Gothic religion (Was Re: new and in search of help Go.thunrs and thrums)
akoddsson
konrad_oddsson at YAHOO.COM
Sun Jul 30 15:42:28 UTC 2006
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/
More information about the Gothic-l
mailing list