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

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> > > >(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. *******
> >
>
>TORSTEN: 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?

*****GK: Your question is so badly phrased in the
context of your first sentence that I have no idea
what it is that you are talking about, and am not
about to guess. Deconstruct the incoherence,
reconstruct the query and then we'll see if there is
any need to move forward to a discussion.******

>
>(TORSTEN): As far I can see

*****GK: I think it would be better if you tried to
respond to what I am saying rather than setting up
your straw man.*****

(TORSTEN): 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,

*****GK: No. What I said is that
Jordanes'/Cassiodorus' equation of Goths with Getae is
based on authority, not on personal knowledge or
analysis.****

(TORSTEN):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.

*****GK: It is you who speaks of "lies". I speak of
"arbitrary misperception", which is quite a different
matter.*****

(TORSTEN)But where is the factual

> evidence that proves
> him (them) wrong?

*****GK: What exactly do you mean by "factual
evidence"? Lay out the parameters of what you would
consider proof or disproof and we'll see if there is
any need to go on. BTW, can you name us a single
reputable contemporary scholar who agreed with
Jerome's identification? If not, why do you suppose
they didn't? Lack of brainpower?******

>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/