Ragnarok

[Chessa]

Why is it that we talk about the first few steps of Ragnarok in the past tense, (eg, the story of Sigurd, Balder's death), but Ragnarok in general is mentioned in the future tense. Does this mean it's an ongoing thing?

[Doc_Holliday]

Re: Ragnarok

I'd like to say that I think Ragnarok is a Christian invention. It seems very close to the Christian apocalypse where the good vs. the evil. Then most of our gods and goddesses die and Balder becomes chief god, and balder shares many similarities with Jesus. Also I believe some of it is referred to in past tense because of when Christianity fabricated it, because they told all unconverted heathens that their gods were dying and that Balder was their Jesus so they were worshipping the new better god. So it was a tactic to convert Heathens.

Thats just my opinion though.

[Malflick]

Re: Ragnarok

while Ragnarok in itself I don't believe was a Christian invention, as its actually very different from the apocalypse in Revelations (well, if you think there even is one in there, but that's a different thread!), the way the story has been told to us and recorded was definitely definitely Christianized, and changed.

Its definitely written in the past tense because the gods are supposed to be dead, and there is new leadership, so worship ours. However, I think this is due to how its being retold, rather than invented whole-cloth.

I think a good example in modern times would be a remake of an older movie that changes some elements along the way and has a different ending.

F

[Chessa]

Re: Ragnarok

That makes sense.

[Claude]

Re: Ragnarok

Because the stories probably have different authors writing at different times. Also we can positively say that people aren't fighting with swords anymore and that Attila the Hun is dead (Sigurd) so we talk about his story in the past tense. We can't say that the Gods and Giants have fought their final battle yet though so were refer to this in future tense.

If however you are like me and you read the Eddas and other spiritual stories in an allegorical light then everything takes on a whole new meaning.

[Wednesday]

Re: Ragnarok

Why is it that we talk about the first few steps of Ragnarok in the past tense, (eg, the story of Sigurd, Balder's death), but Ragnarok in general is mentioned in the future tense. Does this mean it's an ongoing thing?

Germanic mythology has a mythic past, a mythic present and a mythic future. According to Lindow, the creation of the world is mythic past, the death of Baldr mythic present, and the war of the gods mythic future. But it isn't intended, IMO, to be seen as strictly linear. Sort of how science says that time isn't so cut and dry either, for example how we see the light of dead stars; they exist and don't exist in the same space. That's what mythic time is like.

[Riothamus12]

Re: Ragnarok

My interpretation is that these legends are largely metaphorical and steeped in mystical symbolism that describes the nature of the universe.