Origin of the Odinic Runes?
Robert Rose
Would anyone have info about the relationship between the Odinic Runes
and other systems? The Turks used a runic system that is said to resemble
the Odinic Runes. It is interesting to note that one such Turkic people, the
Khazars, converted to Judaism and became the Ashekenazim of eastern
europe. There are some similarities between Hebrew letter-based mysticism
and runology, but I can't find info beyond that. Also, I found a site that
claims the Runes were originally Turkic in origin.
It's said by "scholars" that the runes were taken from Greek, Latin, or
Etruscan alphabets. But there were originally pre-runic symbols used in
central and northern europe for thousands of years before any of these
alphabets. All this sounds like a bunch of hype, as the Etruscan language
isn't even understood. And that Phoenician was the original "Alphabet"
(although the Indus Valley Civilization and Cuneiform were used much
earlier).
Has anyone heard of a theory that the runes are related to cuneiform?
This sould seem logical as they use straight lines. It's said the straight
lines are because it's difficult to make curves in stone and wood. But
aren't dots even easier than straight lines? Besides, on many runestones
there are intricate carvings of dragons and the like, so carving doesn't
seem much of a challenge.
In addition, the Scythians used some sort of runic type system,
according to Herodotus "Histories". Any alternative theories on the origins
of the Runes? I am of the opinion that the Runes are indigenous, ancient,
and original. Not "borrowed" from another culture, as there is evidence of
pre-runic symbolism thousands of years before Phoenician, Greek, Latin, and
Etruscan seem to have been "invented". I don't understand why there's such a
push to declare the Runes (along with everything else) "borrowed" from the
Middle East? Why is there so much "semito-centrism" in academia?
Also, would anyone know of the relationship between Ogam (used in
Ireland and by the Picts in pre-Scotland) and Odinic Runes? The Ogam
characters are named after trees, according to what I've read. They are
very, very ancient, and no theory has been proposed that links them to
anything.
The Basques of northern Spain and southern France are of Caucasian stock
(related to Georgians of the Caucasus). The Georgian Caucasus script's
origins are unknown. The Basques don't seem to have a distinct writing
system (they use Latin). But perhaps there was at some time in the past?
It's interesting to note that the Greeks acknowledged the Georgians as the
only other civilized people besides Egyptians. They claim their script is
ancient Babylonian (and indeed the Georgians themselves are the descendants
of the Babylonians), but it doesn't resemble Odinic Runes at all. Has anyone
proposed a link between any of these disjointed scripts?
All the best,
Rob
Rorik
Robert Rose wrote:
>Dear Friends,
> Would anyone have info about the relationship between the Odinic Runes
>and other systems?
A lot has been published about the origin of Scandinavian runes and their
relationship to other alphabets. Some references: Moltke, "The Origin of
the Runes," Michigan Germanic Studies, vol. 7, pp. 3-7 (1981); Odenstedt, "A
New Theory of the Origin of the Runic Script," in Old English Runes and
Their Continental Background, pp. 359-87 (1991);..Liestol, "The Emergence of
the Viking Runes," Michigan Germanic Studies, vol. 7, pp. 107-116 (1981).
> It's said by "scholars" that the runes were taken from Greek, Latin, or
>Etruscan alphabets. But there were originally pre-runic symbols used in
>central and northern europe for thousands of years before any of these
>alphabets.
What is your source for this statement?
>All this sounds like a bunch of hype, as the Etruscan language
>isn't even understood.
I suppose we could say the earliest runic inscriptions aren't very well
understood, either. Nevertheless, the structural characteristics of the
runes of the elder futhark bear a striking resemblance to letters of the
Etruscan alphabet.
> . . . It's said the straight
>lines are because it's difficult to make curves in stone and wood. But
>aren't dots even easier than straight lines? Besides, on many runestones
>there are intricate carvings of dragons and the like, so carving doesn't
>seem much of a challenge.
Constructing the runes of straight lines was most valuable for inscribing on
wood. Stonecutters had a lot of time at their disposal and didn't have to
fight the grain of their medium. If you were whipping out a couple hundred
inventory tags to identifiy your cargo, you wouldn't want to have to hassle
with cutting curved lines into wood or bark.
> I am of the opinion that the Runes are indigenous, ancient,
>and original. Not "borrowed" from another culture, as there is evidence of
>pre-runic symbolism thousands of years before Phoenician, Greek, Latin, and
>Etruscan seem to have been "invented".
There's a huge difference between "pre-runic symbolism" and a written
language. The fact that Tacitus mentions the Germans carving marks on lots,
for example, by no means suggests that they had a runic language.
> I don't understand why there's such a
>push to declare the Runes (along with everything else) "borrowed" from the
>Middle East?
I don't know about "everything else," but with runes it's probably because
the Roman, Greek, and Etruscan scripts were in use before there is any
record of a runic language in Scandinavia, certain letters in those scripts
look a lot like Scandinavian runes, and there were contacts between
pre-runic Scandinavian people and areas where those scripts were used.
>Why is there so much "semito-centrism" in academia?
Maybe because so many Western academics are Christian or Jewish?
regards,
rorik
Robert Rose
>relationship to other alphabets. Some references: Moltke, "The Origin of
>the Runes," Michigan Germanic Studies, vol. 7, pp. 3-7 (1981); Odenstedt,
"A
>New Theory of the Origin of the Runic Script," in Old English Runes and
>Their Continental Background, pp. 359-87 (1991);..Liestol, "The Emergence
of
>the Viking Runes," Michigan Germanic Studies, vol. 7, pp. 107-116 (1981).
Thanks, will check it out. One of the problems with Runes is that they are
treated as a mystical subject. The Runes ARE mystical, of course. But the
academic treatment of them is sometimes mystical as well.
>>All this sounds like a bunch of hype, as the Etruscan language
>>isn't even understood.
>
>I suppose we could say the earliest runic inscriptions aren't very well
>understood, either. Nevertheless, the structural characteristics of the
>runes of the elder futhark bear a striking resemblance to letters of the
>Etruscan alphabet.
Maybe it was the other way around? The Etruscans were migrants from the
north, and fair complexioned as well (as were the elite of the Romans, who
claimed descent from them). Maybe Etruscan was a form of Runic instead of
the Runes being derived from Etruscan? Since nobody understand Etruscan, or
where it came from, how can they claim it to be the origin of anything? It
sounds a little like the "Martian-from-outer-space" theories (if you can't
figure it out, it must have come from outer space...) Also, it's sort of
strange that nobody can figure out Etruscan. Haven't they ever heard of a
computer? (or Noam Chompsky for that matter?)
Somewhere I've read about some rock carvings in northern Italy. They are
said to be rather continuous in development from the most ancient of times,
and resemble Runic and Etruscan. Don't know much beyond that.
In addition, the Vikings are not originally Scandianvian. Only a few
thousand years ago Scandianvia was inhabited by a small Eskimoid-looking
people, called Lapps or Suomi. The Germans seem to have originated somewhere
in central and eastern europe. Furthermore, the Indo-european peoples are
recent as well. Only the Basques are left from the original peoples.
>There's a huge difference between "pre-runic symbolism" and a written
>language. The fact that Tacitus mentions the Germans carving marks on
lots,
>for example, by no means suggests that they had a runic language.
There was also a type of Morse code I've read about, which was associated
with Runes. The Vikings were said to have used trumpets to communicate
information. It must have been terrifying to hear the bleets of horns while
they were raiding your village or monastery.
>I don't know about "everything else," but with runes it's probably because
>the Roman, Greek, and Etruscan scripts were in use before there is any
>record of a runic language in Scandinavia, certain letters in those scripts
>look a lot like Scandinavian runes, and there were contacts between
>pre-runic Scandinavian people and areas where those scripts were used.
What about the Hittites? I have heard that they had some type of script?
They brought Iron to the Middle East, along with many other things. I wonder
if their script might be related?
>>Why is there so much "semito-centrism" in academia?
>
>Maybe because so many Western academics are Christian or Jewish?
There used to be Sino-centrism as well. I was "taught" that the Chinese
invented typing and the wheel. It turns out that they write with pictures
and the wheel was brought to China by the Tocharians (a Celtic people who
also had a Phonetic alphabet that the Chinese resisted). We also learned
that Judaism was the origin of Monotheism (it's Zoroastrianism). And that
Al-gebra is Arabic (the name is, but the science is Veddic). I'm wondering
how much of these weird "anthing-but-european" theories have tainted the
study of Runes?
All the best,
Rob
Robert Rose
archaeology:
http://www.uic.rsu.ru/Don_NC/Middle/Xaz_kag.htm
But the site is in Russian. Pretty interesting stuff.
All the best,
Rob
Robert Rose
What was that all about?
Thanks,
Rob
L. M.
Robert Rose wrote:
The Armenen Runes were devised by Guido von List; a good book on the
subject is: "The Secret of the Runes" by Stephen Flowers (aka Edred
Thorsson) [Destiny books isbn 0 89281-207-9 ]
I just did a quick look at amazon.com and they have it for $8.95 plus s&h.
Hope this helps-
Lavrans
Alex Jahnke
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:02:34 GMT, "L. M." <lavr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>Robert Rose wrote:
>> Does anyone know the story of the Armenen Runes and the "Thule Society"?
>> What was that all about?
>
>The Armenen Runes were devised by Guido von List; a good book on the
>subject is: "The Secret of the Runes" by Stephen Flowers (aka Edred
>Thorsson) [Destiny books isbn 0 89281-207-9 ]
But it has nothing to do with Asatru! List had the idea of a
light-race coming from Atlantis. His set of runes were "given" to him
while he was blind and had visions....
Alex
Robert Rose
>>subject is: "The Secret of the Runes" by Stephen Flowers (aka Edred
>>Thorsson) [Destiny books isbn 0 89281-207-9 ]
>
>But it has nothing to do with Asatru! List had the idea of a
>light-race coming from Atlantis. His set of runes were "given" to him
>while he was blind and had visions....
Sounds like me on New Year's. I was so stinking drunk I think I saw the same
thing. Or maybe I was just looking at the carpet? By the way, "spirits"
(alcoholic beverages) are said to be so named because it was believed that
spirits came into people when they imbibed.
Rob
L. M.
Robert Rose wrote:
I don't understand this opinion that von List has nothing to do with Asatru. I
suggest reading the book mentioned above and then make a judgemnt. The runes
are basically the same- the interpretation and methods that came to him during
these visions were the original and unique part. Take it or leave it. It's as
legitimate as choosing to work with the proto-Germanic recreated Futhark, the
AS version or the shortened "Viking" runes. Compared with Blum, von List is
practically pure Asatru.
The problem with the Armanen system is that a close examination of some of
these ideas may be seen by some as "pre-nazi" and therefore corrupted.
Lavrans
Robert Rose
Asatru. I
>suggest reading the book mentioned above and then make a judgemnt. The
runes
I read his book "The Secret of the Runes" and it was very interesting (but a
little over my head in terms of the linguistic theory). As I don't have the
rest of his volumes, is it all hype? Or did Guido von List have a
distinguished background in linguistics? Was he a true "academic"? (not that
they are always reliable authorities) But what is the scoop on Guido von
List? Was he a self-educated expert? Or was he a respected authority?
As far as linguistics and religion is concerned, the Xtian Bible itself has
some notable ideas - the "Word" was considered to BE God, in a certain
sense. Likewise, my anecdotal study of Slavic mythology has a very strong
correlation between words and the quasi-anthropomorphism of spiritual ideas
(the two did not seem to be separated so cleanly among those who actually
lived so close to Nature). This is not a very well-defined subject, so
confusion is easy to run into.
Thank you,
Rob Rose
Mannaz
hieroglyps with translations below them at a local museum and
noticed a rune. No kidding. Uruz lying on its side.
You'll never guess what that hieroglyph means.
Ox.
Mannaz
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Robert Rose
(tradeable/liquid property) just as the Elder Futhark, "Fehu" does. There
are other similarities as well, and Hebrew has a sort of
numerological/mystical branch similar in many ways to Runology (with 3
"Mother" Runes - the Kabbalah is worth reading for some interesting
similarities). I don't know very much about this, and would appreciate any
help and resources out there? Also, the Khazars, ancestors of European Jewry
(along with the Ostragoths from which the German dialect Yiddish comes) used
Turkic runes. I don't know much about Turkic Runes, but I have seen it
mentioned that they may have originated with the Hittites, an Indo-European
people that the Turkic Turks claim as their ancestors. Any info and help
would be appreciated - this is most interesting! As a side note, Uruz was
the ancestor of the modern cow - it was the wild animal like the wolf was
the ancestor of the dog. The last ones died out in the 17th century in
Poland/ByeloRussia, but they have since been re-created through a type of
animal breeding/mongrelization that produces the original strain from the
various breeds derived from it. I don't think the Uruz was indigenous to the
Middle East (but its climate has changed considerably in the last few
thousand years), and I don't think it's indigenous to Africa either? There
is another cow-like animal still living in the wild (but very endanged) in
Cambodia and Vietnam, that some strains of cattle might be derived from (it
is not the same as the european Uruz).
Thanks,
Rob Rose
http://www.runology.org (not up yet)
Mannaz wrote in message <113b3fd7...@usw-ex0104-025.remarq.com>...
Mannaz
have also heard it suggested that Uruz meant the wild oxen in
general. I'm pretty sure that they had wild oxen in the Middle
East (I believe Gilgamesh gave me the idea; I'm not certain, and
could very well be wrong.)
Of course, if anyone asks me where the runes come from, I tell
them "From Gunnigungap (damned if I spelled that one right!),
silly!"
(grumble got to stop posting while drunk. I lose my point...)
Sagamaster
> Yes, I was aware of the nature of the Uruz (a.k.a. aurhochs) but have also
> heard it suggested that Uruz meant the wild oxen in general.
Just a slight correction from an old cattle raiser - an ox is an old(er)
castrated bull. Younger ones that go to slaughter are steers. A more proper
term would be wild bovine, as a ox cannot produce more of itself.
--
Sagamaster
"Now that I've given up hope, I feel much better!"
"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do."
Mannaz
Robert Rose
Kabbalist practices of Esoteric Judaism with Runology and Asatru/Odinism?
The Khazars who later adopted Judaism seem to have adopted Iranian Runes for
their script - would anyone have further info if they used them in the same
manner as the Teutons? The only alphabets (Runes are a "FUTHARK", not
alpha-beta...) that have the same mystical and numerological associations
and practices are Ogam and Hebrew (but I'm not sure about Sakskrit?) What
makes the Kabbalist-Runology like possible would be the fact that a strong
Germanic component adopted Judaism (along with Khazarian peoples), and a
Germanic language is spoken by Ashekenazim (Yiddish). Would anyone have
further info or know of on-line resources? Please note that it is not my
intention to offend anyone, as this area might be troubled with political
issues, which I hope to avoid.
Thank you,
Rob Rose
http://www.wotan.org
Julia A M Simon
Robert Rose <rober...@robert-rose.com> wrote:
[snip]
:> The only alphabets (Runes are a "FUTHARK", not
:> alpha-beta...) that have the same mystical and numerological associations
:> and practices are Ogam and Hebrew (but I'm not sure about Sakskrit?)
AFAIK the Greek letters had the same numeric values as the corresponding
Hebrew letters; the ancient Greeks even kept a few letters around that they
had no use for (sampi and qoppa come to mind) just because they needed them
for their numeric value... I don't know, though, if the Greek letters had
any *mystical* associations.
I'm relatively sure, though, that the Sanskrit letters (Devanagari) have
neither numerical values nor mystical qualities assigned to them.
About the word "alphabet": it's the accepted term for writing systems where
one symbol ~= one sound, like it or not... and the runes are not the only
writing system of this kind that is called "alphabet" even though it's not
an "alpha-beta" system as you point out... Even the Korean writing system,
which is definitely not related to either the Hebrew (aleph-beth) or Greek
(alpha-beta) systems, may be called an alphabet (actually it has alphabetic
and syllabic characteristics, but let's not get into the gory details
here). On the other hand, I've heard the Hebrew writing system, which is
definitely "aleph-beth", referred to as more of a syllabic than an
alphabetic writing system, because in unvocalized writing (i.e. most of the
time) one Hebrew letter often doesn't correspond to a sound, but to one
half of a syllable or even a whole syllable... On the other hand, some
extremists call English writing "nearly logographic".
But I digress...
Anyway, you may take pleasure in the German word for "letter": "Buchstabe",
very probably derived from a word referring to a stick or other longish
piece of wood with carved runes (possibly even a "rune stave" used for
divination). :-)
:> What
:> makes the Kabbalist-Runology like possible would be the fact that a strong
:> Germanic component adopted Judaism (along with Khazarian peoples), and a
:> Germanic language is spoken by Ashekenazim (Yiddish).
Interesting! I know that Yiddish didn't show up as a language (or at least
dialect) of its own until after Central Europe had been quite thoroughly
Christianized; but of course that doesn't mean that there couldn't have
been contacts between (rune-using) German- or Germanic-speaking peoples and
Jewish mysticists... Unfortunately it seems hard to find out exactly how
old Kabbalism (or however one spells it :) is; the most exact I could come
up with is that it predates the Middle Ages... and as with most mystical
systems, a thorough search will probably turn up a dozen different stories
about its origins and age...
CU,
Julia 8-)
--
Julia Simon --- Hyppääjätär --- Sprachen-Freak vom Dienst
si...@cc.helsinki.fi, http://www.lingsoft.fi/~simon/
Don't you just love the way everything I say sounds important?
--- Mustafa, "You Wish"
Robert Rose
Would you know anything about the origins of the Iranian Runes? Herodotus
mentions the use of something like Runes in divination among the Scythians
(who were related to the early Iranians). Was the Avestan language ever
written in Runic? (according to scholars the Avesta of Zarathushtra was
unwritten and remembered as song-poems). The Khazars seem to have adopted
the Iranian Runes. The Turks claim they invented Runes themselves, but in
Turkey they claim to be descendants of the Hittites, an indo-european people
who introduced many technologies into the Middle East (e.g. - iron). The
Turks are Finno-Oghuric, however (but probably a mixture of Turkic tribes
and Hittites who were eventually absorbed into their population). Is there
any scholarly information about Turkic Runes? Runic historical and cultural
information seems to be a mystical as the Runes themselves.
Thank you,
Rob Rose
Simon Kesenci
claim to descend from everything from the Hittites to Jenghiz Khan. The fact is
that they don't know what the fuck they are because their government does
everything in its power to convince them that they are Turks, regardless of
their actual lineage.
According to my speculations/suspicions, the people in Turkey are mostly of
Greek, Armenian, Assyrian, Arabic, and Persian blood. Few of them are real
Turks, which basically look like Mongols. Some say that pure Turks have blond
hair and blue eyes, just like Mustafa "God of the Turks" Kemal. Hitler, anyone?
Some "Turks" point to Orhon runic epitaphs as evidence of Turkish literacy in
the first millennium of the vulgar era <<giggle>>. I am actually interested in
seeing more evidence of Turkic runes.
I am also interested in the ancient Iranian alphabet from before the Persians
adopted Arabic script. I have not seen any sources of this, but I would like to
see "Zarathustra's alphabet".
-S, a "Turk".
Robert Rose
>Greek, Armenian, Assyrian, Arabic, and Persian blood. Few of them are real
>Turks, which basically look like Mongols. Some say that pure Turks have
blond
>hair and blue eyes, just like Mustafa "God of the Turks" Kemal. Hitler,
anyone?
Dunno about Hitler and/or Mustafa's fair complexion? (BTW - were the Turks
neutral during WWII?) But the Mongol leader Chinghis Xhan had red hair and
green eyes. I don't really see green eyes like Russians have outside of
their country. Emeral eyes can be quite striking in appearance. And the
ancestors of part of Ashekenazi Jewry, the Khazars, were Turkic and had red
hair. The Tatars, descendants of Chinghis Xhan's Mongols, look quite
caucasian in race, but tend to have dark hair and eyes. Keep in mind that
racial origins can undergo a shift over time - What would you think
Englishmen look like judging from the Jamaicans? Or typical New Yorkers of
today? Or an American in Idaho in 100 years. Genetics are useful, but
certainly not conclusive. Linguistically, the Turks are not related to the
Indo-Europeans, but are in the Finno-Oghuric language family, from what I
have read.
>Some "Turks" point to Orhon runic epitaphs as evidence of Turkish literacy
in
>the first millennium of the vulgar era <<giggle>>. I am actually
interested in
>seeing more evidence of Turkic runes.
Is it possible that the ancient Runes in Turkey are not Turkic at all?
>I am also interested in the ancient Iranian alphabet from before the
Persians
>adopted Arabic script. I have not seen any sources of this, but I would
like to
>see "Zarathustra's alphabet".
As I understand, the Gathas were sung/chanted (like most ancient doctrines
and histories). They were lyrical poems. If they had a system of writing, it
is interesting to wonder why they weren't written down? And Ogham, the
Celtic script, was never used to write down the spells and incantations of
the Druids, because it was said it would fall into the hands of the masses.
Likewise, the Christian Bible was not printed until late in european history
because it was not for the masses, and the Roman Church wanted to keep its
monopoly on heaven and hell.
If the Turks did have Runic, what is the evidence? Was it an ancient system?
I don't know the connection between Runes and what Herodotus described of
the Indo-european Scythians (Slavic ancestors)?
>-S, a "Turk".
Thank you!
Rob Rose
Antti Kuntsi
> certainly not conclusive. Linguistically, the Turks are not related to the
> Indo-Europeans, but are in the Finno-Oghuric language family, from what I
> have read.
A friend of mine, who studies linguistics(sp?), told that Turkish belongs
to the Altaic language family. She also continued that there is a theory where
the altaic and the fenno-ugric languages might originate from a common
language family a _long_ time ago.
--
______________________________________________________________
|O| ----------------------------------------------------------
| | |Twisted mind? No, just bent in several strategic places.|
`\| |___________________________________mic...@iki.fi/mickut/|
Julia A M Simon
Robert Rose <rober...@robert-rose.com> wrote:
[snip snip]
:> Linguistically, the Turks are not related to the
:> Indo-Europeans, but are in the Finno-Oghuric language family, from what I
:> have read.
As Antti said, Turkish belongs to the Altaic language family, and its
relation to the Finno-Ugric/Uralic family (the one Finnish, Hungarian etc.
belong to) is unsure. (And please be careful not to confuse a people (the
Turks) with a language (Turkish)... two peoples speaking related languages
doesn't prove that they're genetically related, and vice versa!)
Anyway, there is some similarity between Altaic and Finno-Ugric languages,
but not enough (IMHO) to show a relation.
[more snip]
:> Likewise, the Christian Bible was not printed until late in european history
:> because it was not for the masses, and the Roman Church wanted to keep its
:> monopoly on heaven and hell.
Looks like the Bible wasn't even *translated* to the local languages for
most of Christian history! Or at least I don't know of any Bible
translations between the one to Latin - around 400 CE - and the ones that
started cropping up after 1500... :-}
As for the questions you asked me earlier about runes: sorry, I don't know;
but maybe you'll get some answers in sci.lang?
Robert Rose
>to the Altaic language family. She also continued that there is a theory
where
>the altaic and the fenno-ugric languages might originate from a common
>language family a _long_ time ago.
The "ugric" is from Lomonosov, a sort of Russian "Benjamin Franklin" (not
sure what "Altaic" means). He noted the similarities between Hungarian and a
remote people in the far interior of Russia, the "Oghuri" (might be related
to the Russian word "pickle"?). (MGU - Moscow State University - is named
after Lomonosov, who began life as a slave) The latest theory is that
Estonian, Hungarian, Turkic, Korean, and Japanese are all related distantly.
These peoples all have rather obscure racial origins, the Koreans being
extremely Sinitic, while the Estonians are extremely Nordic, and the Turks
are extremely Mediterranean. Language and racial identity do not always
correlate.
Thanks,
Rob
Robert Rose
>most of Christian history! Or at least I don't know of any Bible
>translations between the one to Latin - around 400 CE - and the ones that
>started cropping up after 1500... :-}
Please my other post about "The Saxon Savior" book about the Saxon oriented
translation of the Christian Bible.
Rob Rose
crowboy
you deny having written what follows?
well, i don't know about the saxon version, but wasn't there a gothic
version sometime in the 4th-5th? might have been a translation of an arian
version though...did the arians have a separate text or was their dispute
mostly over interpretation?
-- joe crow
"everything i need to know about life i learned by killing smart people
and eating their brains..."
Julia A M Simon
crowboy <crow...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:> The court calls Robert Rose of rober...@robert-rose.com to the stand! Do
:> you deny having written what follows?
:>>> Looks like the Bible wasn't even *translated* to the local languages for
:>>> most of Christian history! Or at least I don't know of any Bible
:>>> translations between the one to Latin - around 400 CE - and the ones that
:>>> started cropping up after 1500... :-}
:>>
:>> Please my other post about "The Saxon Savior" book about the Saxon oriented
:>> translation of the Christian Bible.
:>>
:>> Rob Rose
:> well, i don't know about the saxon version, but wasn't there a gothic
:> version sometime in the 4th-5th? might have been a translation of an arian
:> version though...
You mean the one by Wulfila? He lived in the 4th century CE (c.310-c.382).
He did follow (and teach) Arian Christianity, but I don't know if the Bible
texts he translated were the "normal" ones or an Arian version...