The Gods Thor and Odin

[Hrolf Kraki]

What does everyone think about the Gods Thor and Odin? I have really no scientific basis for my ideas, as really none exist (at least that I know of). But I think Odin was a great chieftain who lived long ago and who led his people (the Germanic tribes) to greener pastures in Scandinavia. I think Thor might have been that ingenious blacksmith who figured out he could extract iron from peat bogs. Maybe that is why they are so revered by the Germanic peoples and became Gods. Anyone else have any ideas? Maybe about other Gods too? Let's hear them! :)

[Octothorpe]

A good question, HK. I've often thought of it as a sort of continuum, where one's belief in the gods occupies more than one stand. Let's have some examples, shall we?

Some Heathens see the gods as tribal concepts, ideas about the world that the ancestors generated in the past. In order to understand the ancestors, we follow (somewhat) in their footsteps. I've known some secular Jews like this, who really don't believe in the reality of Yahweh, but they'll wear the sacred ritual items when in temple as a way of bonding with their relatives and co-religionists.

Others might see the Allfather and the Thunderer as personifications of natural forces to be respected by humans. To live well on Midgard is to respect the powers of nature and be good stewards of what we have. That's reason enough for them to venerate the gods.

Still others might see the gods as 'real' entities, but not as the ancestors ideated them--more like amorphous, energy-creatures, or the potentialities looming out there in meme-space.

Going further, some Heathens will treat the gods as gods, but with an agnostic attitude of realization that they might not really be there at all, but that it is a good spiritual practice to act as if they were there.

And, of course, there are those who will see the gods as the honest-to-goodness, mead-swilling, giant-fighting real deal, ready to swoop down and interact with the children of Rig at any time.

And again, depending on your frame of mind and stage of life, you might hold more than one of these ideas (and that's just a tiny sampling, to be sure) at different times, or even more than one at a time.

So, what's the bottom line? I'd say they're all equally valid points of view. Mankind's relationship with the metaphysical world are as multitudinous as mankind itself.

Question: why was this posted here, rather than in the Heathenry section? Just curious!

[Cato]

If you're a Heathen, this is just a case of euhemerizing the Gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus and specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus#Euhemerism_and_the_early_Christians). It was a favorite trick of the Christians, who euhemerized the Gods of the Greeks and Romans as a way to denigrate them, citing that Jupiter was not a God but a deified man from ancient times. I find this contemptuous. If suggests that the Gods of the ancient Pagans and Heathens are merely man-made deities and not true Gods. Saxo Grammaticus used this as a way to explain the existence of Odin, portraying him as a mere mortal magician. Saxo even screws things up iirc, when he says that Thor came from Troy (Thor derives from Troy or somesuch) and that Odin was a descendant of this Thor who came from Troy.

:)

[Hrolf Kraki]

Question: why was this posted here, rather than in the Heathenry section? Just curious!

Ah you know I probably should have posted it there. I'm just so sick of all this Christian talk and I'd like to divert attention away from these foreign concepts by discussing our gods.

[Cato]

IMO the Gods represent beings to strive to rival and beings to properly honor. All of this pap about bending a knee to God(s) is Semitic nonsense, created by ancient Semitic societies (which were typically dominated by aboslute monarchs/autocrats). Is it any surprise that the idea of a tyrant God should arise from societies that had tyrant rulers?

[Osweo]

Ditto the comments of our comrades above, but for my tuppence, I believe that etymology is the best way of refuting the euhemerists. Seeing how the name of a god developed, as a concept over generations and centuries, how it relates to names of figures in related cultures, languages and traditions, easily topples any ideas like those who referred to in the opening post.

Wiki says:

The attested forms of the theonym are traditionally derived from Proto-Germanic *Wōđanaz[2] (in Old Norse word-initial *w- was dropped before rounded vowels and so the name became Óðinn). Adam von Bremen etymologizes the god worshipped by the 11th-century Scandinavian pagans as "Wodan id est furor" ("Wodan, which means 'fury'"). An obsolete alternative etymology, which has been adhered to by many early writers including Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa in his Libri tres de occulta philosophia, is to give it the same root as the word god itself, from its Proto-Germanic form *ǥuđ-. This is not tenable today according to most modern academics, except for the Lombardic name Godan, which may go back to *ǥuđanaz (see also goði, gaut, god).

It should be noted at this point that Old Norse had two different words spelled óðr, one an adjective and the other a noun. The adjective means "mad, frantic, furious, violent",[3] and is cognate with Old English wōd.[4] The noun means "mind, wit, soul, sense" and "song, poetry",[5] and is cognate with Old English wōþ. In compounds, óð- means "fiercely energetic" (e.g. óð-málugr "speaking violently, excited").

Both Old Norse words are from Proto-Germanic *wōþuz[6], continuing Pre-Germanic *wātus.[7] Two extra-Germanic cognates are the Proto-Celtic *wātus "mantic poetry" (continued in Irish fáith "poet" and Welsh gwawd "praise-poetry") and the Latin vātes "prophet, seer" (a possible loan from Proto-Celtic *wātis, Gaulish ουατεις). A possible, but uncertain, cognate is Sanskrit api-vat- "to excite, awaken" (RV 1.128.2). The Proto-Indo-European meaning of the root is therefore reconstructed as relating to spiritual excitation. The Old Norse semantic split is reflected in Adam von Bremen's testimony of the synchronic understanding of the name as "fury", rather than "poetry" or similar.

Meid[8] suggested Proto-Germanic *-na- as a suffix expressing lordship ("Herrschersuffix"), in view of words such as Odin's name Herjann "lord of armies", drótinn "lord of men", and þjóðann "lord of the nation", which would result in a direct translation of "lord of spiritual energy", "lord of poetry" or similar. It is sufficient, however, and more common, to assume a more general meaning of pertinence or possession for the suffix, inherited from PIE *-no-, to arrive at roughly the same meaning.

Rübekeil (2003:29)[9] draws attention to the suffix variants *-ina- (in Óðinn) vs. *-ana- (in Woden, Wotan). This variation, if considered at all, was dismissed as "suffix ablaut" by earlier scholars. There are, however, indications from outside Old Norse of a suffix *-ina-: English Wednesday (rather than *Wodnesday) via umlaut goes back to *wōđina-. Rübekeil concludes that the original Proto-Germanic form of the name was *Wōđinaz, yielding Old Norse Óðinn and unattested Anglo-Saxon *Wēden, and that the attested West Germanic forms are early medieval "clerical" folk etymologies, formed under the impression of synchronic association with terms for "fury".

The pre-Proto-Germanic form of the name would then be *Wātinos. Rübekeil suggests that this is a loan from Proto-Celtic into pre-Proto-Germanic, referring to the god of the *wātis, the Celtic priests of mantic prophecy, so that the original meaning of the name would be "he [the god/lord] of the Vates" (p. 33), which he tentatively identifies with Lugus (p. 40).

W. S. W. Anson's 1880 Asgard and the Gods[unreliable source?] surmises that "Wuotan" was originally a fully abstract cosmic force, whose name meant not "fury" originally but etymologically, quite literally, meant "what was pervasive" with the second element, "-an", issuing a meaning that renders it to be construed as signifying a single pervasive principle. According to Anson, wuot- meant " …to force one's way through anything, to conquer all opposition…" and Wuotan solidifying such as "…the all-penetrating, all-conquering Spirit of Nature…". The name Wuotan being related to, in their interpretation "(t)he modern German water, and the English wade". Anson consideres those two words to be more "restricted in meaning" than was wuot itself. The less restricted implications so grew as the attribute inherent in the meaning of the name for the god. The suffix "-an" personifying, but not then anthropomorphizing, the prefix element as the absolute definitive instance, and font-head, of anything thus resembling the meaning that such said prefix element 'wuot-' would have had in nature, toward one unique divine origination of that as a general qualification.[1]

Old English wōd's Middle English reflex wood is very common in Chaucer, we could add. Means summat like 'apeshit'. ;)

[Cato]

The Gods defy proper explanation. I follow Athena so to speak, but I'm aware of Asatru and the revival of the northern Heathenry in the modern world. I'm also a member of the AFA, but mostly as a supporter/observer. Anyways, the best way to go about the business of explaining the Gods, of any part of Europe, is to remember that they are seen mainly via the perspective of Christian interlopers who then handed down the appropriate beliefs (their beliefs, that is) to the modern day. When you understand that much of the native traditions of the north survive via Christianity, you learn to take a lot of the lore with a grain of salt. Who knows what these ancient people in the north truly believed about their Gods and Goddesses. Saxo was writing his Danish history well after the conversion to Christianity, so he had bits and pieces to work with. This is also the case of Snorri. Both men also had Christian biases, so their works can't be called objective.

[Ulf]

To me the gods are some kind of ancient primordial force. They have a presence, but not necessarily a body. The ancient practice of anthropomorphizing them seems outdated to me.

The gods can be with-in and with-out and can arise from some external source or arise from with-in the blood of their people.

If they were truly ancient kings or people of great worth, why did the practice seem to die out after they (the gods) were deified? Why weren't other great kings and people deified as well, centuries later?

[Osweo]

If they were truly ancient kings or people of great worth, why did the practice seem to die out after they (the gods) were deified? Why weren't other great kings and people deified as well, centuries later?

Good point. But I wonder what the feeling is amongst the recreationists about present day deification of worthy heroes from our past? How did the Greeks and Romans find it so easy to slip into this activity, while we refrained from it? Is the Hero high enough in that category he has already made for himself, or is it fitting (and useful) for us to put him a little higher still?

[Cato]

Perhaps because nothing in the ancient lore suggests that Odin and Thor were deified wizards, but that they were actually Gods? It's true that ancient European societies deified worthy mortals, considering them to be like the Gods themselves, but this isn't anything really noteworthy if you follow the veiled suggestions of the lore- that anyone can be so deified, assuming they were worthy. For example, the mothers worshipped by the ancient northern Europeans were merely deified maternal ancestors.

[Osweo]

Perhaps because nothing in the ancient lore suggests that Odin and Thor were deified wizards, but that they were actually Gods?
Heh, we could simply leave it at that, aye! :thumb001:

It's true that ancient European societies deified worthy mortals, considering them to be like the Gods themselves, but this isn't anything really noteworthy if you follow the veiled suggestions of the lore- that anyone can be so deified, assuming they were worthy.
Hang on, though. Might it be possible to state that this wasn't done by societies in a precivilised stage? Caesar and Asclepiodotus are fairly late, aren't they? And is the latter just another case of euhemerisation, anyway?

Is there a Dacian parallel? My memory is dim for non-Isles stuff!

For example, the mothers worshipped by the ancient northern Europeans were merely deified maternal ancestors.
Really? I see no grounds for such a neck-sticking-out 'merely' there! We aren't entirely sure WHOSE mothers the Matronae are, anyway. Perhaps it was of a God. Sounds pretty much like the typical Celtic idea of the Thrice Born Hero to me. Lug, Cuchulainn, Fiann, etc...

[Cato]

Caesar claimed divine ancestry, from Venus.

[Lyfing]

It's interesting how Odin and Thor have become euhemerisms..??

..Some will be counted as god/esses..!!


Evidence will appear, in the course of our natural history of the
gods, of the gods themselves as supernormal sign stimuli; of the
ritual forms deriving from their supernatural inspiration acting as
catalysts to convert men into gods; and of civilization this new
environment of man that has grown from his own interior and has
pressed back the bounds of nature as far as the moon as a distil-
late of ritual, and consequently of the gods: that is to say, as an
organization of supernormal sign stimuli playing on a set of IRMs
never met by nature and yet most properly nature's own, inasmuch
as man is her son.

Primitive Mythology, by Joseph Campbell..pages 43-44 (http://www.archive.org/stream/masksofgodprimit008825mbp/masksofgodprimit008825mbp_djvu.txt)


..Men into gods..??


Thought does not die, but only is changed. The first man that began to think in this Planet of ours, he was the beginner of all. And then the second man, and the third man;—nay, every true Thinker to this hour is a kind of Odin, teaches men his way of thought, spreads a shadow of his own likeness over sections of the History of the World.

ON HEROES, HERO-WORSHIP, AND THE HEROIC IN HISTORY (http://www.northvegr.org/lore/carlyle/000.php)



Cattle die and kinsmen die,
thyself eke soon wilt die;
but fair fame will fade never,
I ween, for him who wins it.

Havamal 76, Hollander trans.

...

As far as Odin and Thor are concerned..

Thor is Odin's son..?? I don't think that's exactly the case. Thor is much like Heracles which is Zeus's grandson. Zeus is etymologically related to both Tyr and Thor. It has long been said that Odin took Tyr's place..??

Campbell had Thor figured from as far back as the Paleolithic era, with his characteristic hammer and giant killing ways. Even his travels with Loki point very much back to Paleolithic/Shamanic times.

..as maybe Zeus and Prometheus do..??

..for maybe more thought on this one see this post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6288&postcount=4) and think of the Fenris Wulf biting Tyr's hand off..

...

Now, of course, there is Hárbarðsljóð (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A1rbar%C3%B0slj%C3%B3%C3%B0)

Most will say it is a poem of a poet in favor of Odin with him carrying on with Thor..

Maybe that is so..

Others will say it is Loki and Thor..

The Problem of Harbard - by William Reaves (http://www.aetaustralia.org/articles/arwrharbard.htm)

Harbardsljod and Lokasenna, by Mark Puryear (http://www.norroena.org/harbard.html)

I think it is Loki and Thor, but maybe it is Loki's blood-brother Odin and just that sometimes it's hard to tell them apart..??

Later,
-Lyfing

[Cato]

Deifying a great individual is one thing, but saying that a God was actually a deified culture hero is a bit different. It's happened in some cases, of course. Take Guan Yu, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guan_Yu

"Guan Yu (simplified Chinese: 关羽; traditional Chinese: 關羽; pinyin: Guān Yǔ) was a general serving under the warlord Liu Bei during the late Eastern Han Dynasty and Three Kingdoms era of China. He played a significant role in the civil war that led to the collapse of the Han Dynasty and the establishment of the Kingdom of Shu, of which Liu Bei was the first emperor.

As one of the best known Chinese historical figures throughout East Asia, Guan Yu's true life stories have largely given way to fictionalized ones, mostly found in the historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms or passed down the generations, in which his deeds and moral qualities have been lionized.

Guan Yu was deified as early as the Sui Dynasty and is still being worshipped by Chinese people today, especially in southern China. He is respected as the epitome of loyalty and righteousness.

Guan Yu was very well-known within his lifetime (not after it, when his deeds became much embellished) and he epitomized cultural traits (Confucian iow) that the Chinese, to this day, consider to be divine and worthy of worship. However, Guan Yu is an example of a stand alone figure. That is, he wasn't a God who was recreated as a man-who-was-turned-into-a-God by the Chinese. This is also true of the western culture heroes like Hercules; no deity named Hercules pre-existed the mortal Hercules (such as how the Christians claim their Jesus pre-exists his mortal self in the form of the divine logos) and he was a mortal who, as the final act of his life, became a God.

These figures as mortals who become divine. Guan Yu is a figure worthy of respect as a man and, if you're Chinese, as a God. Take your pick as to what he was, but his life isn't a euhemerized story imo.

Odin's story is pretty well-known, and he isn't a man in this story. He was the son of Borr and Bestla, grandson of Buri and, I suppose, great-grandson of Ymir the cosmic jotun. Guan Yu's deeds are historical, as are the deeds of Hercules to an extent (if you follow Christian euhemerist dating, Herc died circa 1226bce; the Trojan war was 1194-1184bce or read a bit of Josephus, where Herc and/or his sons adventure with Moses in Egypt/Ethiopia). Odin's deeds are purely legendary and no date was given to them to my knowledge.

[Psychonaut]

I wonder what the feeling is amongst the recreationists about present day deification of worthy heroes from our past?

I'm all for it! I'll lift a horn to Vercingetorix, Charles Martel, Roland, and George Washington at any blót. Although, I would consider them more as intermediary figures betwixt my immediate ancestors and the Gods (our spiritual progenitors). I see their place in a religious hierarchy as being analogous to the place that legends have between texts of history and mythology.

[SuuT]

The deification of historical figures is at clash with modern sensibilities, more generally: Even the spiritually inclined that walk today have profound difficulty knowing exactly where to place their homage in the heirarchy that is their own nature. For where once the spiritual drive would have circumnavigated all aspects of the Self, and incorporated accordingly, the 'knowing' and hypertophied explanatory faculties of the modern spiritual psyconaut is beset with a prominence - on all sides of inquiry - of what can be seen and touched. I have yet to determine if this is balance (insofar as balance is relative to time and circumstance).

What is more, modern man has an aversion to that which he knows to be greater than himself - as opposed to an insatiable curiosity about that which he fears: the gravitas of what the ancients feared was, perhaps, the substrate from which the strongest natures took root; growing strong, straight and proud - and saturating all in their phenomenal field with new things to fear.


Fear: the Great Sieve.

[Cato]

SuuT, let me just edit your first sentence to say:

The deification of historical figures is at clash with modern socio-political egalitarianism.

People that stand out, to say nothing of head and shoulders over the rest, are feared and hated for the most part. The great ones are usually do-gooders like Gandhi or Mother Teresa; were a Leonidas or a Hrolf Kraki to step onto the stage of world history today, how do you think they'd be received? The notions of the hero in the true sense of the term are largely unacceptable to the compartmentalized society of the politically correct world.

[Cato]

Oh, there's also this point of view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero#Hero-as-self

Imagine that, stories of great men and women and great deeds actually uplifting someone when they identify strongly with the heroic protagonist.

[SuuT]

SuuT, let me just edit your first sentence to say:

The deification of historical figures is at clash with modern socio-political egalitarianism.



I think you describe a symptom; an effect of the disintegration of heroism. It's causes lucabrating, percolating, within the very meaning of 'modern'.

[SuuT]

Oh, there's also this point of view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero#Hero-as-self

Imagine that, stories of great men and women and great deeds actually uplifting someone when they identify strongly with the heroic protagonist.

The problem (as I see it) is that the very notions of "hero", "protector", "vigil", so on and so forth, have been diluted to the point of absurdity. Moreover, they have been largely inverted as concepts to - once again - quell the fear of the archetypal (read: True) hero.

[Cato]

I think you describe a symptom; an effect of the disintegration of heroism. It's causes lucabrating, percolating, within the very meaning of 'modern'.

It's part and parcel of the modern mentality that everyone is equal and that differences, especially and superiorities, are to be politically-corrected. :rolleyes:

[SuuT]

It's part and parcel of the modern mentality that everyone is equal and that differences, especially and superiorities, are to be politically-corrected. :rolleyes:



The western world's stuffy nose.

[Cato]

The western world's stuffy nose.

Caused by an existential deviated septum.

[Liffrea]

Thor?

Hmmm I’m still working on him, far more to him that the representative of order vs chaos/entropy. Enigmatic in many ways, what do we make of his struggle against Jormungandr? There is an obvious answer but I suspect it isn’t a very good answer…

Odin.

Grimnismal 42:

“Ullr and all the Gods will befriend him who first takes it off the fire,
for the worlds are opened to the sons of Ases when they heave off the cauldron.”

Odin, a God in mortal form a mortal who became a God? Probably irrelevant, perhaps even both, there’ a nice paradox for you.

What he is is a path finder, the light back to that which Heimdalr first taught us, the “worlds” in one being. Follow Odin, pull that cauldron from the fire, rebirth is such a drag…..and dying (again and again) isn’t much fun either….

[Lyfing]

Thor and the Midgard Serpent is a very old story. I suspect it stems back from as far back as far goes. There being the killing of the dragon all over where the Indo-Europeans went. I'm not so sure what the obvious and not so good answer is that you allude to though..??

I once read an interesting take on it which went something like..


Let us look again at Thor's fishhook—its bait—and turn to Figure 23, where the World Serpent comes to the Mithraic sacrifice. Let us look once again, as well, at the Tunc-page of The Book of Kells and recall that, in the Christian view, Christ, the sacrifice who appeased the Father's wrath, was by analogy the bait by which the Serpent Father was subdued. As the priest at Mass consumes the consecrated host, so did the Father consume the Willing Victim, his every-dying, ever-living Son, who was finally, of course, his very self.

Occidental Mythology, by Joseph Campbell, page 481

...

Later,
-Lyfing

[KennethStephenDoig]

You are, IMHO, partly right. Thor, or his Anglo-Saxon pronunication, "Thunor" closer to PGmc *Thunraz or *Thunoraz (the '-az' is merely a grammatical marker, usually indication an a-stem Gmc noun/adjective in the sing.nom case. It's cognate to these other IE languages' ending for the same paradigm-slot, Lat., -us, Gk., -os, Sanskrit, Lithuanian, -as and modern Icelandic, in rhotocized form -ur and attested Runic, -aR. So it is not part of the root or its essential semantical meaning) "Thunor" literally meant "thunder", the 'd' being intrusive, added to aid pronunciation. Other close Gmc cognates are OHG, "Donar", Mod-HG, "Donner" and Dutch, also with the intrusive 'd', "Donder". Thor, Thorr, or Þórr, & its mainland North-Gmc despirantalized/defricativalized [th to the stops t or d], "Tor". The only reason we use the Old-Icelandic (just one small dialect of ON [a western dialect] or Old-Norse, properly called North-Germanic, is because most of our written material was written by the Icelander [most Icelanders come from the western coastal districts of Norway, or were these same west-norsemen who'd lived, interbred with the racially, culturally very similar Goidelic Celts who spoken had a very similar culture, religion, heroic-warrior ethos, and a more distant tongue, but all inherited from the same source as the Germanics, the Indo-Europeans. (IE). They called their counterpart to Thunor, actually the same inherited god from IE, 'Tiranis'. *Thunoraz' and 'Tiranis' are genetically related, cognate, from the same parent-word in an earlier form of unrecorded IE from which Gmc & Celtic were born. Grimm's Law, very simplified, not the entire law. The proto-IE stops, b, bh, d, dh g, gh, k, p, t, th, became, if they were voiceless, became spirants, t became 'th' as in 'thin'; k to kh then to h. Voiced stops became the unvoiced counterpart. PIE to PGmc g>k; gh>g; d>t: dh>t; t>þ; k>h; p>f. Examples. PIE/Gmc *dheub- to *deup (deep), *dhwer-/*dur- (door), *brater/*broþer (brother), *ghaitos (lat. 'haedus')/*gaitaz (goat); *pater/faþer; *kuan-(Sp. 'cuando'/hwan (when). One MUST know these laws to make good assumptions about these Gods. The Tirn- in Celtic (Celtic did not take part in Grimms Law) equals the Thunr- in Germanic, so we can see both Tiranis and *Thunoraz/Thor are from the same word and have similar traits, used hammers, created Thunder, both big, husky, warrior skygods. He are the same god as Zeus, Indus, Dyauspater and Iuppiter but with different names. Thus, the god called Thunor/Thor/Tiranis are ancient, inherited gods from proto-Indo-European times. Not so for Woden. He absoultely was not from Asia, nor does the Gmc godfamily, the Æsir, or in OE Ése, but in OHG, Ensi, have anything to do with the word Asia. Woden/Odin was not from Turkland, Snorri Sturluson fabricated this, Thor Heyerdahl committed academic fraud with his utter trash-novel 'Jakten på Odin' (Hunt for Odin) where he claims that Odin around 2000 years ago was leader of the totally non-IE Udi people, funny, the W in Woden was NOT lost until 800AD and only in NGmc. So in 6th century Sweden, he would have been called *WóþinaR. He was a real man, probably a great warrior-king, later deified. Born c. 100 AD on the modern Danish island of Fyn. His birthplace still bears his name, the modern city of Odense, Óðinsvé in Icelandic and in proto-Northwest Germanic, *Wóðinaswáih or Wodens-hallow. (the EastGmc Goths, Vandals had left 300 years prior, hence there is NEVER any mention of any character, hero, king, god called anything similar to *Wóðinaz, *Wódanaz, Óðinn, Oden, Woden, Wuotan. Also the word Æsir is from PGmc ansiwiz, the singular is ansuz. Norse and Ingvaeonic (Anglo-Saxon, Frisian, etc) lost nasals, n & m before s or z. In Gothic, OHG the word ans meant a god, specifically, not the Biblical God.

Woden or the much-later NGmc pronunciation, after the loss of word-initial W's before the rounder vowels O, U & any derived forms, even if not followed by an O,U. Cf. ModSwed/OE c.900AD, ord/word, under/wundor, Ullr/Wulþor; Swed/ModEng, ull/wool, yllen/woolen; Icel/OE óska/wýscian, óður/wood[1] after c 850 AD. c. the same name Oden *Wóðdinaz Óðinn, usually written in Lat. alphabet in Old-East Norse, ODan & OSwed, Óthæn, Ódhen, Óþæn, etc.K.Doig

Odin from Lejre is a small cast silver figurine from approximately 900 AD showing a person sitting on a throne. The figurine has inlay of black niello (black-colored alloy) and some gilding.[ The height is 18 mm and the weight is 9 grams. The figurine was found by local amateur archaeologist Tommy Olesen on September 2, 2009, during Roskilde Museum's excavations at the small village of Gammel (sic) "Gamle Lejre" (pronounced [lye-ruh] or in phonetic alphabet [laiʁə] ) (Old Lejre), near the modern town of Lejre in Denmark. The figurine was unveiled at the Roskilde Museum on November 13, 2009, and is now part of the permanent exhibition.

Footnote1. wood (adj.) "violently insane" (now obsolete), from OE wód "mad, frenzied," from PGmc. *wóþ- (cf. Goth. wóþs "possessed, mad," OHG wuot "mad, madness," High.Ger. Wut "rage, fury"), from PIE *wet- "to blow, inspire, spiritually arouse;" source of L. vates or uates "seer, poet," O.Ir. faith "poet;" "with a common element of mental excitement" [Buck]. Cf. OE wóþ "sound, melody, song," and ON óðr "poetry," and the god-name Odin. (from OED)
http://www.proto-germanic.com/2011/12/wodens-real-story.html

[Albion]

I personally think the Aesir were tribal leaders at one point immortalised as gods. Certainly there are aspects about them which suggest they were once human, especially that they have to go to Idunna (a Vanir) to get some immortality apples. :D

This may be of interest to the poster. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=881800#post881800)
Scroll down for the bit about Idunna.

[2Cool]

They have definitely cooler than religious figures from other religions like Islam or Christianity. We can actually use them as super heroes (The Avengers was awesome so was Thor :D). Imagine if Jesus was there instead... boring.

[Quorra]

They have definitely cooler than religious figures from other religions like Islam or Christianity. We can actually use them as super heroes (The Avengers was awesome so was Thor :D). Imagine if Jesus was there instead... boring.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jxicJ6IU0UM/T3or32oYdTI/AAAAAAAABGs/epTo58i_myE/s1600/IMG_0838.JPG

[Mistic]

I actually believe that these gods were from an earlier source that was prehistoric. Thor, Odin, ect might've been real powerful rulers.