[tied] Re: The "Lesser Goths" of Jordanes

--- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@..., x99lynx@... wrote:
> > > Torsten wrote:
> > > <Yes, true. But as far as I can tell, your
> > "reappraisal" of
> > Jordanes' account
> > > is based what on nothing else than what you would
> > wish to be the
> > case.>
> > >
> > >(Steve) I don't think there's anyone on this list
> who buys
> > Jordanes'
> > account 100%,
> > > word-for-word, as accurate history.
> >
> > (Torsten)I do. As a working hypothesis until proven
> wrong.
>
> *****GK: This would mean accepting the view that Berig
> brought his Goths over from Scandza ca. 1500 BC, and
> that Filimer led them into Scythian Oium some 150
> years or so later... Of course these deeply
> anachronistic relative datings are needed in the
> context of Jordanes' identification of the Goths with
> the Getae. But we know that this identification
> (rewritten from Cassiodorus)is totally inappropriate.
> As demonstrated earlier, Jordanes/Cassiodorus "prove"
> their point exclusively on the authority of Orosius,
> and the latter depends on Jerome. The Bethlehem
> Saint's arbitrary misperception can hardly be
> considered an adequate basis for reconstructing a
> scientifically accurate history. *******
>

Maybe some of us know that these claims are totally inappropriate and
anachronistic and based on an arbitrary misperception, but some of us
don't. Would you share with us the reasons why we think this is so?

As far I can see your line of evidence is of the same type Piotr (or
the writers he referred to) used to discredit similar writers: We
know they do not tell the truth, now who was the first to speak this
lie? And once we find him, he must be the father of the lie, and
that's the end of that. But where is the factual evidence that proves
him (them) wrong?

Torsten