From: tgpedersen
Message: 13197
Date: 2002-04-11
>That is a workable scenario; I'll grant you that. But as Steve Long
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > --- 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
>
> ******GK (new): Here is the quote from Jerome again:
> "But in fact all learned men in the past had certainly
> been accustomed to calling the Goths Getae rather than
> Gog and Magog"... "The Goths" are the Goths of his
> time, some of whom resided south of the Danube, on
> Roman Imperial territory, and some of whom resided
> north of the Danube in the barbaricum loosely
> controlled by the Huns at the time Jerome was writing
> this (393 AD). This is precisely the area where "in
> the past" one finds the Getae (both sides of the
> Danube). Jerome simply assumes them to be one and the
> same. To the extent that science means anything at all
> we know better of course. Jerome, for his part, has no
> evidence that "all" or even "some" of his learned
> predecessors had ever said "You can call the Goths
> Getae" or "you can call the Getae Goths", "they are
> one and the same". But he does have a good deal of
> evidence indicating that "all" of his learned sources
> (2nd c. and older) who spoke of the populations on
> both sides of the Lower Danube called them "Getae".
> And so he uses this as an argument against Ambrose,
> who called the Goths of his time "Gog and Magog". This
> of course, does not mean that the Goths of Jerome's
> time were the old Getae, now renamed Goths (for some
> reason). It only means that Jerome incorrectly
> believed them to be the same. He was the first
> documented writer to hold such a belief, but clearly
> not the last (:=)))*****
> >
> >