Gripla - 20.12.2005, Page 147

KRISTNI SAGA AND MEDIEVAL CONVERSION HISTORY 145
this verdict has coloured attitudes towards both Kristni saga and Óláfs saga
Tryggvasonar en mesta. Sigur›ur Líndal (1974:248), for example, remarks
that the point of many of the stories found in these texts „vir›ist fremur veri›
a› l‡sa undri og stórmerkjum en raunverulegum atbur›um“ (‘seems to have
been to display wonders and miracles rather than real events’). Jón Hnefill
A›alsteinsson (1999:59-60) couples Kristni saga with Oddr’s Óláfs saga
Tryggvasonar, describing it as ‘one more example of uncritical history writing
in the service of church and religion’, and he labels Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar
en mesta as ‘every inch as much a religious tract as Kristni saga’. Indeed, the
most recent editor of Kristni saga, Sigurgeir Steingrímsson (ÍF XV:cxli),
characterises it as based on „táknmáli kirkjunnar og frásögnum Biblíunnar e›a
annarra helgirita sem á henni byggja“ (‘symbols of the Church and stories
from the Bible or other hagiographical works based on it’) – both he and
Sveinbjörn Rafnsson (1974:73) believe that it is modelled on an Augustinian
dualism. Yet, even when two sagas draw on the same material, they may
approach it in very different ways: while the above remarks may be true of
Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta, there is much to suggest that Kristni saga
is neither uncritical in its handling of its sources nor hagiographical in its aims.
In contrast to many historians of religion, philologists working with Kristni
saga noted early that it is constructed according to „historiske principer“
(‘historical principles’; Björn M. Ólsen 1893:332-33) and „fortalt historisk og
jævnt“ (‘narrated historically and evenly’; Finnur Jónsson 1923:570; see also
Kahle 1905:v-vi). The possible connection with the well-known historian
Sturla fiór›arson (d. 1284), first suggested by Oskar Brenner (1878:155) in the
late nineteenth century, increases the likelihood that it is a serious work of
history to be classified alongside Íslendingabók and Landnámabók. As Peter
Foote (1993b:140-41) has pointed out, what we know about Sturla from his
other works suggests that he ‘thought he was retailing credible information
about the past’, whether or not his sources were always reliable. It seems like-
ly that the conflicting views of the saga expressed, with a few exceptions, by
historians of religion and philologists respectively, have something to do with
their difference in approach: whereas historians are trying to extract a core of
hard facts about the conversion from their literary casing, philologists focus
Sveinbjörn Rafnsson (2001:92-100) and Ólafur Halldórsson (ÍF XV:clxxix), for example,
disagree on what might have stood in his original. Since both Kristni saga and Óláfs saga
Tryggvasonar en mesta have made independent changes to this common source/sources,
neither can be considered a faithful representation of it.