Syncretism and Adaptation

...and the fact that Guerber said the same thing makes it clear that research by different parties uncovers the same thing.

No, it only shows that Guerber was an early common source of errors. Not early compared to the real sources of knowledge available to you and I, but "early" to those who privilege a derivation to an original.

As I said before, the Eddas were difficult to interpret and are not so easy to read. I learned that the hard way when I tried to get through its various verses.

That's funny, most translators describe the language as being uncomplicated.
"...the poetry is not difficult to understand: its language is neither obscure nor complex, but rather strikingly simple and direct." ( Carolyne Larrington; from her preface to The Poetic Edda 1996 )

This is further attested to by the singular similarities of all retranslations from the Icelandic. Most interpreters who refer to Guerbers thirdhand work ( for she never looked at an Icelandic text in her life ) can't resist interpolating some value into Thor's possessive in the Song of Harbarth. Hollander says that Thor "caters" to a "great" clamor of thralls in Bilskirnir. But when one refers to another fresh translation from the Icelandic we find And Thor hath the race of the thralls replaced by and Thor has the breed of serfs. No author's conjecture about what that possessive entails; just simple plain language speaking from the Pagan past to you without modern values thrust into the mouths of the ancients.

So I'm not certain how you can be so sure that it was never implied in the Eddas that Thor was a representative of the lower classes.

If you would refer to the Norse, then we could have a legitimate discussion of the Norse. If you wish to talk about certainty in interpretations drawn from the Edda, I'm fine with that. In fact, I'm not so certain we wouldn't have different takes on the same texts. But that you would argue what is in them without referring to your own reading of them leaves me flabbergasted.

This is not unlike arguing Groth, Robbins' and Yronwode's interpretation of a feminist subtext in issues of Wonder Woman while all the while refusing to read the issues in question so as to form your own opinion. You play dueling critics, while I'm talking the text itself.

As I said before, the fact that Thor's worship was widespread makes it clear that the lower classes had a special rapport with him.

Since the majority were among the lower classes, that would go without saying. This is not a tribute to the lower classes having a "representative" in Thor; just to their numeric superiority.

The Eddas are not historical documents per se, they are tales written in either prose or poetic verse to explain the nature of the deities.

Actually they are the earliest historical documents qualified to speak as to their own content. Everything else comes later and is potentially subject to error. But the Eddas are an undisputed source of primary knowledge.

The particular citings that I provided made it abundantly clear that I didn't pull my ideas of Thor being the protector of the lower classes from thin air. This seems to be what you accused me of doing, before you started saying that all of my sources are wrong.

Since my sources were largely primary texts, I was ignorant of any Marxist/Socialist spin on Mjolnir. So, in the absence of any support from the original, it seemed natural to assume that someone had pulled such notions out of thin air. You have amply documented that the error was not your own but that of your secondhand sources. Guerber was the earliest "reteller" after the first translation of the Eddas to English and had the field to herself; as such she became a primary source for error-ridden derivations of an error-ridden derivation. Her impact and influence are vast and the damage is difficult to contain. Many able scholars cannot find sources for her outlandish claims. And since she never saw the originals, her followers have little excuse in their reliance upon her for characterization of the original texts.

However, you did seem to pull your citation that of the Arm of Hephaestus logo was that of Thor out of nowhere. You began with and rested upon that claim. Only offering "further proof" if Hephaestus being citable as Thor wasn't sufficient enough to make your entire case. It wasn't, and now we're here.

Unlike what you're accusing me of, I'm not accusing you of misinterpreting anything simply because you have a different interpreation than I do.

This is an uncharitable accusation. I would hope that all my source citing can't be so easily summed up as an attempt to say that my interpretation must be accepted solely because it is mine.

However, unless we wish to pretend that the truth or falsity of a statement of fact is irrelevant, then we can't reduce them all to matters of variant interpretations.

The fact remains, a lot of people in the modern world see Thor as a special protector of the common man.

That this version of Thor exists, you have ably proved. Many an old god's name has been put to a new purpose. Whether this is disrespectful to the old ways or is an attempt to renew them with a purpose appropriate to a new people is a matter of preference.

I must admit to being a fuddy-duddy in my distaste for syncretizing disparate cultural traditions and my preference for the contextual interpretation over the local adaptation.

Dante