Is the Myth of Ragnarok Post-Christian?

[Rainbow Mage]

Anyone know if any scholarship has been done on this? The myth of Ragnarok just seems really different then the rest of Norse mythology.

Some of the Germanic myths are post-Christian, so it makes me wonder if Ragnarok is.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Essentially this is close to impossible to know. There aren't any writings of our lore left from before, perhaps the 13th century or so. Ragnarok is mentioned in post-Christianized writings of ours, and the word itself is made of proto-Germanic etymology, so that suggests an origin of the 1200s latest with any certainty.

I am not so sure it's that different, really, as the end-of-the-world theme tends to be covered as a universal subject in most faiths. It doesn't seem similar to the Christian Revelation mishmash in any event.

 

[lunakilo]

The only detailed account of the events of Ragnarok I know of is the one from Völuspá which (as far as I know was written down around 1270)

My guess is that the story existed long before that but the version written down in 1270 probably reflects the world of 1270 and not the pre-christian world.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yeah I have my doubts about Loki being seen as a devil-like figure like he is in Ragnarok.

As Christianity spread we see this done all over the ancient world, one of a region's gods taken and equated with Satan.

They did it with Set in Egypt and of course equated Horus with JC

 

[painted wolf]

It's all but impossible for cultures that interact with each other to not share concepts. Christianity was, I'm sure, just as influenced by the Norse as vice-versa.

wa:do

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It's all but impossible for cultures that interact with each other to not share concepts. Christianity was, I'm sure, just as influenced by the Norse as vice-versa.

wa:do

Gabriel's Trumpet anyone?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I mean some scholars believe they can pretty well surmise the dates of origin of certain Norse myths.

I've seen collections of the myths were a scholar will place them in a kind of chronological order.

Ragnarok is always listed late.

 

[EyeofOdin]

It's really difficult to tell as most ideas about Nordic Spirituality and Mythology before Christianity was in Europe is mostly theorized reconstruction. Such as we don't know for sure that Tyr was the original chieftain god of the Teutonic pantheon, but comparative linguistics do lead us to believe that.

What we DO know about Ragnarok is that if it is pre-Christian, then there are a lot of coincidences. Christian Revelation talks about monsters and celestial entities bursting out of the sea and sky and anyone on Earth would be caught in the crossfire. There was the "beast of the sea" and "The beast of the earth" and also "the beast", which Christians, when talking with Nordic peoples, probably likened to Jormungand, Fenrir and Loki.

We also know that the Nordic people were very open to equating characters in lore. Anglo-Saxons, when explaining their practices to Romans, would say that they hold Mercury in the highest praise, and give him the fourth day of the week, and that they call him Wodan. It was also common to adopt practices, such as the days of the week mentioned before. That was originally a Roman practice, but the Nordic peoples adopted it. They even kept the Roman god's name for seventh day of the week, Saturday, which to them may have been a day to one of the Vanir gods, possibly Njord (as Saturn is a god of harvest and most Vanir gods have strong associations with harvest and agriculture).

Within Ragnarok Lore, we see a lot of Christian Mythological symbolism. There's the tree and the serpent, a man and a woman seeking refuge inside of it to repopulate the earth and also the return of the dying god, who so happens to be the son of the King of Heaven.

In my opinion, Christians probably used the Nordic peoples habit of equating characters and adopting practices to their advantage. Then once the Northern Europeans fully adopted the idea that the world will end, and believing that with Christian logic, then they could say that Ragnerok already happened, and our God is what you call Baldr who has returned.

Of course not everybody bought into this, but it was enough to get wealthy and powerful people to convert (with the assistance of possible underhanded economic exchanges or political agreements), as to make the conversion of the masses easier.

 

[Nietzsche]

This is an old thread but I've got something to add.

Within the wider European-polytheism, Norse Mythology takes an odd turn. In the Germanic Myths, it is Tyr/Tiwas who is the King of Asgard and Aesir. Which makes sense, he's the one associated with law and what have you. A mix of Athena & Ares, with Zeus' position. But when you go further north, the title switches. Odin becomes the King of the Gods.

Why is this strange?

Odin is a God of Death. Knowledge, magic, the Berserk and Poetry yes, but also Death. He is not a Sky-Father like you see in Zeus or the Celt myths, or even the closely related Slav faiths. He is not the God of Law or the God of the Storm. That is Tyr and Thor, respectively. He's the God of Death.

Why would this change take place if Ragnarok wasn't already a solid point of belief? You do not make the God of Death your Highest on High if you do not expect something unpleasant to happen. This follows rather naturally with the eternal recurrence you find in the myths as well. The Universe is (re)born, the Gods return, life starts anew. The universe ages, the universe dies. Rinse and repeat. Nothing can be done about it. Delay it maybe, but all things one day die. Even Gods.

So I say that Ragnarok was already well established before the faith of the Nazarene came to Thule.

 

[Salek Atesh]

This is an old thread but I've got something to add.

Within the wider European-polytheism, Norse Mythology takes an odd turn. In the Germanic Myths, it is Tyr/Tiwas who is the King of Asgard and Aesir. Which makes sense, he's the one associated with law and what have you. A mix of Athena & Ares, with Zeus' position. But when you go further north, the title switches. Odin becomes the King of the Gods.

Why is this strange?

Odin is a God of Death. Knowledge, magic, the Berserk and Poetry yes, but also Death. He is not a Sky-Father like you see in Zeus or the Celt myths, or even the closely related Slav faiths. He is not the God of Law or the God of the Storm. That is Tyr and Thor, respectively. He's the God of Death.

Why would this change take place if Ragnarok wasn't already a solid point of belief? You do not make the God of Death your Highest on High if you do not expect something unpleasant to happen. This follows rather naturally with the eternal recurrence you find in the myths as well. The Universe is (re)born, the Gods return, life starts anew. The universe ages, the universe dies. Rinse and repeat. Nothing can be done about it. Delay it maybe, but all things one day die. Even Gods.

So I say that Ragnarok was already well established before the faith of the Nazarene came to Thule.

Tiwaz/Tyr was also the Sky-Father figure in the Germanic faiths, being the Germanic name derived from the Proto-Indo European Dyeus Phter.

I don't think the switch from Tiwaz to Wotan was significant in this way, though. We might also ask why his counterpart in other PIE religions loses prominence as well. Why is Dyaus Pitar replaced by Shiva?? Why the Celtic Dēuos replaced with the Dagda(who is either the Celtic equivalent of Thor or Heracles)??

Ultimately there's stronger evidence in Ragnorok predating Christianity in its similarity to other PIE religion's "End of Days" scenarios. Both Ragnorok and Zoroastrianism predict winter in the end times. Most PIE faiths predict cosmic battle.

But there are also Christian elements seen in the story of Ragnorok. The Beast of the Sea and Beast of the Earth appear in Jormundgandr and Fenrir. Loki is akin to the antichrist. Baldr dies and is reborn.

So it seems to me that this started as a pre-Christian, Proto-Indo European tale that later had Christian elements added into it likely by missionaries. Making it both pre and post Christian.

 

[Nietzsche]

Tiwaz/Tyr was also the Sky-Father figure in the Germanic faiths, being the Germanic name derived from the Proto-Indo European Dyeus Phter.

I don't think the switch from Tiwaz to Wotan was significant in this way, though. We might also ask why his counterpart in other PIE religions loses prominence as well. Why is Dyaus Pitar replaced by Shiva?? Why the Celtic Dēuos replaced with the Dagda(who is either the Celtic equivalent of Thor or Heracles)??

Ultimately there's stronger evidence in Ragnorok predating Christianity in its similarity to other PIE religion's "End of Days" scenarios. Both Ragnorok and Zoroastrianism predict winter in the end times. Most PIE faiths predict cosmic battle.

Yes, but I am not aware of them basing an after-life around what amounts to a cosmic boot-camp. The whole purpose of Valhalla is to train warriors for Ragnarok. Even though they know they're going to lose.

But there are also Christian elements seen in the story of Ragnorok. The Beast of the Sea and Beast of the Earth appear in Jormundgandr and Fenrir. Loki is akin to the antichrist. Baldr dies and is reborn.

The Baldr-reborn bit is undoubtedly Christian. I take the view that the resurrection was originally Odin, and that it was not the start of a marvelous, perfect world but the re-beginning of another universe.

Regarding Jormundgandr and Fenrir, I do not think that's Christian at all. Every faith has a Chaoskampf, a struggle of Order vs Chaos, normally embodied by the Storm-God doing battle with a Serpent or Dragon. Susano vs the Orochi, Zeus vs Typhon, so on and so forth.

And Loki being an anti-christ figure...ehhh. I take a stranger view on that. I think Odin & Loki are one and the same.

So it seems to me that this started as a pre-Christian, Proto-Indo European tale that later had Christian elements added into it likely by missionaries. Making it both pre and post Christian.

I do agree with that.

 

[DayRaven]

Some of the Germanic myths are post-Christian

Which are you referring to? The Codex Regius (our principle source for Norse mythology) as a manuscript post-dates the Icelandic conversion to Christianity by over two centuries. Specific poems within it, though, are probably developments of themes going back to the 9th century. The fact is that an eddaic poem is one telling: they are really at the back end of a pre-literate/oral society.

But there are also Christian elements seen in the story of Ragnorok. The Beast of the Sea and Beast of the Earth appear in Jormundgandr and Fenrir. Loki is akin to the antichrist. Baldr dies and is reborn.

Voluspa is, undoubtedly, Christian influenced but I believe the poem is a development of themes that would have been common to Norse mythology (at this juncture I emphasise Norse, Anglo-Saxon pre-Christian lore is a different subject). As has been said Baldr is a development of the dying god myth. Loki is enigmatic, as far as I'm aware there is no scholarly consensus on what his exact role was. It seems he developed from a benevolent, or at least mildly mischievous entity, into a more-or-less demonic personality (probably due to Christian influence). There are some interesting carvings in Cumbria that probably feature Loki as a horned god which, Woden-Odin is sometimes portrayed as.