>>18039057
An eoten

>>18039057
A descendant of Cain, according to the author of Beowulf.

>>18039369
Beowulf is a pagan narrative bowlderized by the monk who transcribed it

>>18039379
proof?

>>18039057
Nigger.

File: Amud 1 neanderthal.jpg (34 KB, 720x573)

34 KB JPG

>>18039057
Schizophrenic relict Neanderthal with gigantism

>>18039057
>cannibalistic humanoid that gets angry when white men are happy

J

>>18039369
>author

>>18039369
but that doesn't explain much, as Cain's descendants aren't really elaborated on in the Bible and the tidbits we do get (Kenites) don't line up

>>18040153
?

File: 1693109883810784.jpg (586 KB, 2048x1536)

586 KB JPG

>>18040213
I think Genesis A has some possible insight to offer. It is an early Anglo-Saxon paraphrase of the first half of the book of Genesis, and it includes some interpretations that aren't strictly Biblical. One assertion found in Genesis A is that the "sons of God" (in the biblical Genesis 6) refers to the godly line of Seth, while the "daughters of men" refers to the offspring of Cain.

If you take this assertion as a hypothesis, it would explain why Grendel (and his mother) would be represented as some kind of twisted abomination by the storyteller of Beowulf, possibly related to the biblical giants but not necessarily the same thing.

Based on Genesis A, I think some of the early Anglo-Saxons had the interpretation that the offspring of Cain were not fully human. This is likely based on the idea that Cain's wife may have been a beast. I can see how someone might adopt this view – ask yourself, who exactly was Cain afraid of in Genesis chapter 4 if only his parents were left? recall that Seth and their later siblings weren't even born yet when Cain killed Abel.

I really see no reason why Genesis 1-4 would exclude the possible existence of some kind of humanoid soulless beasts somewhere out there, who Cain was afraid of. This might be what the Anglo-Saxons thought it said. It could be that Cain took a wife from these humanoids after he was exiled from Adam's family. It's an interesting theory that could also explain the talking serpent as well (i.e. it was actually a humanoid that only became a snake after God cursed it). This explanation would also neatly explain why there were giants after the biblical flood. It may also explain why Noah cursed Canaan specifically instead of Ham. Perhaps Canaan was actually one of Ham's miscegenated offspring, the product of a union that God never intended – in imitation of what Cain did, and starting the whole process of corruption over again. That might explain why Noah cursed Canaan specifically. Anyway, just a theory.

>>18041874
Youl have to work nephilim clowns into that somehow

>>18039449
That guy looks like people iv met irl

>>18039057
So if I recall the poem doesn’t offer much description of him beyond what is said in the pic and that he has claws and that his skin is rough. He was probably a generally nondescript monster from pagan mythology given a name and made into the descendent of Cain in the written version.

>>18039057
A man who did not have the luxury of police to report noise complaints to.

>>18039057
Never existed. Just a boogeyman.

me

>>18039057
In truth, no one fucking knows. The Caine thing may very well be Christian interpolation. Not that uncommon in germanic mythic poetry iirc. There's a similar mysterious thing in the Grettis saga for example.
>>18041069
Beowulf may have been a work of Oral Poetry before it was a written text (like most other contemporary germanic epics). The transcriber is not really the author. Hell, there is a fair chance Homer did not write his poems, if he even existed.

>>18039379
Only thing that is sure is that it has pagan roots.
It may have christianized before it was written and there was no need to christianize it.

>>18042244
>>18042091
It’s not definite that it was originally 100% pagan, conversely it is a little odd that for a Christianized text it doesn’t actually mention Christ at all. Also it shares many similarities with the Irish folk tale “The Hand and Child”.

>>18042244
>>18043716
the saxon world was in a pretty odd position for a recently christianized land. They were too far away from any roman christian authority from the mainland and both the irish church and the latin church were having separated missions for the cristianization of Britannia, in a way the saxon monks were in a unique position were they could reconcile the old pagan world with the new christian world, in a way they were developing their own culture with two influences, their ancient roots with the new christian authority being given to them.

>>18043971
How come Beowulf doesnt mention Jesus?

File: Crichton_Eaters of the Dead.jpg (89 KB, 736x1057)

89 KB JPG

>>18039057
>so what exactly was Grendel?

Neanderthal.

>>18044610
It does though. You're just not subtle enough to pick up on the subtext.
For example, Beowulf sacrifices himself to defeat the dragon. This characterization falls into the period Germanic literary trope of portraying Jesus as a warrior-king, who defeats death.
Beowulf himself is written as a Christ figure.

Another example, the hilt of the giant's sword (Goliath) used to kill Grendel's mother after Hrunting fails represents the cross which Beowulf presents to Hroðgar.
Hroðgar, a heathen, then makes a long moralizing speech touching on Christian themes.

You should examine Tolkien's commentary on Beowulf, since it's more or less definitive for modern scholarship on the matter. You know, because he was a renowned expert in the language.

"Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" 1936, Tolkien
>most of the praise and censure of the poem was due to beliefs that it was "something that it was not – for example, primitive, pagan, Teutonic, an allegory (political or mythical), or most often, an epic;" or because the scholar would have liked it to be something else, such as "a heathen heroic lay, a history of Sweden, a manual of Germanic antiquities, or a Nordic Summa Theologica."

^this is you in a nutshell, btfo on the classics nearly 90 years ago by the dude who wrote LOTR with this very poem in mind in no small part

>>18045115
holy cope

Jesus is never mentioned in the text, anywhere, and you just made up a bunch of English Lit 101 tier interpretations to shove him in

’Neath the cloudy cliffs came from the moor then
Grendel going, God’s anger bare he.

...

The gray-haired chieftain, the gold-fashioned sword-hilt,
Old-work of giants, was thereupon given;
Since the fall of the fiends, it fell to the keeping
Of the wielder of Danemen, the wonder-smith’s labor,
And the bad-mooded being abandoned this world then,
Opponent of God, victim of murder,
And also his mother; it went to the keeping
Of the best of the world-kings, where waters encircle,
Who the scot divided in Scylding dominion.

Hrothgar discoursed, the hilt he regarded,
The ancient heirloom where an old-time contention’s
Beginning was graven: the gurgling currents,
The flood slew thereafter the race of the giants,
They had proved themselves daring: that people was loth to
The Lord everlasting, through lash of the billows
The Father gave them final requital.
So in letters of rune on the clasp of the handle
Gleaming and golden, ’twas graven exactly,
Set forth and said, whom that sword had been made for,
Finest of irons, who first it was wrought for,
Wreathed at its handle and gleaming with serpents.

...

Longsome folk-sorrow. Learn then from this,
Lay hold of virtue! Though laden with winters,
I have sung thee these measures. ’Tis a marvel to tell it,
How all-ruling God from greatness of spirit
Giveth wisdom to children of men,
Manor and earlship: all things He ruleth.

He often permitteth the mood-thought of man of
The illustrious lineage to lean to possessions,
Allows him earthly delights at his manor,
A high-burg of heroes to hold in his keeping,
Maketh portions of earth-folk hear him,
And a wide-reaching kingdom so that, wisdom failing him,
He himself is unable to reckon its boundaries;

He liveth in luxury, little debars him,
Nor sickness nor age, no treachery-sorrow
Becloudeth his spirit, conflict nowhere,
No sword-hate, appeareth, but all of the world doth
Wend as he wisheth; the worse he knoweth not,

Till arrant arrogance inward pervading,
Waxeth and springeth, when the warder is sleeping,
The guard of the soul: with sorrows encompassed,
Too sound is his slumber, the slayer is near him,
Who with bow and arrow aimeth in malice.

...

“Then bruised in his bosom he with bitter-toothed missile
Is hurt ’neath his helmet: from harmful pollution
He is powerless to shield him by the wonderful mandates
Of the loath-cursèd spirit; what too long he hath holden

Him seemeth too small, savage he hoardeth,
Nor boastfully giveth gold-plated rings,
The fate of the future flouts and forgetteth
Since God had erst given him greatness no little,
Wielder of Glory. His end-day anear,

It afterward happens that the bodily-dwelling
Fleetingly fadeth, falls into ruins;
Another lays hold who doleth the ornaments,
The nobleman’s jewels, nothing lamenting,
Heedeth no terror. Oh, Beowulf dear,

Best of the heroes, from bale-strife defend thee,
And choose thee the better, counsels eternal;
Beware of arrogance, world-famous champion!
But a little-while lasts thy life-vigor’s fulness;
’Twill after hap early, that illness or sword-edge

Shall part thee from strength, or the grasp of the fire,
Or the wave of the current, or clutch of the edges,
Or flight of the war-spear, or age with its horrors,
Or thine eyes’ bright flashing shall fade into darkness:
’Twill happen full early, excellent hero,

That death shall subdue thee. So the Danes a half-century
I held under heaven, helped them in struggles
’Gainst many a race in middle-earth’s regions,
With ash-wood and edges, that enemies none
On earth molested me. Lo! offsetting change, now,

Came to my manor, grief after joyance,
When Grendel became my constant visitor,
Inveterate hater: I from that malice
Continually travailed with trouble no little.
Thanks be to God that I gained in my lifetime,

To the Lord everlasting, to look on the gory
Head with mine eyes, after long-lasting sorrow!
Go to the bench now, battle-adornèd
Joy in the feasting: of jewels in common
We’ll meet with many when morning appeareth.”

>>18045155
Beowulf is an original composition written by a Christian about ye olde pagans as he remembers their tales, it's essentially a moralizing tale in that genre so famously Christian.

If it were originally some unknown Scandinavian epic poem from centuries prior that the ebil Christians simply erased parts of as you seem to want to imply, you would expect to see Beowulf himself show up or be mentioned in other Norse myths from those cultures.

He is not, because he was invented whole cloth by it's author for the purposes of writing an entertaining poem that also has a lesson for his newly christianized Germanic audience.
There is simply no need to hamfist Jesus' name into it, and your argument from silence is laughably obtuse.

Jesus' name isn't in LOTR either, but Tolkien used the exact same kind of typology used in Beowulf to represent different aspects of Christ in his characters.
Because, like Beowulf, LOTR is a story about pagans written by a Christian both to entertain and teach people something.
You know, because Beowulf is such a huge influence on LOTR.

Ironically, your very objection that Jesus' name isn't in the story is what dooms your own position that "Beowulf may have been a work of Oral Poetry before it was a written text", since Beowulf's name itself isn't found in the broader Norse mythology at least to my scant knowledge.

IIRC, genuine Norse mythology has quite a lot of cross pollination when it comes to certain characters and Beowulf himself simply doesn't turn up like that. If I'm wrong, let me know, but I don't think that's so.

>>18039057
A real jerk

>>18039369
Didn't they all drow in the flood? Wasn't that the point of the flood story?

>>18045580
>Didn't they all drow in the flood? Wasn't that the point of the flood story?
If Cain's descendants count as animals on the ark, some of them could have survived the flood that way. Ham may have even reproduced with one of them, producing Canaan who Noah specifically cursed in Genesis 9.

Alternatively, you have local flood theories which state that "the entire face of the earth" refers to a specific area of land where Adam's offspring lived (compare Exodus 10:5, Exodus 10:15 for example, where this term refers to all of Egypt). Under this theory, the flood of Noah would have wiped out only the area where Adam's descendants had spread to and the local ecology there, which would then explain how animals on other continents (and plants) survived the event and repopulated afterward.

Under this theory, Noah only had to gather the animals that lived locally within this region. The hills and mountains would have been "covered" with water in the sense that it was raining heavily everywhere and water was flowing over the entire surface, but not quite to the level that is sometimes interpreted. The overall impact still would have been global, since sea levels significantly increased in the oceans. Certain areas would have been flooded with standing water that would take longer to drain: i.e. Armenia is in an Endorheic basin that drains into the Caspian, not the oceans. This would explain Noah's experience without requiring the entire planet to be flooded with standing water for months. Only the Endorheic basin was flooded for months. Lastly, any other biblical mention of a global flood that destroyed the planet would actually be referring to the events of a much larger flood that happened before Genesis 1:2.

Either way, one can explain how Cain's descendants and/or the biblical giants may have survived. Because with or without the "local flood" theory, these descendants didn't even count as humans due to the admixture of Cain with beasts, mentioned in Genesis 4.

>>18045580
Nords had boats

>>18045580
Genesis uses poetic language and devices.
It employs purposefully hyperbolic language to communicate the truly global extent of the cataclysm. How God had become displeased with all flesh, regretting having created man, how even the animals had become corrupted by the antediluvian evil.

Regardless, the purpose for the flood was broadly speaking accomplished.
A cleansing and fresh start.

A remnant of the Nephilim must have found refuge somewhere because they show up again when Joshua leads the children of Israel into the promised land and when David fights against them; God preserving a remnant of something for some later purpose (in this case, testing a covenant people and demonstrating his own power to them) is a common and repeating theme in the Old Testament.

>>18045873
>local flood theories which state that "the entire face of the earth" refers to a specific area of land
I don't buy it.
Certainly you don't need to say that the tops of the highest mountains on earth were covered in water anyways, as the Vulgate reads; it would be sufficient to say that the waters rose at least 15 cubits over the base of every mountain on the planet.

If there was a huge crustal subsidence, this would not be impossible and there would also be crazy weather patterns. But as for those giants on the mountains? The supernatural cataracts which opened up in the sky accompanying the fountains of the great deep could have dumped entire rivers worth of water specifically on them for all I know.
Certainly a massive outflow of water from within the bowels of the earth suggests a geological upheaval that could feasibly have had a global span.

>these descendants didn't even count as humans due to the admixture of Cain with beasts, mentioned in Genesis 4
they made the first city, he has his own genealogy, in fact they are said to have worked brass and iron, invented the harp, kept cattle and lived in tents
you're off the deep end on this one bud, of course they're human

>>18045115
No actually Tolkien’s interpretations and opinions regarding Beowulf are not universally respected

>>18039057
The Beowulf poem, fitt 1, says he was an evil creature descended from Cain, akin to trolls, giants, and orcs (probably the undead). Plausibly he was a pre-christian malignant creature who was re-interpreted with a Biblical lens, like how Celtic and Germanic "little people" were re-interpreted as angels who were neutral during Satan's rebellion and fled to Earth.

>>18045951
Cool story bro. Meanwhile, your hot take is definitely "universally respected" and certainly well founded.

Yes, I'm quite sure you have a better grasp of prose and the Old English language than literally Tolkien. There's no way you could possibly miss anything he was able to pick up on, having studied early medieval Anglo-Saxon culture for decades.
So he literally named several of the fantasy races in LOTR by ripping the names straight from Beowulf, big deal I'm sure it's pure coincidence. Orthanc? What's that again, can't be another word from Beowulf certainly.

Tolkien, to this very day, wignat occult LARPers and commie post-modern literary critics alike shake with rage just as soon as they learn to see past the surface level and understand the subtext.
That is, assuming they ever get that far to begin with; a tall order.
What's ironic to me is how certain types, Anduril and Palantir types (you know the ones), blithely latch on to his legacy like leeches in full knowledge that he would roundly condemn their works and demand they cease and desist using his intellectual property for their branding of unholy and vile services if he were around to see what they are up to currently.

His lecture series on Beowulf completely revolutionized scholarship on the work and, again, has been formative on every subsequent academic labor concerning it for good reason.

He cannot enter the hall uninvited, which is a moral boundary. Evil can’t penetrate society without some transgression.

File: (˚0˚)!!.png (584 KB, 1024x1024)

584 KB PNG

>>18045204
>uhhh stfu chud cuz actually Jesus is in LOTR
amazing

>>18045873
>If Cain's descendants count as animals on the ark, some of them could have survived the flood that way.
Creationists claim that evolution is ridiculous because that would mean that your grandpa was a monkey but they have no problems with claiming that humans or angels mated with animals.

>>18039057
A negro

File: b8b20aab5.jpg (112 KB, 750x748)

112 KB JPG

>>18046736
>Creationists claim that evolution is ridiculous because that would mean that your grandpa was a monkey
I'm pretty sure that's not the actual reason they give. I think it's a little more in depth than that.
>but they have no problems with claiming that humans or angels mated with animals.
I don't really believe that angel theory and think it has no real basis other than an attempt to explain stuff it says in Genesis at one point. It is true however that the Bible expressly prohibits lying with animals (i.e. bestiality) in the book of Leviticus just as strongly as it condemns sodomy. If "miscegenation," as we called it until very recently when that term suddenly became unfashionable, falls into the former category, it would seem we've been quite misled indeed in these days.