Gothic religion

[akoddsson]

Hails Walhahrabn!

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> wrote:
>
> Hails wis thu, Kunjareth!
> 
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@> 
wrote:
> > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans@> 
> wrote:
> > > 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...

No doubt, this an is ancient inheritance. *teiws fadar in Go., yes, 
vocative *teiw fadar. All in all, Germanics seem to have preserved a 
relatively primitive, aboriginal idea about him, more like the Indic 
version, as he is not mythologized or anthropomorphized to the same 
degree as in the Greek or Latin, for example. The aboriginal link 
with the shining heaven seems more intact, as well as his perfect 
lawfulness (confirmed by the ON). Interesting enough, simply naming 
him twice is recorded as sufficient prayer/innvocation in ON sources 
(at nefna tvisvar ty:). 

> > 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. 

Yes, it is only a conceptual match. 

> The traditional etymology says ON jötunn comes from eta "to eat", 
perhaps in the sense "greedy for food", "ever-hungry" (compare þ
urs "ever-thirsty"). Which root is Skr. ád- (ádmi, Greek DOMAI "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).

Yes, it seems that Germanic preserved the concept, while choosing a 
new name, based perhaps on a characteristic of ya:tu. Conceptually, 
it is a match, much like the rbhu/*albi:z/*albo:z, the cult of the 
heavenly, shining fathers. Germ. root *alb- meaning 'white', also 
found in the feminine river-word *albiz and in a great many personal 
names (the ON masc. compounding forms are alf- and -alfr, while the 
fem. is -elfr). There was an idea about 'whiteness'/light/holiness 
surrounding these ancient fathers in heaven (ON alfheimr). Later, 
but not in heathen sources, we also see a distinction between the 
lio:salfar and the svartalfar, who dwell in the earth like dwarves. 
There are two possible explanations: 1) late heathen not practising 
cremation (in some areas only) might have begun to have thought of 
their dead as only dwelling in the earth after death (in the mound) 
2) the idea arose with christian influence, where angels/baptized 
dead assume the place of alfar in heaven. On that note there is much 
discussion is more 'academic' volumes of the modern angel-literature 
(in Scandinavian languages at least) about many characteristics of 
christian angels being from earlier heathen alfar. Although this is 
a modern, quasi-religious movement, I do think that this particular 
connection is correct. Not much is said about the characteristics of 
angels in the NT, but western countires have long had complex, and 
more or less fully-formed ideas about angels. Tolkien's popular 
treatment of alfar also shows many of these characteristics, and I 
will bet that he was aware of the connection between the christian 
angels and heathen alfar. On could surmise that christianity left 
the door wide open for a continued cult of the fathers via angels. 
Heathen alfatru was every bit as entrenched as godatru, perhaps even 
more so. Two of what are considered the 3 main annual blots of the 
Norse heathen tradition, for instance, are documented as alfa- or 
di:sablo:t (disir being fem. counterparts, perhaps an alternative to 
older ON fem.pl. elfr? - compare fem. names in -elfr), amongst other 
things. So there are many parallels to the Indic, even where the 
etymologies are foggy or unrelated. 

> > 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!"

*hilpai mis, I think. Also, I would want to explore the form *iggwus 
as regards catergory and declension. *nairthus is solid, I think, as 
is *frauja. Otherwise, fine translation, I think. These three lines 
are usually considered very ancient, and I would agree.  

> > 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.

More later. I have to run, but will look at the *thauris-names, etc. 
and get back to you on this.

Regards,
kunjareths
 
> > > 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/