Re: Post-Gothic "Getic" fantasies: the source(s)

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

>
> > >
> > >
> > "Must"? Another interpretation is that he meant that
> > whenever a
> > learned man of the past mentioned both ethnonyms,
> > that eruditus
> > asserted that they designated the same people?
> >
> > Torsten
>
> *******GK:(new) That won't work either Torsten. In the
> first place I know of no interpreter of Jerome who
> understood his meaning as you do. in the second place,
> even if we were to allow this idiosyncratic stretch
> for the context of "all" we would be faced with
> insuperable difficulties. Pliny and Strabo were
> certainly both "learned men". They both mentioned
> Goths and Getae. They did not identify them. Sorry,
> but we're looking at another dead horse here.******
> >
> >
> >
>

Let me see if I understand you. Jerome says all learned men in the
past claimed that Getae = Goths. But this is not the case since Pliny
and Strabo were both learned men and did not clain that. Therefore
Jerome told an untruth. And therefore he can't be trusted and
therefore Getae were not Goths. Correct?

Torsten