Gothic religion

[ualarauans]

Hails wis thu, Kunjareth!

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@> wrote:
> 
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> 
wrote:
> 
> > Couldn't it have developed in a manner like this: PG *Thunraz
> > Fergunijaz (epithet meaning smth like "Thor the Mountainous", 
i.e.
> > ruling over mountain peaks)? Which epithet was later understood 
as a
> > separate name of Thor's parent, feminine *Fergunijo (> ON 
Fjörgyn).
> > Or it was inherited from the same IE source as the Baltic forms 
(add
> > to them Thracian PERKWN, OSl. PerunÚ and Hett. Pirwa with 
dropped -k-
> > and, perhaps, OInd. Parjanya, lit. "rain cloud"). Lithuanian has
> > perkunija "thunder-storm", a precise equivalent of PG. 
*fergunijo >
> > ON Fjörgyn. It could be Gothic *Thunrs Fairguneis "Iuppiter
> > Montanus" resp. *Fairguni F.-jo (gen. *Fairgunjos), goddess of
> > earth's bones (= mouintains, fairgunja), closely associated with 
the
> > thunder-god.
> 
> I am not sure why the Germanic thunder/rain god was called 
*thunraz,
> aside from the obvious etymology, while ON fiorgynn and fiorgyn 
were
> preserved as separate, but related, gods. About all that I can say
> about it is that it is a Germanic development, which is not really
> saying much. Parjanya is celebrated in the Veda, typically enough
> gives rain and fertility, etc.. This is the same god as ON 
fiorgynn,
> Lith. perkunas, Latv. perkon, etc.. In reconstructing IE religion,
> this is one god that the experts include without fail, as far as I
> have been able to tell. But the Germanics have the thunder/rain-god
> as the offspring of this god in the feminine. I can offer no more
> than guesses as to why. I asked a Hindu friend of mine, who happens
> to be a scholar on Hinduism, some time ago about parjanya. I wanted
> to know if he thundered or only rained. I ended up reading 
religious
> hymns to parjanya from the Veda (there are several). There seems to
> be no indication that he thunders, but that he gives rain, growth,
> and protects folk, etc.. It sounds to me like *thunraz was perhaps
> thought of as being born of the earth and the dark clouds bringing
> rain, and that he somehow assumes a more active function like 
Indra.
> Thus, the wind-god (Indic va:ta, Germ. *wo:danaz), might be thought
> of as his father, as he drives the clouds and rain.

How does this etymology correlate to the traditional view on *wo:d-
anaz < IE *wa:t- "fury", "ardor", "(poetic) inspiration" etc? Maybe 
it's the same root? Widsith mentions Wada, king of Helsingjaland, if 
I don't mistake, who = MHG Wate in Kudrun, and he seems to be 
connected rather with the sea... Notice also the name of an 
Ostrogothic princess Uadamerca (Get. 249).

> This is just a
> guess, but take a look at the heavens on a windy day, when the rain
> is blown hard and the clouds move fast, and when thunder strikes,
> and then draw your own conclusions as to how a pre-modern person
> might have interpreted these phenomona.
> 
> > It may be doubted that the cult of *Wodanaz did already exist 
(see
> > my previous post), and so PG *Teiwaz > *Ti:waz (Go. *Teiws) was 
most
> > likely the principal god of heaven in the PG epoch, judging by 
his
> > IE parallels, you know, OInd. Dyaus, deva; Avest. daeva; Greek 
ZEUS;
> > Lat. Iouis, deus; OIr. dia; OPr. deiws; Lith. dievas and so 
forth...
> > Maybe it was *Teiwaz (ON Tyr) who was the original "all-father",
> > remember the known IE poetic formula *Dyew pater "oh heaven-
father",
> > attested in OInd. Dyaus pita, Greek ZEU PATER, Lat. Iuppiter,
> > Illyrian DEIPATYROS etc. It could be PG *Teiwi faðer (voc.) > Go.
> > *Teiw fadar...
> 
> Well, the idea of *ti:waz as the heaven-father (the bright-heaven),
> and even as an all-powerful god, is preserved in Norse sources. One
> should notice that he, unlike the other gods, does not live in the
> god's home *ansugardaz. Instead, *wo:danaz is the ruler there. Now,
> the idea seems to be that there are gods (lead by *wod:anaz), elves
> (who are good and the god's friends, but have their own home), who
> seem to match the Vedic rbhus in being originally a cult of ancient
> fathers, and the etuno:z (who are amoral, wild forces combating the
> gods and men - Vedic ya:tu, Germ. *etunaz).

It seems problematic as far as the comparative phonology is 
concerned. The traditional etymology says ON jötunn comes from 
eta "to eat", perhaps in the sense "greedy for food", "ever-hungry" 
(compare þurs "ever-thirsty"). Which root is Skr. ád- (ádmi, Greek 
EDOMAI "I eat"). The j-Anlaut is purely ON here (cf. OE eoten = ON 
jötunn). From Skr. ya:tu (more exactly, from PIE *ya:tu-s) we could 
expect something like PG *jôþuz or *jôðuz, depending on the stress, 
> ON *jöðr M.-u (?). Maybe it's rather Skr. yadu, one of panca 
janáh, "five Aryan gentes", mentioned in Rgveda, but it doesn't fit 
the Germanic forms either (both phonetically and semantically).

> I think the idea that a
> cult of *wo:danaz was somehow late, and not indigenous to Germanics
> from early times, is false. It is a false idea based on conjectures
> and modern theorizing around the idea that only one god can the top
> one (foreign influence, I think). The Veda does not insist on any
> one god being the top one, but tends rather to see them as separate
> but overlapping (i.e they can share characteristics), while being 
at
> the same time agents of the more impersonal all-power (brahman). 
The
> point here is not to discuss old Aryan theology (of topic here), 
but
> simply to suggest that the IE god va:ta/wo:danaz is indigenous to
> Germanics, as well as t:iwaz, and that power-struggles between 
them,
> and argumentation about their relative importance/function, were
> certainly foreign to old Germanic folk. The complexites of heaven
> were probably thought of much as we accept the co-existence of 
trees
> and rivers and rocks. There were no theologians, nor any 
comparative
> religion. Things tended to be experienced, accepted and passed on 
as
> passed on as the way things were. Thus, while ON folk had o:dinn as
> the ruling god af a:sgardr, leader of gods and maker of men, they
> also had ty:r, by whom they swore their oaths (as he is ethical and
> can be counted on to punish oath-breakers, matching Vedic Varuna on
> this point). Now, ty:r was more abstract and has none of the 
complex
> mythology surrounding o:dinn, having only one name (not hundreds),
> no known children and no residence in a:sgradr. According the Norse
> mythology, he does not die or participate in ragnarok (Snorri being
> wrong on this point and having no sources to support himself here).
> Vedic Indians swore by varuna, who bound the faithful by ring-
oaths,
> receiving the oath and holding the ring, binding and punishing 
those
> who broke the oath. Likewise, the Norse temple oath (...hialpi me:r
> sva: freyr ok niordr ok hinn allma:ttki a:ss) ends with a 
references
> to an almighty, unnamed *ansuz.

That's new for me! Could you please remind me of the source where 
this oath is recorded? It could be Gothic: "...hilpai meina swa 
Iggwus jah Nairthus jah sa <all>mahteiga ansus!"

> The pattern of the 3 named is earth-
> sea-heaven (where each of the 3 mentioned can stand for an entire
> realm). Jon Hnefill Adalsteinsson (Blot i norraenum sid), as well 
as
> some other scholars of these things, suggests that the almighty one
> is ty:r, being supreme. I agree with him, and some others, about
> this. Another idea is that the supreme god was altogether separate,
> another that he was o:dinn. However, my point is that we are not
> dealing with any middle eastern beliefs here, and that the ruler of
> gods and maker of men need not be almighty, or the only god, in IE
> religion, from which Germanic religion developed. Lastly, I would
> suggest that both ti:waz and wo:danaz were inherited by Germanics
> from their IE ancestors, not imported into Germania at a later 
date.
> 
> > I'd prefer to use *thauris M.-a rather than *ituns, as the former
> > is at least attested in East-Germanic personal names. OE has 
eoten,
> > which could suggest Go. *itans as well...
> 
> I do not think that *thauris, in the meaning giant, is attested in
> Go. personal names. Something must be amiss here. The word relates
> to dryness, lack of water/rain, tieing into crop-failure, disease
> and dehydration. I am not aware of any Germanic personal names that
> invoke these powers, which were thought of enemies of the gods. But
> we do see a lot of elements like *ansu-, *ragina-, *albi/a-, *guda-
,
> *hro:thi-, *aiwi-, *gaiza-, etc. etc. etc. - all of which connoted
> good things to ancient Germanics. About Go. *ituns, I consider it a
> most certain reconstruction, being found not only in other Germanic
> languages, but even in ancient Indic. Of course, we would not 
expect
> it to occur as an element in Germanic personal names, for obvious
> reasons, or in a Bible-translation, for equally obvious ones, hence
> it is not attested in extant Go., much like *thunrs.

Paulus Diaconus mentions in his Historia Langobardorum (I:23ff) 
Turisindus, the king of enemy Gepides, and Turismodus his son, which 
are Gothic *Thauris-swinths "strong as a thurs" and *Thauris-
moths "wrathful as a thurs" (compare SnE 51 [þá snyst Miðgarðsormr 
í] jötunmóð, where jötunmóðr = *þursmóðr < PG *þurisa-móðaz > Go. 
thauris-moths). Further we find Visigothic Thorismundus (*Thauris-
mundus "protected by thursar") and Ostrogothic Thorisa (*Thauriza M.-
an, probably a short form of smth like *Thauris-mundus). I don't 
think they were omitting everything "negative" in their names, that 
they were so strongly dualist in their beliefs to do it. We find 
names with PG *wurma- (e.g. ON Ormarr = OE Wyrmhere and many more) 
which definitely refer to Miðgarðsormr (there were no other 
important "worms" in the Germanic mythology, as far as I know). One 
of the most popular name-words was *wulfa-, and the wolf was no 
better friend to the gods and the men either:). A Goth might easily 
be named *Hunimundus "protected by the Huns", but I doubt that he 
would be hesitating to fight against his "protectors" if commanded 
so by his immediate thiudans. Here, we can observe an interesting 
family tradition (Get. 81), they are all *Amaliggos, 
posited "father - son": *Agiwulfs ("fear-wolf") - *Airmanareiks 
("great ruler", but maybe it was just a title?) - *Hunimundus - 
*Thaurismundus - *Bairamoths ("bear's wrath")... A particular clan 
adoring "dark forces", proto-Satanist? Or maybe it was not so 
unusual to take names after "negative" characters of the myths and 
epics, and really important was that these guys were "strong", not 
that they were "bad"? Remember Zoroastrian kings who practised 
sacrifices to Ahriman and his demons, not to make them personal 
enemies, I guess.

> 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.
> 
> > 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

gawairthi in mannam godis wiljins
walhahrabns





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/