Re: The "Lesser Goths" of Jordanes

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

>
> --- 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.****

Now *that* is factual information I will have to deal with. But note
that Jordanes writes for a non-Gothic audience. He *has* to come up
with a "reputable contemporary scholar".

>
> (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.*****

"Untruth", then, if it's so important.

> (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?******
> >
> >
>

As in "contemporary with Jerome"? They were not Goths. They had no
incentive do so?

Torsten