Skip to main content

Remember the Vikings!

Most of us think of the Vikings as a pretty scary lot, and the recent BBC TV series 'The Last Kingdom' has done little to disillusion us on that front. One thing brought out by the series is the difference between Alfred, a Christian, and the Vikings, who are called pagans by the Saxon believers. The Vikings didn't become Christians until the mid-11th century, and many of their beliefs and customs remain with us today. For instance Wednesday is from Woden's day, Thursday is from Thor's day. and so on. Once they had converted to Christianity some relics of their old religion remained:

'The pagan "Yuletide" became Christmas, but Scandinavians still use the word "Jul" for Christmas. The fertility rites used in spring to ensure good harvests were substituted by blessings from the Christian priests, but for hundreds of years many farmers also added some of the old rites just to be sure. Each Viking farm had its own "farm-god" or "protector", in modern Danish and Norwegian called a "Nisse" and in Swedish a "Tomte". The Christian St. Nicholas or Santa and the Nisse/Tomte have today become one, and each Christmas Eve the children in Scandinavia are waiting for Father Christmas, or as they call him, the Nisse or Tomte, to arrive with gifts.' www.viking.no


So, does that mean the Scandinavians are guilty of syncretism, mixing their old religion with the new? I would say not, but we should learn a lesson from this and not be so hard on people in Africa and other parts of the world who keep some of their traditions. Mixing in tradition is fine, as long as it is redeemed. Christmas is a good example of that. We, and the Vikings, took a pagan festival and redeemed or Christianised it. I, for one, am very much in favour.

Merry Christmas!

(Here's a link to the BBC series if you want to catch up:

the-last-kingdom-episode-8 (you need to be in the UK))

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Asking the Right Questions in Bible Translation and Scripture Engagement Planning

If you want to get useful answers you have to ask the right questions. Do you agree? Yes, of course you do. In the Bible translation world we often ask a very narrow question when planning for the next stage of work: 'What would you like to see translated next?' Now, if you simply want to translate, and that's it, that question is fine, but what if you want to see some kind of result from your translation work? What if, for instance, you want to see transformation occur? Then a more powerful question to ask the community and positive stakeholders in the project would be: 'What kingdom goals would you like to see reached?' These kingdom goals should meet felt needs of the community - they should solve problems that are apparent to most or all in the community. See below on how those can be met. If that's too abstract, then try, 'What kinds of things, in your extended family, do you tend to worry about?' This will help establish some felt needs, from which...
7 comments
Read more

A Plea Regarding Footnotes in Bible Translation

Recently I was giving input to a team who had worked on Psalms. I noticed that in several places they had included footnotes referring to the New Testament use of those Psalms. One example was a footnote in Ps 34:20 'not one of [his bones] will be broken' that referred to John 19:32, 33, 36 where this prophecy is fulfilled. Now, obviously this is a useful link for readers, but it is better to put it in John's gospel referring back to Psalms. Why? Because the New Testament is (to some extent) a commentary on the Hebrew Bible, whereas the reverse is not true (the Hebrew Bible never refers to the New Testament). There are often two possible ways of reading a Psalm: In its original context, and  As interpreted by the New Testament writers. This is quite important, as the Hebrew Bible belongs to two faith communities, the Jews and the Christians. (Muslims too, to some extent, though they refer to the Torah and the Psalms only). If we translate the Bible in such a way that it onl...
Post a Comment
Read more