Thank you for such a thoroughly enjoyable discussion Graham, I hope we have many more.

I think more caution needs to be applied to this. For example, just offhandedly saying that Tiwaz was originally the 'chief god' of Germanic people. Aside from the fact that a 'chief god' might be an inappropriate idea for Germanic culture, whereby someone's chief god could seemingly depend on their status and occupation, there's just no real reason to assume this. Tiwaz is not a reflex of Dyeus Phter. It's a reflex of deywos, a related term that just means god. This also gave a reflex in Luwian (also called Tiwaz, by coincidence) who was not the chief god. Given how long Anatolian split off, it's entirely possible that this deywos figure never inherited any status from Dyeus Phter. Saying Tiwaz was the chief god is just far too reliant on this common false assumption about the etymology. For all we know Freyr might have been the most prominent deity before Woðanaz was conceived, which is itself an event that may be anything from 1st century BC to deep Pre-Germanic times.

I'm also not aware of Mercury having ravens, but Óðinn having a hat in one of his many forms 1,000 years after Tacitus made this interpretation seems like a pretty weak superficial similarity compared to the fact that both deities have a strong role and association with the underworld and afterlife.

What a delight to see both of you cooperate.

pls do more topics like these....absolutely love it. keep it up graham!

Love this! I always had a feeling that Baldr was inspired by Near Eastern mythology (probably from the Mediterranean/Levant). Esp. since he's a dying god, which is a popular occurrence in Levantine mythology. The whole video was very informative.

I'm translating the Lexicon Frisicum and having a blast learning all the cool old Frysk expressions.

There isn't enough folklore in there.

Thank the lord for this channel.
Enriching the soul multiple times a week

Holy shit I am blown away by how you just start the video with the first question.

It’s incredible, I’m gobsmacked.

You are opening up studies, interests and heaven knows what for me. I fell in love with Old English over 60 years ago; the ever-wider range of 😊studies and thinking that followed are a joy to recall and think about some more. Thank you!

Exactly the subject i was looking for this week, it's providence

Wow what a great matchup! Two of my favorite intellectuals on Youtube.

18:20 Yima (son of Vivanghat) is in the Zoroastrian text the Vendidad.  He is often compared to the Biblical Noah, except Yima’s ark is more like an underground base than a boat.

@43:41 Mna is woman in Irish

Deep!

I need help translating a runestone!

@26:30 how could they think darkness was emitted? we have shadows? Was this a real widespread belief?

For Wednesday=Mierocles (English to Spanish/Latin)

Woden=Odin=Hermes=Mercury, Germanic Odin and Latin/Greek Hermes are both the Psychopomp

Immediate clicked

@19:05 Thomas means twin, is it somehow related to twisco (sp?]

4:55  I think that the framework of monotheism creates a different intellectual environment than polytheism.  Polytheism is more conducive to plurality of beliefs — mortals can disagree with eachother about the nature of gods or existence, they can have different "favorite gods" that they devote themselves to, you could be a Stoic or an Epicurean, you can have philosophy supplemental to religion — but if there is one true god with one true way, in morals and praxis and belief, your options are much more limited.  No sooner had Rome legitimized Christianity than they started excommunicating eachother and infighting over doctrine.  If one singular truth exists, then everyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.  And if sinners are better dead then left alive to sin more, then.  Well.  Plurality and agreement to have different expressions of religion isn't an option.  Dissenters are either dead or far away — at best, if forced to coexist, they're seen as misguided.  Polytheism doesn't necessarily have that limitation in the same way.  Of course dissenters in polytheistic cultures can be persecuted in other ways, but like.  The framework of the religion itself recognizes the diversity of expressions of existence.  There is nuance embedded in their deities, because there's not just One Good and One Bad.  You can recognize that the power doesn't mean someone is righteous with that power or deserving of it just because they Have it, you can think the gods are unjust or selfish — just like individuals are.

I may stand corrected as I don't have such a good understanding of monotheistic faiths like Zoroastrianism, and I'm not knowledgeable about the culture of ancient persia.  Afaik, it was known to be tolerant of other religions (persecuted pagan intellectuals expelled from the byzantine empire were welcomed in), and examples like Khosrau persecuting the Mazdakites were moreso for political reasons (mazdakites undermined the nobility/ruling class) than actual doctrine.  But again, Thats about as deep as my understanding of pre-islamic Persia goes.  

But the Abrahamic faiths, the most widespread in our modern era, tend to be hardliners with a lush history of  excommunicating or murdering people who disagree with them.

I think its not really helpful to view old European beliefs through this modern worldview we have that is heavily coloured by presumptions of Abrahamic faiths, which cropped up from a different environment.  It's a shame that there isn't an alternative for most of us, and the Abrahamic faiths so thoroughly overtook any other belief system that could've given us a better analog/conceptualization of old European religions (and, extended through colonialism, world religions in general. ☹️☹️ So much has been lost.)