RE: Proposed DFA through Georgia
David Teague
From: WJho...@aol.com Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:14:38 -0400 Subject: Re: Proposed DFA through Georgia To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com In a message dated 8/24/2008 5:45:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, shp...@comcast.net writes: 54. Elioenai, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22, 23] 53. Akkub = ____ [1 Chr 3:24] 52. David = ____ 51. Shlomo = ____ 50. Shemiah = ____ 49. David = ____ 48. Shechaniah = ____ 47. Hizkiah = ____ 46. Shalom = ____ 45. Nathan = ____ 44. Hunya = ____ 43. Shlomo = ____ 42. Yakov = ____ 41. Ahija, Exilarch in Babylon 135-145 AD [Began New Dynasty] = ____>>> It is quite likely that these connections are spurious. The lengthening generations leads one to believe that someone has collapsed a few of them. The lack of any chronologic framework, makes that non-obvious, but readers should be wary of such a small number of generations to cover such a long time period.
<snip>
Actually, Will, I beg to differ with your point about the number of generations. Go back to the list as originally presented:
63. Zerubbabel, Exilarch in Babylon 545-510 BC = Esthra [1 Chr 3:19]62. Hananiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:19]61. Jeshaiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21]60. Rephaiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21]59. Arnan = ____ [1 Chr 3:21]58. Obadiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21]57. Shecaniah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21]56. Shemaiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22]55. Neariah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22]54. Elioenai, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22, 23]53. Akkub = ____ [1 Chr 3:24]52. David = ____51. Shlomo = ____50. Shemiah = ____49. David = ____48. Shechaniah = ____47. Hizkiah = ____46. Shalom = ____45. Nathan = ____44. Hunya = ____43. Shlomo = ____42. Yakov = ____41. Ahija, Exilarch in Babylon 135-145 AD [Began New Dynasty] = ____
We know that Zerubbabel was living in Jerusalem at the start of the reign of Darius I of Persia because the Hebrew prophets Haggai and Zechariah mention him, e.g. Haggai 1:1:
"In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet to Zerub'babel the son of She-al'ti-el, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehoz'adak, the high priest. . . ."
The date indicated is c. 520 BCE. Now, since the Biblical references make Zerubbabel the grandson of Jehoiachin, the penultimate king of Judah (for 3 months ending in mid-March of 597 BCE), a date of birth for Zerubbabel of, say, between 570 and 550 BCE is indicated.
Likewise, this "Ahija, Exilarch in Babylon 135-145 AD" (Gen. 41 above), would have been born by c. 90 CE, given a death date of 145 CE. Simple calculation from Zerubbabel on down will show an average generational span of 30 years for that entire portion of the list, which is quite reasonable. In fact, the average generation length in all my known (and, in one case, strongly suspected) lines is fairly close to that 30-year figure.
I admit that the previous section of the list, from King David (Gen. 83) down to Padaiah in Gen. 64, has an average generational span of 22.3 years using the same method as above, but these factors must be kept in mind:
1. The destruction of the Davidic monarchy (two generations before Zerubbabel) limited the family's wealth over time. It is, of course, one thing to be rich, but quite another thing to have the resources of an entire country -- even a small one -- at your command. This would, over time, have had the effect of reducing the number of wives and concubines any male member of the family would have taken.
2. The end of the Davidic monarchy integrated the Jews into larger cultural systems (i.e., Babylon, Persia, the empire of Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic successor-states, Parthia, and Rome). This resulted in a documented and gradual decline of polygamy among the Jews generally during the same period. (Remember, the only place monogamy is explicitly commanded is in the New Testament, not the Old, and in the Pastoral Epistles at that.) It is not so out of place to expect a moderation of connubial habits among those Jews believed to be descended from the old Davidic royal line during the same period, leading quite possibly to an increase in average generation length.
So, in other words, this portion of the proposed DFA may be questioned, but number of generations is not a reasonable basis on which to do so.
David Teague
_________________________________________________________________
Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be—learn how to burn a DVD with Windows®.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588797/direct/01/
pj.evans
> From: WJhon...@aol.com Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:14:38 -0400 Subject: Re: Proposed DFA through Georgia To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com In a message dated 8/24/2008 5:45:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, shpx...@comcast.net writes: 54. Elioenai, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22, 23] 53. Akkub = ____ [1 Chr 3:24] 52. David = ____ 51. Shlomo = ____ 50. Shemiah = ____ 49. David = ____ 48. Shechaniah = ____ 47. Hizkiah = ____ 46. Shalom = ____ 45. Nathan = ____ 44. Hunya = ____ 43. Shlomo = ____ 42. Yakov = ____ 41. Ahija, Exilarch in Babylon 135-145 AD [Began New Dynasty] = ____>>> It is quite likely that these connections are spurious. The lengthening generations leads one to believe that someone has collapsed a few of them. The lack of any chronologic framework, makes that non-obvious, but readers should be wary of such a small number of generations to cover such a long time period.
21 generations in roughly 640 years? It's possible, but it's also just
a bit longer a generation than I'd expect. There are a lot of dateless
names in the list there, which make me think that there are probable
errors.
(My own files show average ages at marriage of roughly 24 for males
and 22 for females, figured over all the marriages for twenty-five or
thirty generations.)
t...@clearwire.net
> On Sep 1, 1:09 pm, David Teague <davtea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: WJhon...@aol.com Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:14:38 -0400 Subject: Re: Proposed DFA through Georgia To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com In a message dated 8/24/2008 5:45:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, shpx...@comcast.net writes: 54. Elioenai, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22, 23] 53. Akkub = ____ [1 Chr 3:24] 52. David = ____ 51. Shlomo = ____ 50. Shemiah = ____ 49. David = ____ 48. Shechaniah = ____ 47. Hizkiah = ____ 46. Shalom = ____ 45. Nathan = ____ 44. Hunya = ____ 43. Shlomo = ____ 42. Yakov = ____ 41. Ahija, Exilarch in Babylon 135-145 AD [Began New Dynasty] = ____>>> It is quite likely that these connections are spurious. The lengthening generations leads one to believe that someone has collapsed a few of them. The lack of any chronologic framework, makes that non-obvious, but readers should be wary of such a small number of generations to cover such a long time period.
>
> > <snip>
> > Actually, Will, I beg to differ with your point about the number of generations. Go back to the list as originally presented:
>
> > 63. Zerubbabel, Exilarch in Babylon 545-510 BC = Esthra [1 Chr 3:19]62. Hananiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:19]61. Jeshaiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21]60. Rephaiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21]59. Arnan = ____ [1 Chr 3:21]58. Obadiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21]57. Shecaniah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21]56. Shemaiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22]55. Neariah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22]54. Elioenai, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22, 23]53. Akkub = ____ [1 Chr 3:24]52. David = ____51. Shlomo = ____50. Shemiah = ____49. David = ____48. Shechaniah = ____47. Hizkiah = ____46. Shalom = ____45. Nathan = ____44. Hunya = ____43. Shlomo = ____42. Yakov = ____41. Ahija, Exilarch in Babylon 135-145 AD [Began New Dynasty] = ____
>
> > We know that Zerubbabel was living in Jerusalem at the start of the reign of Darius I of Persia because the Hebrew prophets Haggai and Zechariah mention him, e.g. Haggai 1:1:
>
> > "In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet to Zerub'babel the son of She-al'ti-el, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehoz'adak, the high priest. . . ."
>
> > The date indicated is c. 520 BCE. Now, since the Biblical references make Zerubbabel the grandson of Jehoiachin, the penultimate king of Judah (for 3 months ending in mid-March of 597 BCE), a date of birth for Zerubbabel of, say, between 570 and 550 BCE is indicated.
>
> > Likewise, this "Ahija, Exilarch in Babylon 135-145 AD" (Gen. 41 above), would have been born by c. 90 CE, given a death date of 145 CE. Simple calculation from Zerubbabel on down will show an average generational span of 30 years for that entire portion of the list, which is quite reasonable. In fact, the average generation length in all my known (and, in one case, strongly suspected) lines is fairly close to that 30-year figure.
>
> > I admit that the previous section of the list, from King David (Gen. 83) down to Padaiah in Gen. 64, has an average generational span of 22.3 years using the same method as above, but these factors must be kept in mind:
>
> > 1. The destruction of the Davidic monarchy (two generations before Zerubbabel) limited the family's wealth over time. It is, of course, one thing to be rich, but quite another thing to have the resources of an entire country -- even a small one -- at your command. This would, over time, have had the effect of reducing the number of wives and concubines any male member of the family would have taken.
>
> > 2. The end of the Davidic monarchy integrated the Jews into larger cultural systems (i.e., Babylon, Persia, the empire of Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic successor-states, Parthia, and Rome). This resulted in a documented and gradual decline of polygamy among the Jews generally during the same period. (Remember, the only place monogamy is explicitly commanded is in the New Testament, not the Old, and in the Pastoral Epistles at that.) It is not so out of place to expect a moderation of connubial habits among those Jews believed to be descended from the old Davidic royal line during the same period, leading quite possibly to an increase in average generation length.
>
> > So, in other words, this portion of the proposed DFA may be questioned, but number of generations is not a reasonable basis on which to do so.
>
> a bit longer a generation than I'd expect. There are a lot of dateless
> names in the list there, which make me think that there are probable
> errors.
>
> (My own files show average ages at marriage of roughly 24 for males
> and 22 for females, figured over all the marriages for twenty-five or
> thirty generations.)
30 years per generation is not that long. Remember, we are not
talking age at marriage, but age when the median son was born, as this
is an all-male line. Thus, immediately add a year plus for the time
to average first delivery, then probably about another year to get to
the average first year (as half of them will be delayed by an average
two-year gap, only a year if they used nursemaids), and that is just
to the first male child. Throw in infant mortality and the possibility
that these lines are going through younger sons (how would we ever
know) and you can see that number climb. A single guy who didn't marry
'til 55 would drive the whole average up by 1.5 years (and it is not
even either, someone would have to marry five years before they were
born to drop it similarly, so the net effect is for the average to be
higher than one might expect). Thus 30 years per generation doesn't
bother me at all. My own male line is probably pretty close to that
back to 1760 or so. 21 generations of nothing but names? that
concerns me.
taf
David Teague
> From: pj.eva...@usa.net> Subject: Re: Proposed DFA through Georgia> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:14:04 -0700> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com<snip>21 generations in roughly 640 years? It's possible, but it's also just a bit longer a generation than I'd expect. There are a lot of dateless names in the list there, which make me think that there are probable errors.(My own files show average ages at marriage of roughly 24 for males and 22 for females, figured over all the marriages for twenty-five or thirty generations.)<snip>OK, here it is:63. Zerubbabel, Exilarch in Babylon 545-510 BC = Esthra [1 Chr 3:19] (c. 570 BCE)62. Hananiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:19] (c. 540 BCE)61. Jeshaiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21] (c. 510 BCE)60. Rephaiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21] (c. 480 BCE)59. Arnan = ____ [1 Chr 3:21] (c. 450 BCE)58. Obadiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21] (c.420 BCE)57. Shecaniah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21] (c. 390 BCE)56. Shemaiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22] (c. 360 BCE)55. Neariah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22] (c. 330 BCE)54. Elioenai, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22, 23] (c. 300 BCE)53. Akkub = ____ [1 Chr 3:24] (c. 270 BCE)52. David = ____ (c. 240 BCE)51. Shlomo = ____ (c. 210 BCE)50. Shemiah = ____ (c. 180 BCE)49. David = ____ (c. 150 BCE)48. Shechaniah = ____ (c. 120 BCE)47. Hizkiah = ____ (c. 90 BCE)46. Shalom = ____ (c. 60 BCE)45. Nathan = ____ (c. 30 BCE)44. Hunya = ____ (c. 1 CE)43. Shlomo = ____ (c. 31 CE)42. Yakov = ____ (c.61 CE)41. Ahija, Exilarch in Babylon 135-145 AD [Began New Dynasty] = ____ (b. c. 91 CE; d. 145 CE)In my own lineage, a similar period would be from Sir Thomas Giffard of Twyford, Bucks. (b. before Nov. 1339; d.25 Jan. 1368/9; m., firstly, Elizabeth de Missenden -- see, e.g. MCS 5, Line 163, Gen. 1), down to myself, born in 1961. I have 2 lines of descent from Sir Thomas (both via Alice Freeman): in one of them, I am Gen. 23, and in the other I am Gen. 24. (The longer line has one more female generation in it.)Now, I'm certainly not dead yet (!), but let's use 2008 as the end point anyway, for the sake of convenience. 2008 - 1339 = 669 years, with the same number of generations (23) from the birth of the first generation to the end point. If it is not unreasonable to have 23 generations in a 669-year span, especially where not all the generations are male (as in my case), it is certainly not unreasonable to have the same number of generations covering a 715-year span (i.e., c. 570 BCE to 145 CE). QED.David Teague
_________________________________________________________________
See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured posts.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008
David Teague
> From: t...@clearwire.net> Subject: Re: Proposed DFA through Georgia> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:04:01 -0700> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com> > On Sep 1, 2:14 pm, "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote:> > On Sep 1, 1:09 pm, David Teague <davtea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
30 years per generation is not that long. Remember, we are not talking age at marriage, but age when the median son was born, as this is an all-male line. Thus, immediately add a year plus for the time to average first delivery, then probably about another year to get to the average first year (as half of them will be delayed by an average two-year gap, only a year if they used nursemaids), and that is just to the first male child. Throw in infant mortality and the possibility that these lines are going through younger sons (how would we ever know) and you can see that number climb. A single guy who didn't marry 'til 55 would drive the whole average up by 1.5 years (and it is not even either, someone would have to marry five years before they were born to drop it similarly, so the net effect is for the average to be higher than one might expect). Thus 30 years per generation doesn't bother me at all. My own male line is probably pretty close to that back to 1760 or so. 21 generations of nothing but names? that concerns me.taf<snip>
Now, there I'll concede a legitimate point (although, given the major disruptions in the course of Jewish history, let alone world history, during the period in question and later, it's hard to see how much more than just a list of names would have survived).
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 9/1/2008 3:18:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
davt...@hotmail.com writes:
Now, there I'll concede a legitimate point (although, given the major
disruptions in the course of Jewish history, let alone world history, during the
period in question and later, it's hard to see how much more than just a list
of names would have survived).>>>
--------------
Perhaps. Source?
Let's all read the source and decide.
For all we know some yahoo made this up at 2 in the morning.
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
David Teague
From: pj.eva...@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Proposed DFA through Georgia> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:14:04 -0700>
21 generations in roughly 640 years? It's possible, but it's also just a bit longer a generation than I'd expect. There are a lot of dateless names in the list there, which make me think that there are probable errors.(My own files show average ages at marriage of roughly 24 for males and 22 for females, figured over all the marriages for twenty-five or thirty generations.)
OK, here it is:
63. Zerubbabel, Exilarch in Babylon 545-510 BC = Esthra [1 Chr 3:19] (c. 570 BCE)
62. Hananiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:19] (c. 540 BCE)
61. Jeshaiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21] (c. 510 BCE)
60. Rephaiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21] (c. 480 BCE)
59. Arnan = ____ [1 Chr 3:21] (c. 450 BCE)
58. Obadiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21] (c.420 BCE)
57. Shecaniah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:21] (c. 390 BCE)
56. Shemaiah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22] (c. 360 BCE)
55. Neariah, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22] (c. 330 BCE)
54. Elioenai, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22, 23] (c. 300 BCE)
53. Akkub = ____ [1 Chr 3:24] (c. 270 BCE)
52. David = ____ (c. 240 BCE)
51. Shlomo = ____ (c. 210 BCE)
50. Shemiah = ____ (c. 180 BCE)
49. David = ____ (c. 150 BCE)
48. Shechaniah = ____ (c. 120 BCE)
47. Hizkiah = ____ (c. 90 BCE)
46. Shalom = ____ (c. 60 BCE)
45. Nathan = ____ (c. 30 BCE)
44. Hunya = ____ (c. 1 CE)
43. Shlomo = ____ (c. 31 CE)
42. Yakov = ____ (c.61 CE)
41. Ahija, Exilarch in Babylon 135-145 AD [Began New Dynasty] = ____ (b. c. 91 CE; d. 145 CE)
In my own lineage, a similar period would be from Sir Thomas Giffard of Twyford, Bucks. (b. before Nov. 1339; d.25 Jan. 1368/9; m., firstly, Elizabeth de Missenden -- see, e.g. MCS 5, Line 163, Gen. 1), down to myself, born in 1961.
I have 2 lines of descent from Sir Thomas (both via Alice Freeman): in one of them, I am Gen. 23, and in the other I am Gen. 24. (The longer line has one more female generation in it.)
Now, I'm certainly not dead yet (!), but let's use 2008 as the end point anyway, for the sake of convenience. 2008 - 1339 = 669 years, with the same number of generations (23) from the birth of the first generation to the end point. If it is not unreasonable to have 23 generations in a 669-year span, especially where not all the generations are male (as in my case), it is certainly not unreasonable to have the same number of generations covering a 715-year span (i.e., c. 570 BCE to 145 CE). QED.
David Teague
David Teague
Source for which part?
David Teague
________________________________
From: WJho...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:20:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Proposed DFA through Georgia
To: davt...@hotmail.com; t...@clearwire.net; gen-me...@rootsweb.com
In a message dated 9/1/2008 3:18:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, davt...@hotmail.com writes:
Now, there I'll concede a legitimate point (although, given the major disruptions in the course of Jewish history, let alone world history, during the period in question and later, it's hard to see how much more than just a list of names would have survived).>>>
--------------
Perhaps. Source?
Let's all read the source and decide.
For all we know some yahoo made this up at 2 in the morning.
________________________________
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
_________________________________________________________________
Get thousands of games on your PC, your mobile phone, and the web with Windows®.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588800/direct/01/
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 9/1/2008 3:26:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
davt...@hotmail.com writes:
Source for which part?
The very part we're discussing. Not the beginning person, not the end
person, all the middle persons.
What is the source for even their names at all.
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
David Teague
From: t...@clearwire.net>
Subject: Re: Proposed DFA through Georgia>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:04:01 -0700>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com>>
On Sep 1, 2:14 pm, "pj.evans" wrote:>>
On Sep 1, 1:09 pm, David Teague wrote:
30 years per generation is not that long. Remember, we are not talking age at marriage, but age when the median son was born, as this is an all-male line. Thus, immediately add a year plus for the time to average first delivery, then probably about another year to get to the average first year (as half of them will be delayed by an average two-year gap, only a year if they used nursemaids), and that is just to the first male child. Throw in infant mortality and the possibility that these lines are going through younger sons (how would we ever know) and you can see that number climb. A single guy who didn't marry 'til 55 would drive the whole average up by 1.5 years (and it is not even either, someone would have to marry five years before they were born to drop it similarly, so the net effect is for the average to be higher than one might expect). Thus 30 years per generation doesn't bother me at all. My own male line is probably pretty close to that back to 1760 or so. 21 g!
> enerations of nothing but names? that concerns me.
taf
Now, there I'll concede a legitimate point (although, given the major disruptions in the course of Jewish history, let alone world history, during the period in question and later, it's hard to see how much more than just a list of names would have survived).
David Teague
David Teague
Apparently, it's the Seder 'Olam Zuta. I suggesrt you go to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com and do a search for the term "Exilarch".
Now, it is true (as argued by the Jewish Encyclopedia article) that the Hebrew (Masoretic) text of I Chronicles 3 makes the names listed after Zerubbabel much more compact than the list of Exilarchs in the Seder 'Olam Zuta. However, it is also true that the S.O.Z. text agrees with the Septuagint reading of the same passage. In other words, the Greek text makes the genealogy about 5-6 generations longer than the standard Hebrew text.
At one point, the textual differences between the MT in Hebrew and the LXX in Greek were attributed to bad translation, but since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (including a Hebrew copy of the book of Jeremiah which followed the substantially different LXX arrangement of the book rather than that of the now-standard Masoretic Text), it seems that there was more than one edition in Hebrew of at least some of the books of the Bible. The upshot of this is, of course, that the LXX can no longer be dismissed outright as a witness to older forms of the Hebrew text of the Bible, including the bits with genealogies.
So, in other words, this list does not seem to be something someone made up at 2 a.m. -- or, at least, not entirely. Am I urging an uncritical acceptance of the list as it stands? No. But neither am I advocating an off-hand dismissal of it just because part of it arises in the Hebrew Bible. I have pointed out on this list before now that one way to see if there might be any validity to any of the more plausible traditions of Davidic descent would be Y-chromosome DNA testing.
David Teague
________________________________
From: WJho...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:27:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Proposed DFA through Georgia
To: davt...@hotmail.com; t...@clearwire.net; gen-me...@rootsweb.com
In a message dated 9/1/2008 3:26:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, davt...@hotmail.com writes:
Source for which part?
The very part we're discussing. Not the beginning person, not the end person, all the middle persons.
What is the source for even their names at all.
________________________________
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
_________________________________________________________________
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 9/1/2008 4:05:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
davt...@hotmail.com writes:
Now, it is true (as argued by the Jewish Encyclopedia article) that the
Hebrew (Masoretic) text of I Chronicles 3 makes the names listed after Zerubbabel
much more compact than the list of Exilarchs in the Seder 'Olam Zuta. >>
-------------------------------------------------------
The format in 1 Chr 3 is not a list of Exilarchs, but rather a list of men
and their sons.
The most we could conclude is something like "*If* there really was an
office like Exilarch at this time, *and* their were no usurpations, *then* one of
these men must have held that office while living."
We really can't tell from this list which son outlived his father, and which
son died without sons. We could assume its the one next listed, but that's
really an assumption on our part and possibly also on the part of the author
of the Seder 'Olan Zuta. We can tell from this that *someone* thought this
list was important enough to preserve. What we can't tell exactly is, what's
not stated is --- why.
Will Johnson
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 9/1/2008 4:06:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
davt...@hotmail.com writes:
Now, it is true (as argued by the Jewish Encyclopedia article) that the
Hebrew (Masoretic) text of I Chronicles 3 makes the names listed after Zerubbabel
much more compact than the list of Exilarchs in the Seder 'Olam Zuta.
However, it is also true that the S.O.Z. text agrees with the Septuagint reading of
the same passage. In other words, the Greek text makes the genealogy about
5-6 generations longer than the standard Hebrew text.>>
--------------------------
What is your source for stating that the Septuagint here differs from the
Masoretic?
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/24/2008 5:45:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
53. Akkub = ____ [1 Chr 3:24]
52. David = ____
51. Shlomo = ____
50. Shemiah = ____
49. David = ____
48. Shechaniah = ____
47. Hizkiah = ____
46. Shalom = ____
45. Nathan = ____
44. Hunya = ____
43. Shlomo = ____
42. Yakov = ____
-----------------------------------
Let us refresh our memory that is it *these* that are the suspect names.
They do not appear in the Bible as far as I can tell. That is why I noted
them originally.
They do not appear in 1 Chr 3. It is rather their predecessors who so appear
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
54. Elioenai, Exilarch in Babylon = ____ [1 Chr 3:22, 23]
53. Akkub = ____ [1 Chr 3:24]
52. David = ____
51. Shlomo = ____
50. Shemiah = ____
49. David = ____
48. Shechaniah = ____
47. Hizkiah = ____
46. Shalom = ____
45. Nathan = ____
44. Hunya = ____
43. Shlomo = ____
42. Yakov = ____
41. Ahija, Exilarch in Babylon 135-145 AD [Began New Dynasty] = ____
40. Nakum II, Exilarch in Babylon 145-170 AD = ____
----------------------------
By the way the Jewish encyclopedia article here
_http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=548&letter=E&search=exilarch
_
(http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=548&letter=E&search=exilarch)
Actually states that Nahum (40 above) follows Akkub (53 above).
t...@clearwire.net
This should read "average first son".
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> The format in 1 Chr 3 is not a list of Exilarchs, but rather a list of men
> and their sons.
> The most we could conclude is something like "*If* there really was an
> office like Exilarch at this time, *and* their were no usurpations, *then* one of
> these men must have held that office while living."
A much better time to hold office than before birth or after death,
although apparently the Inca emperors remained emperors, with palaces,
courts, courtiers, political parties, etc. even after death. It takes
Byzantine politics to a whole new level.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> So, in other words, this list does not seem to be something someone made up at 2 a.m. -- or, at least, not entirely. Am I urging an uncritical acceptance of the list as it stands? No. But neither am I advocating an off-hand dismissal of it just because part of it arises in the Hebrew Bible. I have pointed out on this list before now that one way to see if there might be any validity to any of the more plausible traditions of Davidic descent would be Y-chromosome DNA testing.
The problem with applying DNA testing to this problem is that you have
to have a positive control - a documented descendant of the person in
question to test and compare to. (If only the Ethiopians hadn't
massacred the family of Haile Salasse . . . . just joking.)
taf
WJho...@aol.com
Not each person listed held office. Some fathers may have never held
office. Many of the sons obviously did not hold office.
It would be similar to list all the males in the English royal line and then
side-by-side list the Kings. The Kings tend to descend in a
straight-forward way, then jump sideways, up-and-over, scoot over there, etc.
That was my point.
David Teague
From: WJho...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:45:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Proposed DFA through Georgia
The format in 1 Chr 3 is not a list of Exilarchs, but rather a list of men and their sons.
The most we could conclude is something like "*If* there really was an office like Exilarch at this time, *and* their were no usurpations, *then* one of these men must have held that office while living."
We really can't tell from this list which son outlived his father, and which son died without sons. We could assume its the one next listed, but that's really an assumption on our part and possibly also on the part of the author of the Seder 'Olan Zuta. We can tell from this that *someone* thought this list was important enough to preserve. What we can't tell exactly is, what's not stated is --- why.
Will Johnson
I actually quite agree (on the basis of statements in the Jewish Encyclopedia article, as well as in the correpsonding article in the more recent - 1970s - Encyclopedia Judaica) that calling anybody an Exilarch before the 2nd century CE seems to be overstating things. However, the more important part of the claim (dreived from the Seder 'Olam Zuta) is that this line led directly from the Davidic kings and led directly to the historically-attested Exilarchs.
David Teague
_________________________________________________________________
Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger. Find out how.
http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_yahoo_082008
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 9/1/2008 9:00:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
davt...@hotmail.com writes:
However, the more important part of the claim (dreived from the Seder 'Olam
Zuta) is that this line led directly from the Davidic kings and led directly
to the historically-attested Exilarchs.>>
--------------------
Would you read over the JE entry and agree that they are there stating the
the Seder Olam Zuta doesn't have this other interpolated names in it? I don't
see any quoted representation online of what this work actually states, but
the JE seems to state to me that the Exilarch who lived "about 130" is the
next missing person off the end of the 1 Chr 3 names.
I don't think that could be correct by the way, but it does seem to be what
they are stating.
Will
David Teague
From: WJho...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:46:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Proposed DFA through Georgia
To: davt...@hotmail.com; t...@clearwire.net; gen-me...@rootsweb.com
In a message dated 9/1/2008 4:06:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, davt...@hotmail.com writes:
Now, it is true (as argued by the Jewish Encyclopedia article) that the Hebrew (Masoretic) text of I Chronicles 3 makes the names listed after Zerubbabel much more compact than the list of Exilarchs in the Seder 'Olam Zuta. However, it is also true that the S.O.Z. text agrees with the Septuagint reading of the same passage. In other words, the Greek text makes the genealogy about 5-6 generations longer than the standard Hebrew text.>>
--------------------------
What is your source for stating that the Septuagint here differs from the Masoretic?
My source is twofold:
1) The Greek text of I Chr. 3:21 itself: "... Kai huioi Anania, Phalettia, kai Iesaias huios autou, Rhaphal huios autou, Orna huios autou, Abdia huios autou, Sechenias huios autou" ( = "And the sons of Ananias, Phalettia, and Iesias his son, Rhaphal his son, Orna his son, Abdia his son, Sechenias his son"). By comparison, the King James Version has: "And the sons of Hananiah: Peletiah and Jeshaiah: the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shechaniah." The RSV basically follows the LXX, but reflects the MT (which the KJV followed) in footnotes.
2) The Interpreter's Bible (1954), vol. 3, p. 358, comments on the passage thusly: "The point is that Zerubbabel . . . is here recorded to be grandson of the exiled King Jeconiah. In him, therefore, as head of the renascent community, the Jews coud feel that in some measure 'the house of David' had been restored. The names cited thereafter imply for the latest of them a date ca. 350 B.C.; while the LXX extends the list to the eleventh generation, ca. 250."
David Teague
From: t...@clearwire.net
Subject: Re: Proposed DFA through Georgia
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
The problem with applying DNA testing to this problem is that you have to have a positive control - a documented descendant of the person in question to test and compare to.
This is true. However, if a core group of the disparate families claiming Davidic descent showed a common ancestry of a requisite age (say, pre-medieval), this would lend some degree of plausibility to the tradition.
WJho...@aol.com
And that gap is the problematic area.