Origin of the Enchiridion?

[Anonymoose]

Nothing new or exciting in Enchiridion mentions I'd saved, though I confess that I may have missed something in general mentions of scripture on the cursory pass. I did find one thing the new Hildibrand arc (of all places), though:

An Ishgardian student goes digging through the Inquisition's chamber of secrets and comes up with apocryphal texts that detail the Allagan Empire. German specifies that they are chapters of the Enchiridion, but not the alleged timing of their authorship. Their accuracy, however, bespeaks extremely ancient or extremely recent writings.

Allag was thought to be a myth until Saint Coinach made his find after the Dragonsong War began. Up through the Calamity, the findings conclusively revealed little more than simply proof that the ancient texts spoke of a place that actually existed. If the Enchiridion claims authority on the subject at all, its sources should theoretically be understood as ancient (unless they were allegedly delivered by Halone herself, a whole other can of worms).

Yet the Enchiridion also covers Halone skewering the heavens into the earth with The Nail (a Coerthan mountain) all the way up though relatively contemporary saints, including the (false) origins of the Dragonsong War. It seems suggestive of the book being continually "polished" by the Holy See regardless of origin.

Was it the Enchiridion before later texts were added? Or is it at least meant to be understood as such? I can't say (Apologies for how little help this digression has probably been thus far). As Robin said, it's possible that they didn't even worship Halone back then and have built a new canon from older scriptures. In such a scenario the Enchiridion is less than a thousand years old, but alleges authority on all that came before.

Like you, I still like the third possibility. The Archbishop is flat out called the Pope in JP (教皇); drawing parallels to the Bible isn't without precedent. And the use of the word "texts" implies that the Enchiridion is meant to be understood as a collection of such. But that still doesn't mean it's not meant to be a recent telling of ancient truths and the Lalafell is a fraud.

In my bones, something feels right about an all-of-the-above interpretation: Halonic scripture included in the Enchiridion predates the Sixth Astral, the Enchiridion itself postdates the Sixth Astral but claims to be an authentic collection of Halonic scripture and Ishgardian Orthodox scripture, and the Lalafell is a fraud. (I mean, it's being sold off of a rug; proffered to someone in a shepherd's tunic.)

It is Ul'dah (and a lalafell) we're dealing with

Exac—HEY