a round of applause. I guess I've reached the sensible part of her narrative.

People found it, partly burned, in England about five hundred years after Beowulf lived.

Oh dear. Hwaet the hell? Okay, so Beowulf was born in 495. That would mean the MS was found burned around 1000, right around the time it was written. Careless scribes. The Beowulf MS proper (sometimes called the Nowell Codex) contains Beowulf, an OE poem about Judith (fragmentary) and a number of prose works having to do with wonders. Although written by the same scribes as the rest of the MS, Judith may originally have been a separate pamphlet. Certainly the condition of the MS suggests that it was diddled with in the past (the worn condition of Beowulf's last leaf suggests it was originally the last work in the MS).

Lawrence Nowell became the first known owner of the MS in the 16th century. His name is on the first page of the MS (hence, the Nowell Codex). At some time after Nowell put his name to the MS, it was joined to another later MS. Eventually the composite MS was added to the vast collection of Robert Cotton. His cataloging system was based on the classical busts which decorated his library. The Beowulf MS was cataloged as Vitellius A xv. The British Library has kept Cotton's idiosyncratic designations.

In 1731 there was a disastrous fire as Ashburnum House, where the Cotton collection was being kept temporarily. Some MSS, such as those containing the Old English poems "The Battle of Maldon" and "The Rune Poem," were destroyed completely; some were unscathed (Lindisfarne Gospels); others, like the Beowulf MS, suffered various degrees of damage.

This information is not hard to find. Beechick's bizarre statement reminds me of something a student of mine once wrote: "Beowulf is an anonymous medieval poem written in the sixteenth century by Lawrence Nowell." I love that sentence. There's a certain beauty and balance to it, but that student was not an "educator."

No one knows who originally wrote it.

True.

Many literature books say that it is fiction,

Yup.

one of the earliest examples we have of an English novel.

Most literature books I've read recognize the difference between narrative poetry and novels.

But if someone were writing fiction, he would not name so many real people; he would invent characters as novelists do

Except writers of historical novels, of course. Anyway, what real people? Hygelac is thought to have been historical because he's mentioned by Geoffrey of Tours. Some of the other characters are mentioned in other works, such as Saxo Grammaticus's Gesta Danorum, but he talks about Odin, too. And since he euhemerizes everything, he makes Odin into a real person, as well. Hrothgar and the gang are the legendary progenitors of the Danish royal house. And Beowulf the monster-slayer? Good luck finding him in history.

There are, of course, plenty of works that do mention real people. The Volsung cycle in the Poetic Edda and the Volsunga saga both include indisputably historical characters, including Attila the Hun (except he's just a particularly unpleasant Germanic war-leader). That doesn't make these stories remotely historical. Oh wait, there's a dragon in the Volsung stories, too. So I guess they must also be true.

And if someone wrote it long after the events, he would not know all those real people who lived in Beowulf’s time.

Yeah, like how I don't know about Caesar.

It must have been first written at or near the time that Beowulf lived. All parts of the story hold together as though one person wrote it. It does not show evidence that bards sang it and added and changed as the years moved along.

So it was written in the 6th century and was not composed or transmitted orally. Okay, I'll keep that in mind.

Why, then, do so many literature critics say that Beowulf is fiction?

Because we've read it.

It is because they do not believe that dinosaur creatures lived at the same time men lived.

No, it isn't. It's true that I do not believe that "dinosaur creatures" coincided with modern man (or not so modern man), but the dinosaur association never occurred to me until I started reading creationist interpretations. And yet it also never occurred to me that Beowulf might be true. There's a friggin dragon!

[The poet] wrote in pagan times, before missionaries reached the people. God and the devil are mentioned, and Adam and Cain. These pagans knew some of that ancient history, but they knew nothing of Christ or of New Testament teachings. Pagans valued human strength, vengeance, boasting, and treasure gained by plunder. The poem extols all of these and not Christian virtues.

The poem was written, not orally composed, in pagan times. That's kind of tricky, since a poet wrote the poem without benefit of literacy. Yes, the Germanic people had runes, but they didn't go around carving epics onto trees (or rocks, or whatever). If it was composed before the conversion, it's oral not written. If it was composed orally, it would have changed to some degree every time it was told. It it was a written composition, it was written after the conversion. And by the way, although very few OE poems of any length survive in more than one MS, the ones that do show variation as well.

The degree to which Beowulf is a Christian poem (or not) is a very vexed question. I won't go into it here in detail. However, it's true there are no overt references to the NT, but there are references to the OT. It is also true that certain aspects of "pagan" heroism are extolled in the poem, but these didn't suddenly go away after the conversion. Most modern scholars also see elements of Christian worldview in various places in the poem, especially in Hrothgar's speeches.

No English kings or events are mentioned. This shows that the poem was written before the Saxons, Geats, and other tribes migrated to England. It also helps to show that the poem was not rewritten or tampered with after it reached England. Thus we have a genuine historical look into the Middle Ages in the lands by the Baltic Sea.

The one surviving manuscript was written in Old English, a language used in the time of Beowulf.

It's true that neither England, the English, nor any specific Englishman is mentioned in Beowulf, and that is curious, especially if it was written at a time of heavy Viking activity. However, there is no way that it was written (in anything like its present form) on the continent. If it had been, it would be in Old Norse, not Old English. They're not even members of the same branch of the Germanic language family. (By the way, the Geatas never migrated to England, as far as I know).

It should also be pointed out that, although all the characters are Scandinavian, the Scandinavian versions of their names are not used. EVER. In Norse, for instance, Hrothgar is called Hroar. If the poem wasn't written in England, why did the poet use the English names?

[Hokulele]

Thanks Lucian, neat analysis. I am learning a lot in this thread.

[Lucian]

Thanks Lucian, neat analysis. I am learning a lot in this thread.

I'm so glad to hear it. I'd originally just intended it as a way of lowering my blood pressure.

[Pure Argent]

I'm so glad to hear it. I'd originally just intended it as a way of lowering my blood pressure.

Yeah, well, keep it up. I second Hokulele's sentiments.

[Simon39759]

And I third them.

It is sad that these people look at this venerable work of literature, read the words of the ancients from beyond ten centuries away and the only thing that comes to their mind is:
'Now, how can I make it to support my preconceived beliefs'.

[pakeha]

If my actually reading kk's source and posting about my consternation has led to such a fascinating exploration of the Beowulf story, then it was well worth it.

Simon, obviously I'll not contradict you but I think, judging from the websites I've seen of these Young Earthers, that such a speculation is beyond them in general.
This seems more like cut and paste: Plagerise and praise the lord.
But you're quite right to say it is very sad

[Lucian]

I'm going to have to look into what Cooper says about Norse Dragonasaurs. This should be fun.

[pakeha]

Uf, Lucian.
Been there done that got the mousemat.
Still, I'll be interested in reading your commentaries.

Added- the geneologies, don't forget them!

[Simon39759]

So...
Beowulf mentions dragons.
Obviously, that means that Beowulf was real and dragons did co-exist with humans.

Beowulf also mentions the god Odin.
Obviously, that means that this part of the story is silly superstition from primitive Pagans.

[Lucian]

I've been looking at Appendix 9: The Historical Characters in Beowulf (http://ldolphin.org/cooper/appen9.html). His genealogies look all right, but then I assume he got them from scholarly writers whom he derides. There are some odd things. He says that Swerting and Waemunding are surnames. There are no surnames in Beowulf. They're more like patronymics: -ing means "descendant of." In Beowulf, however, they're used as clan names. So, the Danes are called Scyldingas, and Ecgtheow was a Waemunding.

But, of course, it is his generalizations that are so ridiculous:

However, the best test for historicity that can be applied to any document from the past, be it chronicle, epic poem or prose narrative, is the test of its genealogies and personal names.

Hey, I guess the Bible is true then: it's got genealogies out the wazoo.

Are the men and women mentioned in the work characters who are known to us from other contemporary sources? Can the genealogies be verified? If they can, then we are dealing with an account that we can rely on as history.

Oh, wait, no the Bible is less true than Beowulf. There ARE other (not quite) contemporary sources for the genealogies in Beowulf. Not so sure the same can be said of the Begats.

Yes, many of the characters (but not Beowulf--he's pure folklore) are mentioned in other sources. They appear in Saxo Grammaticus, some Danish chronicles, Hrolfs saga kraka, possibly Heimskringla. Some of these writers probably thought they were writing the absolute truth. Saxo probably did, the boring, moralistic thing. But SO WHAT? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle traces Hengest's genealogy back through Sigurd the Dragon-Slayer (I think) to Wotan. It doesn't prove Hengest existed, much less Sigurd or Wotan.

Furthermore, the various Scandinavian information on, say, the Scyldings tells a much different version (or versions) of the story. In Beowulf, Hrothgar has been king of the Danes for a long time. Although he has been largely powerless against Grendel (who is NOT A DINOSAUR), he is depicted as a wise and good king. His Scandinavian counterpart, Hroar, is a minor character. He's never really king of the Danes (if I recall, he was co-king for a while with his brother Helgi [OE Halga], but Helgi was much the more important of the two). Hroar's nephew Hrolf Kraki (Hrothulf in Beowulf, a shadowy, possibly nefarious character) is also important, and it is during his reign (according to his saga) that the monster-slayer Bothvar Bjarki turns up (the nickname means "little bear." His mother was Bera [she-bear]; his father Bjorn [bear]. Bjorn suffered from curse-induced were-bearism). Bjarki fought a monster that was NOT A DINOSAUR.

Oh, now I see why Cooper's genealogies are so good:

I have relied on Klaeber (3rd ed. see bibliography) for much of the information contained in the notes, and for the dates which, as he points out, are estimated as closely as the poem and its external corroborative sources will allow. The pivotal date on which most of the others depend, is AD 521, the year in which King Hygelac was slain by the Franks as depicted in Gregory of Tour's Historiae Francorum. However, having verified Beowulf's extraordinary historical accuracy on almost all points of the narrative, even those minor insignificant and insubstantial points that only an authentic historical narrative can yield, Klaeber still denies the essential and historical authenticity of the narrative. It is a peculiar position in which many a modernist scholar has found himself.

First, I'd like to apologize for earlier calling Gregory of Tours "Geoffrey." Geoffrey of Monmouth has been sneaking into threads recently, and I guess I typed over-precipitately.

But on to Klaeber. Klaeber is indeed extremely important to Beowulf studies. For a long time, most scholarship on Beowulf was by Germans, Danes and Danicized Icelanders. The English were not that interested. Klaeber was German, but he taught in America and he published in English. His first name is even given as Frederick rather than Friedrich. His edition is of very great importance, so much so that, although he is long dead, the new edition (edited by R. D. Fulk, Robert E. Bjork and John D. Niles) is called Klaeber's Beowulf. He's become part of the title. His first edition was published in 1922. For some reason, the word "modernist" does not spring to my mind when I think of Klaeber.

And, yes, if you want to put together a chronology of the poem, 521 is an important year, because that is the year the ONLY historical character was killed in the ONLY historically-verified event reported in the poem. How one can get from that one comparatively minor event to "extraordinary historical accuracy on almost all points of the narrative" boggles the mind.

All the characters in the epic have their places set very firmly indeed within the pagan pre-Christian framework of the recorded histories of Denmark and Sweden

Yes, yes, I suppose they do, but so does Sigurd/Siegfried the dragon (NOT A DINOSAUR)-slayer (in Germany). Doesn't make it true.

[Lucian]

So...
Beowulf mentions dragons.
Obviously, that means that Beowulf was real and dragons did co-exist with humans.

Beowulf also mentions the god Odin.
Obviously, that means that this part of the story is silly superstition from primitive Pagans.
Actually, none of the pagan gods is mentioned by name. The poet does mention that the Danes appealed to the old gods when Grendel was making regular attacks on Heorot, but the poet seems to think this is a bad idea. Why? Presumably because he was a Christian. Cooper of course ignores this because he wants Beowulf to be much older than it could possibly be.

[Lucian]

I've been skimming Appendix 10: Zoologically applied terms in the Beowulf epic, and I just don't see the point. I'm sure I could quibble with some translations (ythgewinnes--grrrr), but looking through, I'm just not getting a dinosaur vibe: demon, demon, giant, unholy monster, demon. What am I missing? Well there's "weres waestmum" (in the form[s] of a man). Who says that about a dinosaur? Oh, I know, he says elsewhere that the Danes just mean one monster was male and one was female, but doesn't "it was shaped like a big, monstrous man" seem at least as likely?

By the way, did Mommy dinosaurs often avenge their young?

[boloboffin]

By the way, did Mommy dinosaurs often avenge their young?

Jurassic Park 2, Lucian. You can't fight science.

[Lucian]

Jurassic Park 2, Lucian. You can't fight science.
All right, but did Mommy dinosaurs often retrieve their dead babies' arms (sorry, forelimbs) and keep magical swords in their living rooms?

[Pure Argent]

All right, but did Mommy dinosaurs often retrieve their dead babies' arms (sorry, forelimbs) and keep magical swords in their living rooms?

Well, yeah. Duh.

[pakeha]

Actually, none of the pagan gods is mentioned by name. The poet does mention that the Danes appealed to the old gods when Grendel was making regular attacks on Heorot, but the poet seems to think this is a bad idea. Why? Presumably because he was a Christian. Cooper of course ignores this because he wants Beowulf to be much older than it could possibly be.
My bolding.
That was my impression as well- that Cooper was pushing Beowulf back into time.
Thanks for saying it better than I.

[Lucian]

My bolding.
That was my impression as well- that Cooper was pushing Beowulf back into time.
Thanks for saying it better than I.

There is HUGE scholarly debate about the dating of Beowulf. The usual range is between the 8th and very early 11th centuries. But Cooper wants it to be pre-Christian and places it before the Anglo-Saxon migrations to the British Isles. As I mentioned above, this CANNOT be true. There's no English language before the English landed in England. I'm sure there was an ancestor or ancestors, but it wouldn't really be English, would it? (Also, he wants a Scandinavian origin, but there is really no evidence that the poem, as written, is Scandinavian: the language and the names are English).

[Lucian]

Sadly, Cooper's account of Norse dragons, sorry, dinosaurs, isn't as detailed as his reading of Beowulf.

In various Nordic sagas the slaying of dragons is depicted in some detail, and this helps us to reconstruct the physical appearance of some of these creatures. In the Volsungassaga, for example, the slaying of the monster Fafnir was accomplished by Sigurd digging a pit and waiting, inside the pit, for the monster to crawl overhead on its way to the water. This allowed Sigurd to attack the animal's soft under-belly. Clearly, Fafnir walked on all fours with his belly close to the ground.

I see he's generously given the Volsunga saga an extra "s." To be fair, I think he may have gotten that from William Morris, but "Volsunga" is both plural and genitive, so there's no need for that "s." Also, the description doesn't seem that detailed to me, and I'm not entirely sure that Fafnir does walk on all fours. Unfortunately, I can't find my copy of the Volsunga saga (I moved recently and the Great Unpacking is ongoing) and the only online version I can find is the William Morris/Eirikr Magnusson translation. It's in what I call Ye Olde Englishe, which makes my skin crawl.

However, the saga's description of Fafnir is very close to the description in its primary source, Fáfnismál from the Poetic Edda. The actual dragon-slaying is described in the prose introduction:

Sigurd and Regin went up to Gnitaheath and followed the trail along which Fafnir slithered toward the water. Then Sigurd dug a great ditch in the path, and got into it. When Fafnir crawled away from his hoard, venom spurted from his mouth and flowed from above onto Sigurd's head. When Fafnir passed over the pit, Sigurd drove his sword into the serpent's heart. Fafnir thrashed about, striking his head and tail on the ground.
Poems of the Elder Edda, translated by Patricia Terry

Fafnir may not have any legs at all; he may just be a really big snake. In "Wonders of the East," (included in the Beowulf MS), I believe there are "dragons" that are just huge snakes. They're not particularly vicious, but they're so huge, it's difficult to navigate around them.

Also, according to the saga, Fafnir is Regin's brother (a human); he became "the worst of all worms" (according to the Morris translation) because of his greed. So, let's say men and dinosaurs coexisted. Did men ever become dinosaurs? By the way, Regin and Fafnir also had a brother named Otter, who--wait for it--often took the form of an otter. I guess these parts of the saga are fiction, but the bits about the dragon/dino--absolutely true.

[pakeha]

By the way, Regin and Fafnir also had a brother named Otter, who--wait for it--often took the form of an otter. I guess these parts of the saga are fiction, but the bits about the dragon/dino--absolutely true.

You see how easy it is?
dino/dragon=true

Other than that, I'm really enjoying your posts.

[CriticalSock]

Funny, I would have thought they'd have tried to equate Grendel \ Mum of Grendel with the bible Nephelim rather than Dinosaurs. Monstrous huge human types with base, carnal desires. Nephelim are a shoe-in surely?

[Pure Argent]

Funny, I would have thought they'd have tried to equate Grendel \ Mum of Grendel with the bible Nephelim rather than Dinosaurs. Monstrous huge human types with base, carnal desires. Nephelim are a shoe-in surely?

Well, they would be, if it weren't for the cherry-picking that most believer employ. They want there to be a Genesis, but they don't care much about the Nephelim.

[CriticalSock]

Wait a minute!! This is a Larry Niven story right? The retelling of Beowulf, but in space with Grendel played by a Reptilian type alien life form!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legacy_of_Heorot

"The autopsy (of a grendel) leads to terrifying revelations. They are crocodilian in appearance and behaviour, complete with jaws that can crush steel."


Some poor young creationist has just got reality and a science fiction story mixed up a bit.

[Simon39759]

Well, they would be, if it weren't for the cherry-picking that most believer employ. They want there to be a Genesis, but they don't care much about the Nephelim.

Why not?
Nephelim are actually easier to support, after all, they are basically just giant humans. I am sure one could find a giant's skeleton somewher especially with a little hand-waving creationist are so fond of 'Yes, he is only 6 feet tall, that may not seem to gigantic for you but for the people of the time/region, it was'...
As a matter of fact, isn't a 'giant''s skeleton an artefact in one of the silliest creationist 'museum'?

[~enigma~]

The mythological story of Beowolf and Grendel has been proven? Seems to me that some people neither understand what a myth is nor do they understand what proof is.

[Lucian]

Funny, I would have thought they'd have tried to equate Grendel \ Mum of Grendel with the bible Nephelim rather than Dinosaurs. Monstrous huge human types with base, carnal desires. Nephelim are a shoe-in surely?

Considering the poem refers to giants, the flood and descendants of Cain,* you'd think it wouldn't be too difficult to make the argument for Nephelim. I suppose you have to give them credit for taking the difficult (i.e. ludicrous) route.

*Actually, the MS says "Cham;" some have suggested it's a variant of Ham, the son who saw Noah's nakedness, but context suggests that it refers to Cain.

[Lucian]

Considering the poem refers to giants, the flood and descendants of Cain,* you'd think it wouldn't be too difficult to make the argument for Nephelim. I suppose you have to give them credit for taking the difficult (i.e. ludicrous) route.

*Actually, the MS says "Cham;" some have suggested it's a variant of Ham, the son who saw Noah's nakedness, but context suggests that it refers to Cain.

Whoops, I'm a moron. The MS says "cames cynne" (107a, kin of ???) and "camp" (1261b); these spellings have fueled the Cain vs. Cham (Ham) controversy. The argument is complicated because it involves meter (long vowel vs. short vowel; disyllabic pronunciation vs. monosyllabic). The meter seems to demand "cam" in the first instance, "cain" in the second.

There is indeed abundant evidence of confusion of Cain and Cham . . . in early medieval texts. . . . Yet in 1261 it is understood (though garbled in the course of scribal transmission) that the killer of Abel was Cain, not Cham. . . . Probably we have here simply vacillating metrical treatment of a biblical name. . . . Still, the possibility cannot be positively ruled out that the poet . . . was following a particular exegetical tradition involving Cham: according to Irish belief . . . Cham inherited the curse of Cain and became the progenitor of monsters.
Klaeber's Beowulf, 4th ed., commentary on ll. 106-8)

[eccles]

May I go to chapter 4 of this book.

I have been reading about Brennius (Brutus) and I did not know if I should believe any of it until I did a Google for Brutus. Of course I found "Et Te Brute' who did Caesar in. Then Popeye's ole enemy. Then I tried Brennius and found this:
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/King_of_the_Britons_-_Kings_of_the_Britons/id/5124485

It gives the usual list of the Legendary British Kings.

Then I tried Wikpedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brennius

"Brennius was a legendary king of Northumberland and Allobroges, as recounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth. He was the son of Dunvallo Molmutius and brother of Belinus, probably based upon one or both of the historical Brenni."

Then it says:

Comments on historicity

One should note that Rome was indeed captured by Brennus following the Battle of the Allia on July 18, 390 BC. Gabias and Porsenna are not mentioned in any Roman sources. The later is a namesake of Lars Porsena, a King of the Etruscan civilization who is believed to have fought against the recently founded Roman Republic in the decade of the 500s BC.

The consuls of the year were Marcus Manlius and a younger Lucius Valerius Potitus. They were replaced by six Consular Tribunes after the Gauls departed:

Gaius Aemilius.
Marcus Aemilius.
Agrippa Furius.
Lucius Lucretius.
Lucius Furius Medulinus.
Servius Sulpicius.
-----------------------------------------

So it seems that Brutus was real, but Monmounth spun a great yarn.

What I find stupid is that anyone can find books like "After the Flood" not knowing anything about them and take them as true -- LIKE THE HOLY BABBLE.
Popular bookshops make a fortune out of rubbish like that. Remember Eric von Danekin and his "Chariots of the Gods" and follow up books; sold like hot cakes.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[eccles]

I found a PDF file of the Aaron Thompson translation of "Histories of the Kings of Britain" I have printed and bound it. I have a comb binder which I use a lot.

I must admit to having a liking for the Authurian Legends, as Legends only. But was there an Arthur? Possibly just the leader of a small tribe in Wales. Queen Boudica was thought of as a legend until evidence of her leadership of the Icena tribe in what is now East Anglia was proved as were her attacks on the Romans. The history was well recorded by the Romans.

I did go to Glastonbury and toured the Abbey. One can see references to the Legends of King Arthur there.

I also have two movies: "First Knight and "King Arthur" which protrays Arthur as a boy learning his "trade". It stars the delectable Kiera Knightly.

"The legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table is placed in a more believable context within the historical timeline. Arthur (Clive Owen) is portrayed as the son of a local British woman and a Roman military officer stationed in Britain south of Hadrian’s Wall. His Sarmatian Knights are conscripted from northern Europe and must serve Rome for a period of fifteen years. The Knights’ devotion to Arthur is severely tested just as they are about to receive their freedom. They are sent on a suicide mission against the Saxon invaders north of the wall where they will have to cross hostile territory controlled by Merlin’s Brits. Arthur is torn between leaving Britain with his best and loyal friend Lancelot (Ioan Grufford), and staying with Guinnevere (Kiera Knightley)."

I loved my tours of the UK. I visited many Cathedrals to see and hopefully play the organs. I was lucky at Beverely Minister. I was given about an hour on that historic organ.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[pakeha]

hi, eccles.
That was an interesting post about the 'Brutus' reference.
Arthurian legends do capture the imagination, don't they.
My favourite modern take is T. H. White's The Once and Future King
Not the movie, the novel.

Hail, Lucian
Whoops, I'm a moron. The MS says "cames cynne" (107a, kin of ???) and "camp" (1261b); these spellings have fueled the Cain vs. Cham (Ham) controversy. The argument is complicated because it involves meter (long vowel vs. short vowel; disyllabic pronunciation vs. monosyllabic). The meter seems to demand "cam" in the first instance, "cain" in the second.

Fascinating. 'Historical documents' as shaped by metrical demands.
Great stuff.

[pakeha]

Wait a minute!! This is a Larry Niven story right? The retelling of Beowulf, but in space with Grendel played by a Reptilian type alien life form!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legacy_of_Heorot

"The autopsy (of a grendel) leads to terrifying revelations. They are crocodilian in appearance and behaviour, complete with jaws that can crush steel."


Some poor young creationist has just got reality and a science fiction story mixed up a bit.

That sounds just about right. Well spotted, CriticalSock!

[Lucian]

hi, eccles.
That was an interesting post about the 'Brutus' reference.
Arthurian legends do capture the imagination, don't they.
My favourite modern take is T. H. White's The Once and Future King
Not the movie, the novel.

Hail, Lucian


Fascinating. 'Historical documents' as shaped by metrical demands.
Great stuff.
Yes, I have to say that, although I was aware of the Cain/Cham controversy, I've kind of ignored it. I've always just sort of thought, "Meh, he means Cain." I would think that "camp" would have to be a scribal error, unless he was talking about Noah's little known fourth son, Shemp.

I'm actually a little surprised that Cooper and his ilk haven't used the Cain/Cham confusion to "prove" that Beowulf was written before the conversion: "see, the poet couldn't have been a Christian--he didn't even know the difference between Cain and Ham!" However, putting spelling variation and scribal error aside for a moment, it seems Christians did sometimes conflate the two characters.

[pakeha]

Too true, Lucian.
Still, I shouldn't be surprised if you hadn't the bones of a decent article here.
Or 'book' if you will ;)

[pakeha]

Lucian
Noah's little known fourth son, Shemp
Any relation to PDQ Bach, JS's least talented son?

[Lucian]

Lucian

Any relation to PDQ Bach, JS's least talented son?

Quite possibly. I don't know, though, The Abduction of Figaro's pretty good.

[pakeha]

I go for the chamber music myself-
the Schleptet in E flat major is in a class by itself.

[eccles]

Noah's little known fourth son, Shemp

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_338944a9f14532fa46.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17445)

I hope you guys know who he is.




http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Roberthttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a9f156dab31e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17446)

[Elizabeth I]

Noah's little known fourth son, Shemp

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_338944a9f14532fa46.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17445)

I hope you guys know who he is.




http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Roberthttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a9f156dab31e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17446)

An impostor? The only real Three Stooges are Curly, Moe and Larry.

[Lucian]

Noah's little known fourth son, Shemp

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_338944a9f14532fa46.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17445)

I hope you guys know who he is.




http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Roberthttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a9f156dab31e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17446)

Yup, that's him. Not only did he see his father's nakedness, he said "nyuk, nyuk, nyuk."

[Elizabeth I]

Yup, that's him. Not only did he see his father's nakedness, he said "nyuk, nyuk, nyuk."

NO, blasphemer! Only Father Curly said those holy words.

[Lucian]

NO, blasphemer! Only Father Curly said those holy words.

All right, I beg forgiveness, but I couldn't think of a Shemp joke.

[Elizabeth I]

All right, I beg forgiveness, but I couldn't think of a Shemp joke.

Shemp was a joke. Just not a funny one.

Absolution granted.

[Lucian]

From Answers in Genesis comes The Jonathan Park Audio Series, vol. 4: The Hunt for Beowulf. (link (http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Jonathan-Park-Audio-Series-Vol-IV-The-Hunt-for-Beowulf,5441,188.aspx))

In the fourth volume of the Jonathan Park audio adventure series, join the Creation Response team on a remarkable world-wide adventure to recover the Beowulf manuscript, the oldest English writing ever discovered.

No it isn't.

Its ancient pages tell the exciting stories of man’s battles against fierce dragons (also know as dinosaurs!).

No they don't.

Since 1845 it has been safely protected in a British museum … until now! It has recently vanished—the clever work of the Jaguar, a professional artifacts thief.

Okay, now they're just making stuff up about the manuscript. It's not in a British museum; it's in the British Library. Before the BL had its own building, it was in THE British Museum (not a British museum). I understand that this is an adventure story for children. In fiction, you can make up what you want--as long as you're clear it's fiction and you're making stuff up. You know, as long as you're not pretending this is educational in any way.

I wonder what the Amazon reviews say (link (http://www.amazon.com/Hunt-Beowulf-Jonathan-Radio-Drama/product-reviews/097875591X/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1)). Well Homeschool Mom of 5 gives it 5 stars and the heading "Great audio entertainment & education." Oh dear. And mdk84 "Forever His" declares it "Real Family Education Packed with Entertainment!"

This is a wonderful part of a series that is exciting Fun ,thrilling and wholesome, packed with educational truth of history & Science. Our whole family has enjoyed these from ages 5- 40+ parents. they are hard to stop once started.

What, you don't know how to work the "stop" button on your CD player? 6 out of 7 reviewers gave it 5 stars.

By the way, why is there a plot to steal the Beowulf MS (and other works involving dragons/dinos, apparently)? I mean, it's unique, it's very old and it's very valuable, but I'm assuming that's not the point here. Is someone trying to cover up the truth of creationism by stealing it? Good plan, because no one would have access to the poem if the MS were to disappear. It's not as if there are 18th century transcriptions that, though widely inaccurate, preserve readings that have since been lost. I mean, it's not as if we have access to facsimiles, multiple editions and translations and the Electronic Beowulf. It isn't as if it's been photographed in infrared and ultraviolet light. No, once the MS is gone, the proof is gone.

[eccles]

"From Answers in Genesis" :mad:

Are you wasting your money with that mob of liars, Lucien? Are you supporting them. Well it is your right I suppose, but we don't want to know about it.

Unfortunately I am ashamed to admit that Ken Ham is Australian, a failed science teacher from the Bible Belt of Australia - Queensland.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[Simon39759]

Did you read hear post?
She is quite a bit critical of the whole stuff. And quite knowledgeable too!

[Lucian]

Did you read hear post?
She is quite a bit critical of the whole stuff. And quite knowledgeable too!

Thanks, Simon.

Eccles: I promise you, I am NOT supporting Answers in Genesis.

[eccles]

Thanks, Simon.

Eccles: I promise you, I am NOT supporting Answers in Genesis.

Lucian, that's good news. Sorry about my misunderstanding, but every time I see Answers in Genesis my BS detector screams it's head off. I just read the history of that Ken Ham. It is bad enough for American preachers to BS Americans, but for an Australian to go over there and do the same makes me livid, want to Puke.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[Lucian]

Lucian, that's good news. Sorry about my misunderstanding, but every time I see Answers in Genesis my BS detector screams it's head off. I just read the history of that Ken Ham. It is bad enough for American preachers to BS Americans, but for an Australian to go over there and do the same makes me livid, want to Puke.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

Ever notice that Ken Ham looks like he could have been an extra in Planet of the Apes? I find that oddly ironic.

[Simon39759]

I know right.
I keep on censoring myself about calling him the 'missing link'.

[eccles]

I am a fully paid up member of the Atheist Foundation of Australia.

THere has been much discussion about the Creation Museum abd the best is on this post:

Science fiction author, John Scalzi, wrote an excellent excursion report on his visit to the Creation Museum for his fans. I've never read his books but based on this article I'm keen to give them a go.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2007/11/1...museum-report/
I know a guy who grew up with Ken Ham and it sounds as though he's at the zero point on Dawkin's belief scale and won't budge anytime soon and this seems to be reflected in the material in the museum. He studied geology as a means to bring the current understanding of world history down from the inside and this museum is the end result of that effort.
If I get the chance I'd like to visit the facility but at US$20 a go I might try to talk my way in free on the basis that as christians they have a responsibility to do their utmost to save my alleged soul.
The ride on dinosaurs look like fun.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/...7603091357751/

If you do nothing else in you life you MUST go to the "Whatever.scalzi link". I warn you that you will not be able to talk for a day through laughing till you get a lltle "horse" (you will see why "horse" when you read it).

Also here is the link to that post on the Atheist Foundation of Australia:
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=1675

Here also is a link to "Creation Ministeries International"
http://creation.com/

They have a branch in Australia and are touring a Creation Museum circus tent display around Australia. Our AFA members will give them a hot reception.

[arthwollipot]

Lucian, that's good news. Sorry about my misunderstanding, but every time I see Answers in Genesis my BS detector screams it's head off. I just read the history of that Ken Ham. It is bad enough for American preachers to BS Americans, but for an Australian to go over there and do the same makes me livid, want to Puke.You'll notice that he had to go to the US to be taken seriously...

[eccles]

You'll notice that he had to go to the US to be taken seriously...

What does that say for the American mentality compared with the Australian mentality. You can't BS an Australian.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[arthwollipot]

What does that say for the American mentality compared with the Australian mentality. You can't BS an Australian.Oh yes you can (http://www.avn.org.au/library/).

[eccles]

Oh yes you can (http://www.avn.org.au/library/).

Sir,
I strongly object to your reference to this subject. I am at a disadvantage because I do not know who you are or where you come from, but this Forum is not the place to bring up anything to do with the health policy of my country.

As well, the matter you refer to has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I demand your post be deleted and you apologize to me and my country.

[CriticalSock]

Sir,
I strongly object to your reference to this subject. I am at a disadvantage because I do not know who you are or where you come from, but this Forum is not the place to bring up anything to do with the health policy of my country.

As well, the matter you refer to has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I demand your post be deleted and you apologize to me and my country.

Ha ha ha ha!!

Oh wait, you're serious?


If so, you made a statement, which he is refuting.

I must admit I've read the link and I don't understand why it's a rebuttal of the "You can't BS an Australian" statement, but that's irrelevant, just who arthwollipot is and where he's from is irrelevant on making a claim about Australian health policy. Answer the claim, in an IM maybe as your original comment did stray off topic, but don't demand apologies or post deletions on a perfectly legitimate response to your statement.

Or I will laugh at you again....

[Paul]

I must admit I've read the link and I don't understand why it's a rebuttal of the "You can't BS an Australian" Because they're Australian anti-vaxers?

[fuelair]

Shemp was a joke. Just not a funny one.

Absolution granted.
Lots of jokes about shemp-herders and loose boots though!!.

[arthwollipot]

Because they're Australian anti-vaxers?That's it. The AVN are our anti-vaccination crowd, and they've BSed a large number of people into thinking that vaccines are harmful.

Although, I'm pretty sure that eccles' response to me was tongue in cheek... :rolleyes: After all, the AVN are nothing to do with our health policy.

[eccles]

That's it. The AVN are our anti-vaccination crowd, and they've BSed a large number of people into thinking that vaccines are harmful.

Although, I'm pretty sure that eccles' response to me was tongue in cheek... :rolleyes: After all, the AVN are nothing to do with our health policy.

arthwollipot,
Yes it was a bit tongue in cheek, and I was a little annoyed at first. Sorry about that.

Are you Australian? If so I understand your post. I have heard of the AVN and I am disgusted with any organization that objects to the advancements in Medical research, especially the anti stem cell idiots and of course the "Holy" Roaming Cattletick Church.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[Lucian]

So, I've been at DragonCon the last few days, and naturally dragons made me think of Beowulf and dinosaurs. I've been re-reading Bill Cooper's After the Flood, and I continue to be enraged (and hysterically amused). Mostly, of course, I'm irked about what he says about Beowulf, but I suspect his science may also be faulty.*

I will begin with his slightly less ridiculous dinosaur claim: that the dragon is a flying dinosaur-like creator.

The last monster to be destroyed by Beowulf (and from which encounter Beowulf also died in the year AD 583) was a flying reptile which lived on a promontory overlooking the sea at Hronesness on the southern coast of Sweden. Now, the Saxons (and presumably the Danes) knew flying reptiles in general as lyftfloga (air-fliers), but this particular species of flying reptile, the specimen from Hronesness, was known to them as a widfloga, lit, a wide (or far-ranging) flyer, and the description that they have left us fits that of a giant Pteranodon.

Erm, okay. Air-flyer, far-flyer=pteranodon. Gotcha. Obviously such clear and specific descriptions could refer to no other animal (like, say, a bird) or to some mythical beast (like, for instance, a dragon). No problem.

Interestingly, the Saxons also described this creature as a ligdraca, or fire-dragon, and he is described as fifty feet in length (or perhaps wing-span?) and about 300 years of age. (Great age is a common feature even among today's non-giant reptiles.)

Huh, so it was big, like a pteranodon, and long-lived. That is interesti....wait, did he say "fire-dragon"? Could we go back to that? Hmmm. Well, as I've said before, I am not sciencey, so if you'll pardon me for a moment, I'm going to have a quick look around for info on the fire-dragony elements of the pteranodon.

I'm back from Google, and shockingly I didn't find much useful information. I did wonder what kind of flying dino spat venom and breathed fire. I am still wondering. The Wikipedia article on pteranodons is singularly silent about these characteristics. Curious.

Moreover, and of particular interest to us, the name widfloga would have distinguished this particular species of flying reptile from another similar species which was capable of making only short flights. Such a creature is portrayed in Figure 11.1, a shield-boss from the Sutton Hoo burial which shows a flying dragon with its wings folded along its sides. Its long tooth-filled jaws are readily seen, and the shield-boss can be seen to this day in its showcase at the British Museum. Modern paleontologists, working from fossilized remains, have named such a creature Pterodactyl.


Figure 11.1 appears to be copied from a book and bears the caption,

The portrayal of a Saxon shield of a flying reptile at rest. Note the wings folded along its sides, as well as the long tooth-filled jaws. Comparison of this with a modern reconstruction of a Pterodactyl or similar creature is most instructive.

I don't see a reference for this illustration and caption, but it is true that a comparison between the Sutton Hoo dragon and a pterodactyl would be most instructive--they are in no way similar. As with most Anglo-Saxon representations of animals, it doesn't really look very much like any real animal that has ever lived. Oh, and it has 6 wings. How many wings did pterodactyls have?

The mention of Sutton Hoo does remind me of another question I have about pterosaurs. Were they known for their love of treasure? Because Germanic dragons certainly were. As I mentioned, Fafnir in the Volsung cycle becomes a dragon to protect a treasure hoard. Beowulf's dragon is guarding a treasure hoard and gets really REALLY angry when one single cup is stolen. The dragon is referred to a "hordweard" (guardian of a hoard) four times in the poem.

Furthermore, the Old English Maxims II (or Cotton Gnomes) describes dragons thus:

Draca sceal on hlaewe, / frod, fraetwum wlanc. (26b-27a. The dragon shall [sit] on the mound, old [or wise], exulting in treasures)

In Old English, sculan often indicates necessity--"ought to", or "must", and in this sort of wisdom poetry it suggests that it is in the nature of dragons to sit on treasure. (The first line of the poem is Cyning sceal rice healdan, the king shall hold the kingdom--duh).

So, if pterosaurs were treasure hoarders, why are so few pterosaur bones found near or on treasures? Where are the pterosaur bones at the Sutton Hoo royal ship burial? More importantly, what kind of useless wussy-assed pterosaurs were guarding the Gokstad and Oseberg ship burials, which were looted?

I eagerly await answers from those of you (probably all of you) who know more about dinosaurs than I.

*If there were a smiley indicating litotes, I would place it here.

[arthwollipot]

arthwollipot,
Yes it was a bit tongue in cheek, and I was a little annoyed at first. Sorry about that.

Are you Australian? If so I understand your post. I have heard of the AVN and I am disgusted with any organization that objects to the advancements in Medical research, especially the anti stem cell idiots and of course the "Holy" Roaming Cattletick Church.Yeah, that's me. Canberra boy, born and bred. I didn't take it personally.

[pakeha]

So, I've been at DragonCon the last few days, and naturally dragons made me think of Beowulf and dinosaurs. I've been re-reading Bill Cooper's After the Flood, and I continue to be enraged (and hysterically amused). Mostly, of course, I'm irked about what he says about Beowulf, but I suspect his science may also be faulty.*...

I see mr Cooper's leaflet/blog made quite an impression on you, Lucian.
In fact, the only positive thing I could possibly say on the subject is that it inspired Lucian to write what, in my opinion, could be the bones of a most interesting article.
kurious_kathy would be really pleased with that; after all, mr Cooper WAS her contribution to a discussion of bibical accuracy.:)

[eccles]

arthwollipot
About the AVN, This is on the Atheist Nexus Grtoup:

Stop the Anti-Vaccine Lobby

Aussie AN member, Sean the Blogonaut is calling for rational Australians to unite to stop the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN).

Despite its innocuous name, the AVN is a rabid anti-vaccination movement which is spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories in order to discourage parents from vaccinating their children.

Please read Sean's blog on the AVN and sign the online petition.

Human Rights Submissions

The Australian Human Rights Commission has commissioned a report on Freedom of Religion and Belief. Earlier this year, a group of Australian AN members, concerned about the possible outcome of this inquiry, made a lengthy submission which outlines many of the issues which concern Australian atheists: Atheist Nexus Australia: Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century.

A shorter submission was made later in the year to the National Human Rights Inquiry. This is attached as a word document to this discussion. Australian members of Atheist Nexus, including Kristy, David Nicholls, Luke and Rosemary Lyndall Wemm, were also vocal in opposing the appointment of Father Frank Brennan to chair the inquiry. Those comments can be seen here.
http://seantheblogonaut.com/2009/05/stop-the-australian-vaccination-network/

Unfortunately the Petition is closed so it can't be signed.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[eccles]

So, I've been at DragonCon the last few days, and naturally dragons made me think of Beowulf and dinosaurs. I've been re-reading Bill Cooper's After the Flood, and I continue to be enraged (and hysterically amused). Mostly, of course, I'm irked about what he says about Beowulf, but I suspect his science may also be faulty.*

I will begin with his slightly less ridiculous dinosaur claim: that the dragon is a flying dinosaur-like creator.



Erm, okay. Air-flyer, far-flyer=pteranodon. Gotcha. Obviously such clear and specific descriptions could refer to no other animal (like, say, a bird) or to some mythical beast (like, for instance, a dragon). No problem.



Huh, so it was big, like a pteranodon, and long-lived. That is interesti....wait, did he say "fire-dragon"? Could we go back to that? Hmmm. Well, as I've said before, I am not sciencey, so if you'll pardon me for a moment, I'm going to have a quick look around for info on the fire-dragony elements of the pteranodon.

I'm back from Google, and shockingly I didn't find much useful information. I did wonder what kind of flying dino spat venom and breathed fire. I am still wondering. The Wikipedia article on pteranodons is singularly silent about these characteristics. Curious.



Figure 11.1 appears to be copied from a book and bears the caption,



I don't see a reference for this illustration and caption, but it is true that a comparison between the Sutton Hoo dragon and a pterodactyl would be most instructive--they are in no way similar. As with most Anglo-Saxon representations of animals, it doesn't really look very much like any real animal that has ever lived. Oh, and it has 6 wings. How many wings did pterodactyls have?

The mention of Sutton Hoo does remind me of another question I have about pterosaurs. Were they known for their love of treasure? Because Germanic dragons certainly were. As I mentioned, Fafnir in the Volsung cycle becomes a dragon to protect a treasure hoard. Beowulf's dragon is guarding a treasure hoard and gets really REALLY angry when one single cup is stolen. The dragon is referred to a "hordweard" (guardian of a hoard) four times in the poem.

Furthermore, the Old English Maxims II (or Cotton Gnomes) describes dragons thus:



In Old English, sculan often indicates necessity--"ought to", or "must", and in this sort of wisdom poetry it suggests that it is in the nature of dragons to sit on treasure. (The first line of the poem is Cyning sceal rice healdan, the king shall hold the kingdom--duh).

So, if pterosaurs were treasure hoarders, why are so few pterosaur bones found near or on treasures? Where are the pterosaur bones at the Sutton Hoo royal ship burial? More importantly, what kind of useless wussy-assed pterosaurs were guarding the Gokstad and Oseberg ship burials, which were looted?

I eagerly await answers from those of you (probably all of you) who know more about dinosaurs than I.

*If there were a smiley indicating litotes, I would place it here.

I have not reached that chapter yet in the book, but just one mention here of Sutton Hoo set my BS detector screaming. Sutton Hoo is 6th Century. Actually I was not far from there in my British travels, but did not have time to visit it. That was in 1968. I went to Stonehenge of course and Avebury.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[Cainkane1]

The Beowulf saga started out as a oral history. The tale grew with the telling. In all probability there was a fight between two champions from different tribes. One tough guy fighting and killing another. The supernatural embellishments are merely added to make the tale more interesting. Grendel was no dinosaur.

[Lucian]

The Beowulf saga started out as a oral history. The tale grew with the telling. In all probability there was a fight between two champions from different tribes. One tough guy fighting and killing another. The supernatural embellishments are merely added to make the tale more interesting. Grendel was no dinosaur.

Well, it's difficult, if not impossible, to say how Beowulf "started out." I don't doubt that there were oral tales about the semi-historic/legendary characters and their battles. I'm sure there were also oral tales about monsters and monster slayers. Whether the poem was composed or transmitted orally in anything like its present form is a more difficult question.

And I'm not sure that the story started out as a tale of a battle between warring tribes, with the monsters added later. For a long time that was the prevailing opinion. Many critics were a little embarrassed by Beowulf. They wanted an epic to be an EPIC: wars, battles, history--not fairytale monsters. The problem is that the monsters are foregrounded in the poem. They are the primary focus. The battles with the monsters are described in a relatively straightforward, more or less chronological way. The semi-historic`material is told bit by bit in flashbacks, flashforwards and tangents. It is only with difficulty that you can piece together the complicated relations between the various tribes (Danes, Franks, Frisians, Geats, Swedes). Moreover, the character of Beowulf really has no existence outside the monster story. Yes, he becomes king of the Geats and rules well for a long time, but he is first and foremost a monster-slayer.

Tolkien's "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" was a watershed in Beowulf criticism. He looked at the poem as a poem (about monsters) not as a (semi-)historical document. Tolkien notes

As it set out upon its adventures among the modern scholars, Beowulf was christened by [Humfrey] Wanley [who first described the poem] Poesis.... But the fairy godmother later invited to superintend its fortunes was Historia. And she brought with her Philologia, Mythologia, Archaelogia, and Laographia. Excellent ladies, but where was the child's namesake? Poesis was usually forgotten.... 'The Beowulf', they said 'is hardly an affair of yours.... It is an historical document. Only as such does it interest the superior culture of to-day.' And it is an historical document that is has mainly been examined and dissected.*

As an example of the way the poem had been treated, Tolkien quotes and respectfully disputes W.P Ker:

The fault of Beowulf is that there is nothing much in the story. The hero is occupied in killing monsters, like Hercules or Theseus. But there are other things in the lives [of those heroes] besides the killing of the Hydra or of Procrustes. Beowulf has nothing else to do, when he has killed Grendel and Grendel's mother in Denmark: he goes home...until at last the rolling years bring the Fire-drake and his last adventure.... [T]he construction is curiously weak, in a sense preposterous; for while the main story is simplicity itself...all about it, in the historic allusions, there are revelations of a whole world of tragedy, plots different in import from that of Beowulf, more like the tragic themes of Iceland. Yet with this radical defect, a disproportion that puts the irrelevancies in the centre and the serious things on the outer edges, the poem...is undeniably weighty. The thing itself is cheap; the moral and the spirit of it can only be matched among the noblest authors.
Ker, Dark Ages, 252-3

Ker's comment was very influential. For a long time, critics seemed to assume that the poet had put the wrong thing in the foreground, as if he had pulled a bait-and-switch. Tolkien pointed out that the poet "cannot be held responsible for the fact that we now have only his poem and not others dealing primarily with Ingeld [a hero mentioned in passing in Beowulf]. He was not selling one thing for another, but giving something new." Tolkien takes these critics to task and discusses the poem the poet actually wrote rather than the one some people wish he had written.

(But I agree, Grendel was definitely no dinosaur).

*I am not giving page numbers for "The Monsters and the Critics." It was originally a lecture, and has been printed and reprinted many times. I am using an anthology of criticism rather than the original publication.

[arthwollipot]

arthwollipot
About the AVN, This is on the Atheist Nexus Grtoup:Off-topic for this thread, eccles.