Why is the Lokasenna the most perfect religious writing ever created...

Nice shifting of the goal posts. They had a written language regardless of whether they used the latin alphabet or not, and Snorri was copying from earlier sources.

Are you going to argue that the Sumerians didn't have literacy because they carved letters onto clay bricks next? Fuck off with this stupid shit.

>Snorri's source for the Eddas was the oral tradition.
No scholar believes this; they believe both Snorri's prose Edda and the Poetic Edda worked off of some prior, now lost written source.

>Those crude scrawlings do not qualify as literature
See They most definitely did have literature, even written literature. The Ragnarsdrapa predates Snorri by over 300 years.

>The pagans did not have parchment technology
[citation badly needed]

>nor did they have a society capable of producing clerks
They did, however, have a society capable of producing court poets, one in which every two bit petty king had one, in fact.

Snorri relied on oral tradition did not copy any written source when compiling the Eddas because the narratives were too complex for the pagans to write in Futhark.

If you can find my a single example of a full length narrative written in runes I will apologize and leave the thread but if you cannot do this it would be nice if you apologized to me.

see

Also I should clarify; a full length written narrative in runes from the Viking-era. Later reconstructions are outside the current debate of whether the original pagan Norsemen were literate.

>>the current debate of whether the original pagan Norsemen were literate
There is no debate, they were literate, they just didn't use latin letters.>>an apology
For what exactly? You're that tedious moron who posts medieval christian artwork while slagging off on any europolytheist faith. You'll get no apologies from me simply because I refuse to go along with your bullshit.

In other words, see this guy's post.

You cannot fulfill my request because full length narratives in Futhark do not exist and all the examples of historical Futhark are carvings that are rarely more than a few sentences. The pagans were incapable of producing anything beyond this because their society did not have an equivalent of a monastic system that could educate people how to produce actual literature.

Your request is irrelevant and monasteries are not the only means of producing books, or other forms of writing.

The norse were literate. They wrote down things including stories about their culture and religion.

>Snorri relied on oral tradition did not copy any written source when compiling the Eddas because the narratives were too complex for the pagans to write in Futhark.
Which is of course why he can be found copying stuff, almost word for word, from other sources like the Altuna Runestone. And of course your "objection" makes no sense, because FUTHARK IS A FUCKING ALPHABET, NOT A LANGUAGE.

In addition to your goalpost shifting, flat out ignoring the post you are "responding" to, and your other general idicocy, you are simply wrong.

>If you can find my a single example of a full length narrative written in runes I will apologize and leave the thread
Rok Runestone. Produced, around 800 A.D. Old Norse, Elder Futhark script. It tells a (short) legend about Theodoric the great. Apologize, and get lost.

They carved simple phrases into burial stones and weaponry, nothing substantive enough for Snorri to use as a basis for the Eddas and it is a historical fact that a pagan Norseman never put ink on parchment.

See this guy's post.You are wrong.

>Altuna Runestone

There are only two sentences on this. If you think this qualifies as serving as the basis for the Eddas then I just have to lol.

>Rok Runestone

Thank you for finding the longest example of written Futhark but it is a short poem not a full length narrative so does not fulfill my request.

>Rok Runestone.
To add more to this post. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rök_Runestone

"The following is one translation of the text: most researchers agree on how the runes have been deciphered, but the interpretation of the text and the meaning are still a subject of debate. The first part is written in ljóðaháttr meter, and the part about Theoderic is written in the fornyrðislag meter. (See alliterative verse for an explanation of these meters.)

In memory of Vémóðr/Vámóðr stand these runes.
And Varinn coloured them, the father,
in memory of his dead son.

I say the folktale / to the young men, which the two war-booties were, which twelve times were taken as war-booty, both together from various men.

I say this second, who nine generations ago lost his life with the Hreidgoths; and died with them for his guilt.

Þjóðríkr the bold,
chief of sea-warriors,
ruled over the shores of the Hreiðsea.
Now he sits armed
on his Goth(ic horse),
his shield strapped,
the prince of the Mærings.

I say this the twelfth, where the horse of Gunnr sees fodder on the battlefield, where twenty kings lie.

This I say as thirteenth, which twenty kings sat on Sjólund for four winters, of four names, born of four brothers: five Valkis, sons of Hráðulfr, five Hreiðulfrs, sons of Rugulfr, five Háisl, sons of Hôrðr, five Gunnmundrs/Kynmundrs, sons of Bjôrn.

Now I say the tales in full. Someone ...

I say the folktale / to the young men, which of the line of Ingold was repaid by a wife's sacrifice.

I say the folktale / to the young men, to whom is born a relative, to a valiant man. It is Vélinn. He could crush a giant. It is Vélinn ... [Nit]

I say the folktale / to the young men: Þórr. Sibbi of Vé, nonagenarian, begot (a son)."

The norse were capable of writing things with their non-latin script. Long complex things even. You are wrong.

>Long complex things even

The longest example of Furthark in existence is shorter than a child's book report and you want to say this is literature? Are you absolutely mad?!

More goal post shifting. I'll keep saying this until you get it.

The norse were literate, they used a runic script to write things down, they had a literate culture and they wrote about their history, culture and religion. Snorri was copying from earlier written sources.

>a literate culture

This is an abuse of the English language.

Longest writing that has survived and that I know of, yes. The most likely reason why there's not more is because people were re-purposing the stones for building materials among other things. This does not mean they never wrote down other things, it just means that they didn't survive for the above mentioned reason.

Your posts are tedious trolling.

Mate carving things into rocks is not the same as having a literate culture. Books lad books are what you are missing and I highly suggest you try reading one sometime.

So every culture that didn't write things onto parchment didn't have literacy or a literate culture? The sumerians were illiterate? Are you really this dumb?

Also who says they didn't have parchment? Parchment is hilariously perishable and any thing written on it would be lost when the parchment breaks down/disintergrates.

Go away you fool.

No, you go away. You just want to insult and piss on anyone who isn't christian in general and people who observe euro polytheist faiths in general.

You're the fool here, you should leave.

>people who observe euro polytheist faiths in particular.
Fixed.

That was my first post. You're being ridiculous if you believe there was a strong textual tradition in pre-Christian Scandinavia. It simply didn't exist.

>sumerians
accounting does not equal a textual tradition

The Sumerians had narratives which has been my point since the very beginning of this thread and I'm emphasizing parchment because it was one of the clear distinctions between Christian and pagan civilization. Also the pagans did not have parchment because no archaeological evidence has been found to suggest that they were capable of producing it and from what we know of their culture they did not have a use for it. Training clerks capable of writing required a complex infrastructure and education system that the pagan Norse simply did not have.

>because it was one of the clear distinctions between Christian and pagan civilization
Hmm? The classical era Greeks wrote on parchment tho.

>>The Sumerians had narratives
The only reason we even know about most the stuff they wrote down is because of the Assyrians burning their cities. The clay bricks they wrote stuff on were preserved due to the flames. Without that we'd have no evidence of them writing down much of anything.

>>parchment etc
>>because no archaeological evidence has been found to suggest that they were capable of producing it.
>>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchment
There is nothing in the process of producing parchment that anyone with access to animal hides, liquor and basic iron tools would have been incapable of. The onus is on you to explain this asinine idea that the norse couldn't and didn't make it.

>>training clerks, education system, etc.
They had a language, they had people who could write/carve in that language. That's all you need to record things.

>>strong textual tradition
Nice goal post shifting. I'm not saying they wrote as much as the greeks or the romans here. But rather, that they were literate and they wrote things down.

>But rather, that they were literate and they wrote things down.
No one is arguing that they did not. I am not shifting the goals. You are simply misunderstanding. A strong textual tradition (read each word carefully) implies a mythos dependent on the written word. This was not the case in pre-Christian Scandinavia and was not even the case in Hellenic Greece. These societies relied on an oral tradition interpreted by an esoteric priestly caste which is directly opposed to the exoteric Christian religion which was based on the textual tradition of the written Word.

This thread is about medieval Northern Europe.

There is no evidence to suggest that they produced parchment! This is varg-tier reasoning to think that the lack of evidence of something is proof that it happened. .

>>No one is arguing that they did not.
The other guy in this thread is saying that the norse were illiterates who didn't write things down. I don't really give a shit about the rest of your post to be quite honest, as I am not particularly interested in a debate regarding the relative merits of the way polytheist priests and monotheist priests did things.

CARVING IS NOT THE SAME AS WRITING.

INSCRIPTIONS ARE NOT LITERATURE.

Doesn't matter, the process to produce parchment was hardly rocket science. They were more then capable of making it, and they almost certainly did as it was a handy way of recording things. The lack of surviving parchment writings in comparison to carvings on stones is because parchment is really fragile in comparison to stones.

See this guy here?He's the one who is saying they were illiterates.

>a debate regarding the relative merits of the way polytheist priests and monotheist priests did things.
You keep acting like I'm a Christian apologist and it's tainting the entire discussion.

I have no dog in this fight. I am simply stating that a written mythological text simply did not exist in pre-Christian Scandinavia. This is not a "hit" on Pagans, so relax.

Scandinavia believes were primarily oral and the tradition was passed orally among a priestly caste who shared the myths with the people. This changed when Christian scholasticism arrived and brought with it a strong textual tradition. What is a strong textual tradition?
Think of Alexandria. Think of the hundreds of clerks employed in Alexandria whose sole profession was the copying and cataloging of textual documents. This system simply cannot be compared to pre-Christian Scandinavian practices which were ORAL.

>they almost certainly did as it was a handy way of recording things.

>>CARVING IS NOT THE SAME AS WRITING.
Doesn't need to be to be evidence for literacy. They had a script. They were literate. Deal with it.

>>INSCRIPTIONS ARE NOT LITERATURE.
Again, were the sumerians illiterate or not?

>Scandinavia believes
should be
>Scandinavian beliefs

>>I am simply stating that a written mythological text simply did not exist in pre-Christian Scandinavia.
Unproveable claim. I already explained why there is little to no surviving parchment from their culture as opposed to stone carvings.

Want to prove that wrong? Explain why they couldn't have produced parchment.

THE SUMERIANS HAD WRITTEN NARRATIVES. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT IT?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language
THEY WROTE THINGS ON CLAY BRICKS, MOST OF WHICH ONLY SURVIVED BECAUSE THE ASSYRIANS CAME THROUGH BURNINATING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT.

>Unproveable claim.
What? Every single primary source we have suggests Norse mythology was oral. This is commonly known. Runestones are in no way shape or form suggestive of a textual tradition. In fact, the runes themselves suggest the histories are oral and not based on text.

This is why you have no equivalent to the "logos" in Paganism and no mention of a prized written word with Pagan ideals. It was ORAL. Every single part of the religion suggests it was oral.

A strong textual tradition did not exist in pre-Christian Scandinavia.

>>What? Every single primary source we have suggests Norse mythology was oral. This is commonly known. Runestones are in no way shape or form suggestive of a textual tradition. In fact, the runes themselves suggest the histories are oral and not based on text.
Except this is wrong, because we have copies of written works from before guys like Snorri ever came along. Some of these written works reference polytheist deities. It is therefore logical to assume that there were polytheist scandinavian writings that simply didn't survive. Parchment doesn't last long when exposed to the elements.

Varg in history if you don't have evidence for something you don't assume this means that it existed. Please try to understand this. I have to go to bed now, goodnight.

THE SUMERIANS HAD COMPLEX NARRATIVES THAT ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO THE BURIAL EPITAPHS AND SHORT POETRY FOUND ON THE RUNESTONES. GOODNIGHT.

Wrong. Producing parchment is something anyone who has access to alcohol, animal hides and iron tools. There is no reason to assume that the scandinavians didn't have it. This is not some sort of extraordinary claim.

>>THE SUMERIANS HAD COMPLEX NARRATIVES THAT ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO THE BURIAL EPITAPHS AND SHORT POETRY FOUND ON THE RUNESTONES. GOODNIGHT.
THE ONLY REASON YOU CAN CLAIM THIS IS BECAUSE THE ASSYRIANS SET EVERYTHING ON FIRE AND FURTHERMORE THEY WEREN'T USING PARCHMENT SO BY YOUR IDIOTIC STANDARDS THEY WEREN'T LITERATE.

>we have copies of written works from before guys like Snorri ever came along

Citations please.

Check this guy's posts.
>>The Ragnarsdrapa predates Snorri by over 300 years.
Also check here for something else related to Snorri.He liked to copy things from other sources.

And i thought anglo's were the shitposters

>we have copies of written works from before guys like Snorri ever came along
>we have copies of written works
>we have copies
>copies

Everything you referenced was an oral story passed along until it was compiled by Christians into a textual format.

Homer was a poet who created many poems. Homer was illiterate. Does that make sense?

>>Everything you referenced was an oral story passed along until it was compiled by Christians into a textual format.
You have no proof of this. The originals did not survive because parchment is very fragile.

>You have no proof of this.
You are out of your depth, brother. Alliterative verse and all other "verse" used in poetry is derived from the rhythm of the spoken word. The Edda was compiled to understand the subtleties in the various oral myths and to preserve them for further study.

You are suggesting that the pre-Christian Norse had a class of scribes preparing and copying oral tales which is fantastically false and supported by nothing but conjecture.

>>You are suggesting that the pre-Christian Norse had a class of scribes preparing and copying oral tales which is fantastically false and supported by nothing but conjecture.
Nope. I made no mention of them having the equivalent of monks or anything like that. All I'm saying is that it is more then reasonable to assume that the polytheist norse had parchment because producing it is not something they would have been incapable of doing because all it really requires is alcohol, animal hides and iron tools, and that the reason why no parchment from the polytheist era survives is because it was very fragile and that they probably didn't have a class of people who went around preserving old books/parchments or whatever else.

>All I'm saying is that it is more then reasonable to assume that the polytheist norse had parchment
No. No no no no no no no.

The men were called Skalds for fucking Christ's sake. Skalds. Or shouters. And these Skalds composed their epics in the 900's, at the earliest. You are suggesting the fucking Norse developed and lost a textual tradition within a few hundred years. This is just fucking stupid. I'm done here.

Lesee now, the norse had

1. A written language in the form of runic script
2. Runestones with with said script carved onto them
3.All the necessary materials to make parchment
4.A lack of a class of people like christian monks who went around preserving texts with varying degrees of effectiveness. Skalds were not in the habit of doing this for whatever reason as far as I know.
Given all of this, why is it so hard to believe that the polytheist norse had parchment, but little to none of it survives because parchment is fragile and they didn't have people who would go around looking for texts to preserve?