Gothic religion (Was Re: new and in search of help Go.thunrs and thrums)

[akoddsson]

Hails Michael!

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Michael Erwin <merwin at ...> wrote:
>
> Paganism
> 
> I'm not sure that traditions were very stable. Didn't the later 
Norse incorporate various Gothic and Burgundian figures into their 
myth- systems?

Yes, but as heros/legendary figures rather than as divine ones. 
Thus, while the Norse sang songs/maintained a poetic tradition, 
wherein Goths and Burgundians featured very prominently, as well as 
Huns, this would not have had any influence on religion, nor on 
mythology, at least in as much as it relates to religion. Instead, 
the Norse had a kind of heroic mythology about legendary persons, 
which tended to treat these old, often East Germanic brethern, as 
heroes. 

> Christianity
> 
> First off, what is 'Arian?' Arius himself was important but not 
that important... Some historians apply 'Arian' only to the systems 
of Arius, Eudoxius, et al. Others apply 'Arian' to any systems 
except those of Marcellus, Athanasius, et al. Others introduce straw 
man definitions. I suggest something like this:
> 
> Different substance
> (Aetianism)
> (Arianism)
> -----------------
> Like-ness
> Like-substance
> (Compromise Positions)
> -----------------
> Same substance
> (Athanasianism)
> (Marcellanism)
> 
> Both Aetius and Marcellus were mavericks. Philostorgius covers 
Aetian church history.

My hunch is that ordinary Goths were probably unaware of the many 
intricacies/complexities of church history. Even in our highly 
literate, school-educated age, it is still a topic for specialists. 
Thus, the Goths, like any other folk who at some point adopted a 
christian creed, simply went with the one that was first presented 
to them. I do not imagine that average Goths were deeply involved in 
theological debates and church-history topics, studying all of their 
intricasies in detail, and then deliberately choosing the Arian type 
for theological/historical reasons out of some deep conviction. But 
as time progressed, they probably identified themselves gradually 
more with the Arian position for social reasons/familiarity/war/and 
the like. Likewise, I doubt that most folk living in the conflict-
ridden regions of northen Ireland are deeply interested in details 
of theology or church-history. Branded for life by virtue of your 
birth, pledged to avenge your kind, not interested in theology, but 
wanting to do the right thing, protect your friends and family, and 
maybe here and there glimpsing through the clouds of history that 
the folk on the other side seem equally human, but not saying much 
about it for social reasons.  

> Second, when was the conversion? Were the exiles of 376 mostly 
pagan or mostly Christian? If the conversion was late and political, 
we have to explain why Theodosius, Arcadius, et al. could never  
Catholicize the Goths. (late sixth-century Spain is another story  
anyway). 

Not necessarily, I think, as the reason need not be religious, but 
could just as well be social. We take an example. You are an average 
Goth, identified with your Gothic family and friends, of whom you 
think highly. You are not interested in theology. I and my kind are 
trying to force you to convert to some other church, which opposes 
what you and your kind have adopted. We control this other church, 
not you. It is not Gothic and seems to be seeking to subjugate you 
for some unknown reason. I present my church as the only truth and 
condemn yours. As an average Goth, you are not highly religious or 
interested in the theological rhetoric that I use against you, but 
sometime is telling you that life might be better for you and your 
kind if I and my kind simply did not exist. This is an imaginary 
scenario, and my point is simply that your average Goth is unlikely 
to have resisted conversion to another church on grounds of deep 
theological convictions. There could have been issues of group-
identiy/ethnic issues, social and personal ones involved.  

> If the conversion was early we don't have to explain that.

Again, I doubt very much that the theology of Arius had much to say 
about their refusal to convert. Now, if someone were shouting Arian 
theological slogans at a Gothic military assembly, and the enemy was 
not Arian, but some other theological brand interesting in forcing 
Goths to convert, then I imagine that average Goths might be found 
shouting hurrah for Arius ;) Still, the physchology here looks more 
like at a football match than at a theological debate. 
 
> Third, did the Goths mix ethnic and religious identity politics? 

Well, it looks like that was (and is) what everyone else did (does). 
Not that this is a good thing, but: 

birds of a feather 
flock together

as the rhymed and alliterative English saying has it. 

> I'd point out Wulfila and Auxentius as semi-Gothic and non-Gothic  
> Christians who had influence among Gothic Christians.

Well, the missionary who pioneers the acceptance of christianity in 
a modern tribe (say, in Africa today or the in far east) seldom 
shares the same ethnicity as those he converts/persuades to adopt 
his brand of the faith. When he is dead and gone, the church (if it 
survives at all) becomes an ethnic one, where everything seems very 
foreign, perhaps even unchristian, to visitors from the missinary's 
original homeland, where christianity looks very different, indeed.  

> Fourth, what were their religious views anyway? Given various  
persecutions north of the Danube, Wulfila had good reason to keep  
working with everyone south of the Danube. Later on, ties with  
different-substance schools seem more important (Gaina's revolt, as  
well as the 'ni ibna nih galeiks' (sp?) passage in the Skeireins) 
and these may have been strong early, or these may have grown from 
facing one enemy.

Well, Wulfila was an intellectual man of foreign origin amoung the 
Goths. I suspect that in addition to being intelligent, he probably 
was also very cautious about treading on Gothic culture/traditions, 
including religious ones. Instead, I imagine that he would just have 
been killed, no questions asked. As he became their bishop, and was 
thus on their side, accepting and supporting the Goths against their 
enemies, then it should be expected that those among the somewhat 
later Goths who actually delved into theology (likely very few, but 
see skeireins), personally lived through the fights/controversies 
and actually took a position on theology (see skeireins), could be 
reasonably expected to back their own bishop, as opposed to some 
other bishop, thus repaying loyalty with loyalty. This is exactly 
what I imagine that they did. Still, I do not imagine that average 
Goths were very interested or aware of these theological conflicts. 

Regards,
kunjareths








You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/