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

[akoddsson]

Hails Walhhrabn!

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> wrote:
>
> Hails again,
> 
> You've touched a very interesting point here... I must warn I'm 
not an expert on mythology either, but nevertheless I've got some 
thoughts on the topic which I'd like to share. 

> > > And yet, perhaps we shouldn't disregard our absolute ignorance
about pre-Christian thunder-god of the Goths. To think he was all
the same as his later Scandinavian counterpart seems somewhat
simplifying...

> > I think that it was the same, simply put. Also, I don't think 
that it was simply a later Scandinavian counterpart, but instead one 
that is attested from a later date. The key word here is 'attested'. 
The Proto-Norse speaking contemporaries of the Goths of Wulfila's 
time would have had this same god, doing the same things, etc. as in 
the later ON sources. They would have called him *thunraz at that 
time. Religion is often very conservative and, I think, ethnic 
religions like the Norse one especially so. We should recall that 
the Norse were also until the viking period also the most isolated 
Germanics of any sort. They were the 'backward hillbillies', 
the 'ignorant rural folk' of old Germania, as evidenced by their 
only much later conversion to christianity. We know that many ON 
folk were ardent believers in the old gods, as evidenced by their 
willingness to die for their beliefs, even against their own leaders 
and aristocracy after it had started pressing for christianity 
(mostly a political issue at that time in the north, not really a 
religious one, as the average man was probably very ignorant about 
christianity, while leaders tended to support it mostly for 
political/organizational reasons instead of actual religious ones). 

> I agree so far, it being perhaps a universal situation in a pagan 
ethnos when getting converted.

> > It seems rather foolish, I think, to assume that these old 
Germanics were very accepting of change in their religion (witness 
the Gothic example of Athanareiks and company also). It was too 
closely tied to their ethnicity. Thus, I imagine that ethnic Goths 
were the most 'heathen', probably seeing it as their own ethnic 
religion, inherited from their fathers, whom they no doubt honoured. 
Political pressure, as well as the presence of large numbers of non-
Goths (conquered folk, slaves, enlisted co-militarists, trading 
partners, neighbors, etc.), would have pressed them toward adopting 
Arianism as their official creed, as other folk would not have been 
able to participate in the Gothic faith, as it was ethnic and 
inherited, much like Hinduism. 

> Yes, though some particular cases might have happened when, say, a 
Roman runaway took a Gothic name, married a Gothic woman and started 
to adore Gothic war-gods as a token of his total break with ex-
compatriots which had banished him, and of his gratitude towards the 
people who had accepted him. It were much like adopting a son into 
the family. Of course, this couldn't have been a widespread 
practice, only an exceptional issue, I guess. When the gods are 
regarded as one's particular forefathers, why should aliens be 
forced, or allowed either, to worship them?

I suppose that it is somewhat like asking others to eat your food, 
speak your language, wear your clothes, etc..
 
> > Each folk the Goths encountered at that time would have had 
their own ethnic religion. An easy political compromise, minimizing 
conflict between conquered and conquerer, is to adopt the universal 
religion of christianity, where no ethnic distinction is made. 
Still, the Goths' perserverance as Arianians, even after it had been 
banned and the Catholic model essentially adopted by all other 
christians they encountered, shows a continued sense of separatism, 
I think. They probably just did not want to share their church with 
non-Goths, simply put. It sounds very unchristian in the truer 
sense, but was in all liklihood real, I think.

> That's a very interesting explanation. So you think it were non-
Gothic parts of the wandering communities who, feeling annoyed at 
their non-participation in the official cult, pressed the Gothic top 
to finally decide for Christianity (but why not for some sort of 
pagan syncretism associated with no concrete ethnos and well-known 
in the pre-Christian world?), and it was the Gothic religious 
separatism which made them prefer Arianism, right? I heard the idea 
that the Arian dogmatics stood closer, in some respect, to the 
structure of the pre-Christian pantheon and/or society. Could it be 
another reason for the Arian choice, in your opinion?

I not so sure that it was non-Goths pressing the Gothic top, due to 
feelings of non-inclusion, that prompted Arianism amoung Goths, or 
that non-Goths felt annoyed by lack of participation in the Gothic 
religion. The reason is that non-Goths would have had their own 
ethnic religions at this point, likely not wanting to participate in 
the foreign, Gothic one. I think they would have felt loyalty toward 
their own traditions and language, as well. Also, that Goths seemed 
to separate themselves by having their own church, called Arian, 
also seems to confirm that cultural separateness was entrencehed. 
Thus, non-Goths would be practicing their own ethnic religion, or 
adopting some form of christianity on their own, perhaps Arian, but 
not going to the same church even if Arian. More than likely, ethnic 
tension, fighting and conflict were intense before christianity was 
introduced, as it was also afterwards. My hunch is that christianity 
in theory, at least, could be interpreted as a move to minimize the 
ethnic/cultural tensions and fighting, as the different sides would 
then have the same god, same creed, etc., while at the same time not 
being compelled under the same roof. Culturally and politically, it 
sounds to me more like a compromise-solution from the Gothic elite, 
which had some degree of support from progressives on all sides. The 
gift of Wulfila in political hands, not in the hands of followers. 

> > Also, the Goths would, no doubt, have still cherished their
heathen ancestral faith privately, reciting the old songs and being 
pround of their heritage and ancestry. Typical enough. It's really
not unique, as many cultures have adopted faiths in addition to the
inherited one (see Tibet, Japan, etc.). Somehow, they make it work.

> To add that the Arian priests, lacking any support from the 
imperial state system, had probably to search compromise solutions 
to much greater extent than the Catholic ones when facing surviving 
elements of paganism...

Absolutely. An ethnic Gothic priest, heir of Wulfila, addressing an 
ethnic Gothic group with no foreign content-control/sensorship in an 
environment of many faiths, many cultures, much conflict. It sounds 
like he might need to wave the Gothic banner a bit to keep his seat, 
as well as appeal to tolerance among Goths for their neighbors. It 
sounds like a peace-keeping job. And yes, his audience, and likely 
he himself, would have been abosorbed in Gothic heathen belief from 
birth, not wishing to criticize it or speak against it, but instead 
underlining the tolerant, universal side of christianity, and the 
joy of communion. 

Side note. Interestingly enough, the Arian theological view (christ 
is not the father, not co-eternal, but made by him - for the purpose 
of delivering man through the gospel) can easily be made to include 
other creations or agents of god, the father, like *thunrs and 
*wo:dans, who would then, as before, be seen as agents of good 
fighting the *itunos on the side of man, top agents of god, father, 
against the forces of darkness, with the devil being in christian 
myth an equivalent of the *itunos. The end would come, evil ended 
and a new world arise for the good (redemption day), as in both of 
these faiths (and in Zoroastrianism). In fact, Zoroastrianism could 
even have been included as well ;) There is a supreme god/power 
(called guth, masc.sg., teiws or simply sa alamahteiga ansus, as in 
Zoroastrian ahura (Indic Asura). This power is good, opposing and in 
the end eliminating an evil power (angra mainyu, *itunos, satan). It 
has its message-agents with good teachings (Xristus, Zarathustra and 
Wodans), each with their sayings/teachings and own mythologies, each 
with co-agents/angels/demi-gods at their side (equivalents). Now, I 
of course realize that this scenario is imaginary, but interesting 
it is, indeed, to imagine a history where the Goths win, survive, 
and formulate a syncratistic religion, whereby they (and the other 
groups, who do likewise ;) develope a new, tolerant Europe, where 
everyone has a) their own ethnic religion b) 2 universal ones shared 
by all 3) literacy in their own language 4) good relations with all 
their neighbors :-) Theoretically, at least, Arian theology could 
have had some interesting consequences. 

> > However, I suspect that the Goths' would have lost their original
ethnic religion as time moved on, while still having maintained it
in some form within ethnically Gothic families during the earlier
Arian period. My guess is that it happened with the lost of their
language and distinct ethnic identity. Lastly, their is a current in
some forms of christianity which emphasizes that it is the only 
true religion and bans belief of any other kind, however impratical 
this may be and whatever the social and personal consequences. 
Naturally, this current is not endorsed by most christians, now or 
then, and most Arianians were likely also quite tolerant folk.

> When talking of the early Middle Age I'd rather think that the 
religious fanaticism was predominant in the Christian world, and 
that the cases of a relatively tolerant rule (like one of 
Thiudareiks sa Mikila in Italy) were exceptionally rare.

Well, he was, after all, a Goth ;) He must have been proud of his 
heathen ancestors as well as his christian ones. But seriously, I 
think so much of the documented, mideaval christian fanaticism was 
not christian at all, really. Many folk, even whole nations (like 
Prussia, and most of Lithuania, etc.), were wiped out, destroyed in 
bloody evangelical campaigns. Mass killings, rapes, torture, forced 
conversion from one end to the other. What happened was that folk 
used the banner of christian religion for purposes that is was not 
designed for, acting in a way not encouraged by christian teaching. 
One can't really blame it on christianity, at least as a religion. I 
bare the blame for what I do, you for what you do, not Xristus or 
Wodans or anyone else, even if our sins are forgiven. Simply saying 
that my sins are forgiven, so I can do anything I want without any 
consequences and be forgiven later, is not my idea of good doctrine. 
Never bought the faith alone saves argument, but I can dream about, 
and easily live with, the Gothic-inspired dream scenario above ;) 

pax :)
kunjareths

> For the very same 6th century, remember the manner Iustinianus (sa 
Bloth-faiha) was dealing with "unorthodox" Christians in Asia Minor, 
in Palestine and Egypt, or what devout Catholics did with the 
synagogue of Rome after having re-captured the city etc etc. One of 
the basic inducements for Byzantines to invade the Vandalic and the 
Ostrogothic realms was no doubt the preached wish to liberate these 
ex-Roman territories off the Arian infidels. Or so at least the 
whole propaganda was telling... These were genuine crusades, both 
ethno-cultural ("dirty barbarians") and religious ("devil-begotten 
haeretics").
> 
> > The Goth's, no doubt, would have inherited an ethnic religion 
that was also shared by Gutlanders, who would have preserved it much 
longer due to lack of any need for religious integration/cooperation 
with neighbors. I would also suggest that Gutlanders shared common 
gods/mythology with the Norse, inherited from common Proto-Germanic 
ancestors. Thus, we should not be deceived or accept bizarre 
theories simply because we lack attestations to the contrary. Common 
sense, I think, suggests that the Goths kept up their ethnic 
religion and were very proud of it, not wishing to change it, while 
at the same time being political and showing great personal 
variation with regards to 'belief' in the religion. Many folk are 
intensely proud of their culture/religion, not wishing to change it, 
while at the same time being only marginal participants in it. 
Should be a familiar story to anyone, I think ;) Thus, translating 
the Norse rescension of this mythology, the only surviving one, into 
Gothic does not bother me in the slightest. I do believe that it was 
their original religion/culture and that these were also their 
stories/gods.
 
> It's here where I see the very question, Konrad. Wouldn't you 
agree that the pre-Christian religion of the Germanics was not a 
strictly dogmatized system, universally spread and forced upon via 
some sort of a church apparatus? That it was no "religion" in a 
narrower sense? For all I know (that's not much really) I'd think 
there was a kind of cognate inter-related but still rather distinct 
cults and mythologies, with a definite commonly shared background 
such as the same social rules and stereotypes of behavior, and 
spoken in the same language. Some tribes could prefer *Thunraz, some 
*Ingwaz, some *Teiwaz as their particular divine leader and 
forefather. What of the cults would you choose for departing Goths 
to carry over to the continent? I remember Ingemar Nordgren wrote 
that matriarchal fertility cult of Freyr/Freyja (the so called Wanen-
mythologie) was particularly spread in East-Scandinavia. Couldn't 
the Goths, or at least some part of them, have been bearers of 
this "Inguaeonic" ethno-genetic tradition and religious practices? 
In which case we can't say for sure that they did equally worship 
*Thunrs, or that they even knew the name of *Wodans, whose cult, 
according to some sources, was a later one, unheard of in PG epoch.
> 
> > However, the wording goes back to the Proto-Norse, rather than 
the Gothic, which can cause some problems here and there in 
translation. Still, whole sections go seemlessly nto Gothic. Instead 
of focusing on what I see as a non-issue (that Goths, as an ethnic 
group, shared this religion/culture), I choose to focus on the 
language issues involved in such translations. What I want to know 
is that every word of the Gothic is correct and that it reads true 
and natural to the Gothic hear, which is, of course,
very difficult to achieve in this day and age.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Kunjareths
> 
> Ualarauans
>







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/