Talk:Ulfilas

message: Query, did Ulfilas really translate the Gothic Bible? The sources i have seen always hedge this, suggesting there is some kind of later tradition that he did, but no hard evidence. Certainly he was in the right place at the right time and was the right kind of guy, and i haven't heard anyone else suggested as the translator. Is there anyone out there who really knows this stuff, who wants to comment?
:Is there a reason to doubt Ulfilas translation? It's right in timing and location, and the lore says he did it. He did not however touch the codex argentus, which to my knowledge is the only surviving copy of his translations of the new testament - it wasn't made until later (Ravenna c. 550AD - one scientist claims to have identified the handwriter of codex argentus as one Viljarik (Viljariþ), who was active in Ravenna at that time). Ulfilas would certainly have a use for a translation as a missionary, but I find it doubtful he ever had any great supply of bibles and afaik he only translated the NT (no problem there though, as c.a. only contains the NT).
:Then again, I'm just a hobbyist with secondary sources :-) OlofE
::According to Sozomen, church historian in the fifth century, Ulfilas translated the entire Bible into Gothic, except for the books of Kings, which were too warlike and so seen as a negative influence on the already warlike Goths.  With such early testimony to Ulfilas's translation and with no evidence to the contrary, there isn't much reason to doubt that he did the translation.  Codex Argenteus is another matter altogether.  It dates from the 6th century (i.e., 200 years after Ulfilas).  No, of course it wasn't actually penned by him.  As all ancient manuscripts, it is one copy in a long line of copies.  Between the time of Ulfilas and the writing of Codex Argenteus, there may well have been some changes made in the Gothic Bible, but in all likelihood Codex Argenteus preserves the Ulfilas translation fairly faithfully. --Danny Reese 06:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two copies of his translation. One is found in 1970.--Vojvodaeist 12:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi,
I found the photo very interesting.
Is there any possibility that this pic is not intended to represent Wulfila himself?  The figure looks much more Near Eastern than Scandinavian to me.  I suppose he could have been of mixed ancestry.  But to me, what it suggests is that the Goths were quite cognizant of the fact that they were adopting a specifically Near Eastern (Israel-centric) religion for their outlook in ca. 340 AD, when they were only the 4th nation to do so (After Armenia, Ethiopia, and Rome)... Codex Sinaiticus 17:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would he look Scandinavian at all? That is an odd statement. Greeks look very different than Nordics.119.92.93.84 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Nope. It's Gothic alright.--Eupator 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A great deal of Gothic IS Greek, fellows. And what picture has any writing?119.92.93.84 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Doubt he was an Alan. Were not Alans Germanic?119.92.93.84 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

text: That is a very interesting connection between the Goths and the getic people, which all modern scolars of course deny. Shows that goths and getae are two bransches of the same origin, exactly like Jordanes and many other ancients wrote./Leos Friend (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wulfila 

message: I eliminated the use of the term "Catholic" in the text replacing it with "Trinitarian" and, to a limited extent, "orthodox". It is important to remember that the 4th century was when "orthodoxy" was being established for the "Catholic" Church. It cannot be legitimately stated that the Trinitarian doctrine was firmly established as the orthodox doctrine of the Church until at least the reign of Theodosius. Before that time the Church went back and forth between Trinitarianism and Arianism (many historians argue that it was not until after Theodosius' reign that Trinitarianism really became the majority viewpoint). To be NPOV this should be characterized as a Trinitarian vs. Arian debate, not a Catholic vs. Arian debate (i.e. the non-Trinitarians were exiled from the Church at least as much during the 4th century as the Arians were depending on who the emperor was and which way the wind was blowing).
--Mcorazao 17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure that you made an improvement. As I understand it, the Arians did believe in the Trinity, although they had some unique notions about it that separated them from the Catholics. I suggest restoring the original reading. I also suggest eliminating the scare quotes. They are not encyclopedic. Rwflammang (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Catholic" 

message: The article's introduction to Ulfias' Creed states that it espouses the "Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son" (an obvious refernce to later Roman Catholic teaching on the Filioque); however, the text of the creed, as presented in the article, does not say that. Should this phrase be removed from the itroduction to the creed? MishaPan (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Filioque

message: There is a controversy about Ulphilas real activity and life. His translated Bible contains a lot of greek and latin words and no germanic words. This confusion started from Iordanes, who's history Getica is about getae, a getic people from Carpathian area and not about goths. Several historians, including Peter Heather and Michael Kulikowski, argue that Jordanes' Getica presents a fictional genealogy of Theodoric and fictional history of the Goths for ancient propaganda purposes, and cast doubt on the Scandinavian origin, on the supposed royal dynasties. ( Heather, Peter; Matthews, John ,1991, Goths in the Fourth Century, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, pp. 54–6, and Kulikowski,2007, p. 19. Quote: "And so the Goths, when they first appear in our written sources, are Scythians – they lived where the Scythians had once lived, they were the barbarian mirror image of the civilised Greek world as the Scythians had been, and so they were themselves Scythians.
Readder (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gothic language is defined to be the language that Ulfilas wrote his Bible in. His Bible is the only literature in the Gothic language. Ulfilas wrote in Gothic. Rwflammang (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulfilas didnot write in gothic language 

message: It is interesting to know that Ulfila's translated bible contained only Greek, Latin and some Getic (not Gothic) words. This was known as Ulfila's language and not gothic language. First translated bible appeared in Europe after hundreds years.
Because of Jordanes confusion between Getae and Goths, large parts of Getic and Dacian history were introduced in the history of some germanic populations (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae). Some historic events in germanic histories are distorted following this confusion. Caracalla (in 214) received Geticus Maximus and Quasi Gothicus titles following battles with getae and goths. Also Belizarius received Geticus title after battles against getic tribes.
Several historians, including Peter Heather and Michael Kulikowski, argue that Jordanes' Getica presents a fictional genealogy of Theodoric and fictional history of the Goths for ancient propaganda purposes, and cast doubt on the Scandinavian origin and on the supposed royal dynasties.
Readder (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to the anonymous reader who reverted this highly unconventional theory in the main article. I concur that such original research has no place on Wikipedia. Rwflammang (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed nonsensical statement: "was a Goth of Cappadocian Greek descent " - He may have been a missionary to the Goth, but he wasn't a Goth himself as that statement makes clear. --41.54.3.237 (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Ulfila a goth ? 

message: It appears that the claim that Ulfilas borrowed from the Getic alphabet to form the Gothic one is something of a fringe theory, as there is no record of any Getic alphabet existing. The claim appears to be based on the work of one Swedish scholar from the 17th century, and does not reflect modern academic consensus Rosguill (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Getic Alphabet"