Islands kristnande - en kritisk undersökning

In all works on medieval Iceland, we meet the same narrative of the conversion of Iceland to Christianity, which is supposed to have taken place in the year 999 or 1000 AD. But how does this narrative stand the trial of source criticism? Radical source criticism was introduced in Nordic historiograp...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Gustafsson, Harald
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:Swedish
Published: Stiftelsen Scandia 2011
Subjects:
Ari
Online Access:https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/2277011
Description
Summary:In all works on medieval Iceland, we meet the same narrative of the conversion of Iceland to Christianity, which is supposed to have taken place in the year 999 or 1000 AD. But how does this narrative stand the trial of source criticism? Radical source criticism was introduced in Nordic historiography when Lauritz Weibull published his Critical Studies in Nordic History Around the Year 1000 in 1911. To mark the centenary of this first appearance of ”the Weibull school” in Swedish historiography, I will apply Lauritz Weibull’s critical methods to the case of the conversion of Iceland in this article. The traditional dating of the Icelandic conversion rests on one source only: Íslendingabók (“Book of the Icelanders”) by the 12th century clergyman Ari Þorgilsson hinn fróði (Ari “the wise”). Ari tells us of a conflict between pagans and Christians at the Alþingi, the central thing assembly of Iceland, and how a political compromise was reached which allowed men to continue to secretly follow heathen customs, although Christianity was adopted as official religion. Although source critical reservations are made in modern works, mostly concerning Ari’s close connection to the leading families, the details of the story are frequently repeated by modern scholars, and it is regarded as a fact that the conversion of Iceland took place as a result of a compromise around the year 1000. Ari’s account was written around 125 years after the actions he is writing about. According to normal rules of source criticism, we cannot accept information from such a late source if we do not have any other material, closer in time to the events studied, to support it. And there is no material of this kind. There simply do not exist any sources on Iceland from such an early time. We must conclude that we have no possibility of verifying Ari’s statements. We must search for contemporary sources. In the papal letters concerning mission in the North, Danes, Swedes and Norwegians are frequently mentioned in the early 11th century, but not ...