From: tgpedersen
Message: 13133
Date: 2002-04-09
>"Must"? Another interpretation is that he meant that whenever a
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...>
> > > Therefore, unless and until new evidence emerges,
> > the
> > > equation Goths=Getae should be attributed to
> > Jerome,
> > > writing in Bethlehem in the very late 4th c. AD.
> > >
> >
> >(Torsten) I think I will take issue with your "cannot
> mean
> > anything else" that
> > that Jerome made the story up, based on things he
> > thought he had
> > read. It is not "as simple as that". The really
> > simple interpretation
> > of Jerome's words is to read what he wrote, namely
> > that he read the
> > Goths=Getae equation in other writers, which puts
> > the "theory" before
> > 390 CE.
>
> *****GK: I agree fully that one needs to read what
> Jerome wrote. Now what he wrote was not, as you put
> it,
> that he "read the Goths=Getae equation in other
> writers". What he wrote is that "ALL LEARNED MEN IN
> THE PAST" allegedly made that equation. Now this is
> clearly not the case, independently of Varro and some
> others (we don't know what they wrote), since we know
> very well that people Jerome undoubtedly considered
> "learned men (of) the past", viz., Herodotus, Pliny,
> and many others did not make the equation. That being
> so we must interpret Jerome to mean that these learned
> men talked about the Getae (which they did), and it is
> HIS interpretation that by Getae they meant the Goths.
> It really is as simple as that Torsten.*******
>
> What Haywards "suggests" can hardly count as
> > evidence.
> >
> > Torsten
> >
> >
> >
>
>