From: tgpedersen
Message: 13096
Date: 2002-04-08
> --- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:their
> >
> > --- 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.
> > > > (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?******
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > (TORSTEN)As in "contemporary with Jerome"?
> >
> > *****GK: Sorry for the typo. I meant "agrees".
> > Scholars contemporary to us, like Heather (later cited
> > by Steve).*****
> > >
> >
> >
> As for the brainpower of present scholars I believe it to be
> approximately the same 1500 cc Jordanes and Jerome had between
> ears. They however had the advantage of being 1500 years closer inon
> time.
>
> I would like to see a "factual disproof" in the Popper sense, eg.
> archaeologically. If I should fail to provide a not improbable
> interpretation of Jordanes' account, that is in agreement with the
> archaeological evidence, as in our previous discussion on "*Odin*
> Fyn",then I'll agree the that simplest, ie most literal, reading (of
>
> Torsten