Medieval Jewish Ancestors

[Leo]

In medieval Spain finding Muslim or Jewish ancestors I find fascinating as it can cross races as well as religions. In a small biography for Fadrique Alfonso of Castile, son of Alfonso XI, king of Castile and Leon, by Eleonore de Guzman, I found a few ancestors of Fadrique's Jewish mistress Paloma.


Yahia Ben Rabbi
|
Yosef Ibn Yahya
-1264
|
Shlomo Ha-Zaken
-1299
|
Gedaliah
|
Paloma

Paloma is an ancestor Queen Elizabeth II, Lady Diana Spencer, Camilla Shand, Sarah Ferguson, Margrethe II, queen of Denmark, Beatrix, queen of The Netherlands, Harald V of Norway, Boris Johnson, and many more.

Can anyone add either genealogical or biographical details to these ancestors of Paloma?

With many thanks,
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

[J Cook]

These are quite well known, and relatively (for the time period and
place) well documented individuals.
I have in my notes that Yahia Ben Rabbi
was the son of the Yaish Ibn Yahya son of Hiyya al-Daudi son of the
poet Hiyya al-Daudi son of David, son of Hezekiah Gaon, a descendant
of Hazub, who is recorded in manuscript:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=429&letter=S

There is reason to believe an accurate reconstruction of the earlier
generations is possible back to the Babylonian Exile. I don't know
the reliability of the more recent generations.

Joe C

[PDel...@aol.com]

What about medieval british jewish ancestors? There must be some - they
couldn't have all been thrown out...

Peter

[PDel...@aol.com]

My Fremantle cousins can boast some of their huge wealth and ancestry from
the biggest Jewish financier of his time - Gideon Sampson whose coffers
virtually supported the British government for at least a decade in the 18th
Century (from whom spring the Eardley wilmots) - mebbe he had Spanish
Jewish roots

Peter

[taf]

On Sep 25, 1:49 pm, "Leo" <can2...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
> In medieval Spain finding Muslim or Jewish ancestors I find fascinating as it can cross races as well as religions. In a  small biography for Fadrique Alfonso of Castile, son of Alfonso XI, king of Castile and Leon, by Eleonore de Guzman, I found a few ancestors of Fadrique's Jewish mistress Paloma.
>
> Yahia Ben Rabbi
>   |
> Yosef Ibn Yahya
>    -1264
>   |
> Shlomo Ha-Zaken
>    -1299
>   |
> Gedaliah
>   |
> Paloma
>
> Paloma is an ancestor Queen Elizabeth II, Lady Diana Spencer, Camilla Shand, Sarah Ferguson, Margrethe II, queen of Denmark, Beatrix, queen of The Netherlands, Harald V of Norway, Boris Johnson, and many more.

The ancestry of Paloma, even that she was Jewish, is based on material
from over a century after the fact and from a context in which anti-
Semitic propagandizing can not be excluded.

taf

[J Cook]

The references I see cite a 1384 recording that she was jewish, so
that's a bit closer than a 100 year gap...

[Graham Milne]

Funny how someone always crawls out of the woodwork to suggestively
undermine these Jewish connections. But you do memory a disservice. My
grandfather, (1901-1992) knew a cousin who died sometime after 1936.
This cousin was the companion of her grandmother, who lived from 1797
to 1887 and who was therefore aged 7 at the time of the Battle of
Trafalgar. Thus we have a memory, via one person (the cousin)
stretching back almost 200 years. We regularly talk of members of the
family who have been dead for 150 years, referring to them by their
first names. We know them well.

[Graham Milne]

See http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/exilarch.htm for the ancestry of
Hezekiah, as prepared by David Hughes (who is regularly quoted by
Jewish scholars).

[Wjhonson]

You forgot to add "who is regularly quoted by Jewish scholars so they can laugh at his nonsense."

Such as the descent of "King Arthur" from the Roman Julian family
And the descent of H8 from Arthur, etc etc.

The descent from Jesus' family to Queen E
The descent from and to the "Grail Kings"
The descent from Cleopatra to Queen E

THAT David Hughes.
The nutjob.

Yes excellent source there bucko.

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Milne <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
See http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/exilarch.htm for the ancestry ofHezekiah, as prepared by David Hughes (who is regularly quoted byJewish scholars).

[Graham Milne]

On Sep 27, 7:09 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>  You forgot to add "who is regularly quoted by Jewish scholars so they can laugh at his nonsense."
>
> Such as the descent of "King Arthur" from the Roman Julian family
> And the descent of H8 from Arthur, etc etc.
>
> The descent from Jesus' family to Queen E
> The descent from and to the "Grail Kings"
> The descent from Cleopatra to Queen E
>
> THAT David Hughes.
> The nutjob.
>
> Yes excellent source there bucko.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 6:10 pm
> Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

> Seehttp://www.peerage.org/genealogy/exilarch.htmfor the ancestry ofHezekiah, as prepared by David Hughes (who is regularly quoted byJewish scholars).

David Hughes describes many lines of descent, quite a few of which are
clearly legendary. He is saying 'here is a line of descent that has
been given by someone at some stage', as I understand it. Only a
nutjob would think that he is trying to assert that they are proven.

[Graham Milne]

On Sep 27, 12:21 pm, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> On Sep 27, 7:09 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >  You forgot to add "who is regularly quoted by Jewish scholars so they can laugh at his nonsense."
>
> > Such as the descent of "King Arthur" from the Roman Julian family
> > And the descent of H8 from Arthur, etc etc.
>
> > The descent from Jesus' family to Queen E
> > The descent from and to the "Grail Kings"
> > The descent from Cleopatra to Queen E
>
> > THAT David Hughes.
> > The nutjob.
>
> > Yes excellent source there bucko.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
> > To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> > Sent: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 6:10 pm
> > Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

> > Seehttp://www.peerage.org/genealogy/exilarch.htmforthe ancestry ofHezekiah, as prepared by David Hughes (who is regularly quoted byJewish scholars).

>
> David Hughes describes many lines of descent, quite a few of which are
> clearly legendary. He is saying 'here is a line of descent that has
> been given by someone at some stage', as I understand it. Only a
> nutjob would think that he is trying to assert that they are proven.

PS His research on the Exilarchs appears to be an honest attempt at
distilling the various existing sources. I am sure that some of the
entries are less reliable than others but it appears, nonetheless, to
be an honest attempt at deriving the most reliable pedigree that he
can.

[Wjhonson]

You are confusing a line of descent *with credible sources* from one with NO credible sources whatsoever.

David Hughes does *not* attempt to find a credible line of descent, what he does do however, is spin fantastical nonsense that no credible genealogist would consider.

He has been lambasted several times before on this newsgroup.

[Graham Milne]

I'm not confusing anything. It is clear that the pedigrees of the
exilarchs cannot be proved to modern genealogical standards, but what
remains can still be the MOST credible, reasonable and sensible
account we can arrive at. Modern genealogist would not accept the
Davidic descent of, say, Daniel (Exilarch 1150-1174) as proven but the
Jews did at the time - and, frankly, that is more important to me than
your opinion. If they accepted it then I am prepared to accept it now
(or the probability of it). As David Einsiedler stated in his article
'Descent From King David - Part II' ('Avotaynu: The International
Review of Jewish Genealogy', 1993, Vol. IX, No. 2, page 34)
'Genealogists who value religious tradition could say that our rabbis
and sages did not make statements about Davidic descent lightly, that
they were trustworthy and insisted on truth.' Are you under the
impression that the Rabbinical authorities of the time recognized
Davidic descent willy-nilly?

The situation is best summed up by Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk
(1919-1985), Albany Herald of Arms (Court of the Lord Lyon), writing
in 'Books & Bookmen', February-March 1976, who wrote: 'What's already
known is that the Jews in exile in Asia were ruled under the Persian
and later the Arab empires by 'Princes of the Captivity' called
'Exilarchs', with a genealogy claiming descent by at least the second
century from the Royal House of David, probably with justification
because it was based on their acceptance.' (Quoted from 'Lord of the
Dance', London, 1986, Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd, p. 155).

Hughes has merely tried to draw a sensible picture from available
sources. Lambast all you like. I couldn't give a toss.

[taf]

On Sep 26, 5:53 pm, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>

> Funny how someone always crawls out of the woodwork to suggestively
> undermine these Jewish connections.

'Crawls out of the woodwork'? really? Is that the way you want to
go?

I find it funny how people will accept any vague rumor or late
tradition in order to maintain even the most dubious of descents if
they just happen to have something 'exotic' in them. The kind of
evidence that would never be acceptable by modern standards if it was
showing one member of the Anglo-Norman gentry connecting to another
accepted if it allows a Jewish or Muslim tie to be claimed by those
who lack such a connection.

taf

[taf]

On Sep 27, 4:21 am, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> On Sep 27, 7:09 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >  You forgot to add "who is regularly quoted by Jewish scholars so they can laugh at his nonsense."
>
> > Such as the descent of "King Arthur" from the Roman Julian family
> > And the descent of H8 from Arthur, etc etc.
>
> > The descent from Jesus' family to Queen E
> > The descent from and to the "Grail Kings"
> > The descent from Cleopatra to Queen E
>
> > THAT David Hughes.
> > The nutjob.
>
> > Yes excellent source there bucko.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
> > To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> > Sent: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 6:10 pm
> > Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

> > Seehttp://www.peerage.org/genealogy/exilarch.htmforthe ancestry ofHezekiah, as prepared by David Hughes (who is regularly quoted byJewish scholars).

>
> David Hughes describes many lines of descent, quite a few of which are
> clearly legendary. He is saying 'here is a line of descent that has
> been given by someone at some stage', as I understand it. Only a
> nutjob would think that he is trying to assert that they are proven.

Umm, no. He defends all lines, including one that unknowingly shows
someone as their own grandfather as representing some form of
genealogical truth. You are making a false distinction in saying that
with all of the other lines he is just playing around, but with the
exilarch lines, those he is taking seriously and treating in a
scholarly manner.

taf

[Graham Milne]

On Sep 27, 4:30 pm, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 4:21 am, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 7:09 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >  You forgot to add "who is regularly quoted by Jewish scholars so they can laugh at his nonsense."
>
> > > Such as the descent of "King Arthur" from the Roman Julian family
> > > And the descent of H8 from Arthur, etc etc.
>
> > > The descent from Jesus' family to Queen E
> > > The descent from and to the "Grail Kings"
> > > The descent from Cleopatra to Queen E
>
> > > THAT David Hughes.
> > > The nutjob.
>
> > > Yes excellent source there bucko.
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
> > > To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> > > Sent: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 6:10 pm
> > > Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

> > > Seehttp://www.peerage.org/genealogy/exilarch.htmfortheancestry ofHezekiah, as prepared by David Hughes (who is regularly quoted byJewish scholars).

>
> > David Hughes describes many lines of descent, quite a few of which are
> > clearly legendary. He is saying 'here is a line of descent that has
> > been given by someone at some stage', as I understand it. Only a
> > nutjob would think that he is trying to assert that they are proven.
>
> Umm, no.  He defends all lines, including one that unknowingly shows
> someone as their own grandfather as representing some form of
> genealogical truth.  You are making a false distinction in saying that
> with all of the other lines he is just playing around, but with the
> exilarch lines, those he is taking seriously and treating in a
> scholarly manner.
>
> taf

Don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say all lines other than the
exilarchs were legendary; I said 'quite a few' are clearly legendary.
I have seen no 'defence' as you call it. Where is this 'defence'. But
the FACTS remain:

1. Sir Ian Moncreiffe of that Ilk was both a lawyer and a herald.
2. His opinion was the the exilarchs were probably descended from the
House of David, based on their acceptance by the Jews themselves.
3. The standard of proof today in civil courts is the balance of
probabilities (i.e. you have to establish that your contention is more
probable than not).
4. On the basis that Sir Iain, a lawyer and a herald, accepted that
the exilarchs were of Davidic descent, on the balance of
probabilities, we can reasonably assert that a civil court of law
would today come to the same conclusion.

That is enough for me. You cannot prove that Edward IV was legitimate
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Edward_IV_of_England#Was_Edward_illegitimate.3F), therefore I say that
we must treat him as being illegitimate. This is the kind of logic you
are using.

[Wjhonson]

I'm sorry you're confusing terms like "proven" and "most credible" with
has ANY EVIDENCE whatsoever.

Any evidence. At all. Anything. Any evidence.

Get it? There is no evidence, at all. None. Zero. Zip. Vacuum. Nada. The depths of inter steller space.

No evidence.

It's not a question of "proof". It's a question of..... a thundering silence.
You can quote some monkey saying this or that, but it does not create any evidence.

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Milne <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 8:22 am
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

On Sep 27, 3:07 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
You are confusing a line of descent *with credible sources* from one with NO

redible sources whatsoever.

David Hughes does *not* attempt to find a credible line of descent, what he

oes do however, is spin fantastical nonsense that no credible genealogist would

onsider.

He has been lambasted several times before on this newsgroup.
I'm not confusing anything. It is clear that the pedigrees of the

xilarchs cannot be proved to modern genealogical standards, but what

emains can still be the MOST credible, reasonable and sensible

ccount we can arrive at. Modern genealogist would not accept the

avidic descent of, say, Daniel (Exilarch 1150-1174) as proven but the

ews did at the time - and, frankly, that is more important to me than

our opinion. If they accepted it then I am prepared to accept it now

or the probability of it). As David Einsiedler stated in his article
Descent From King David - Part II' ('Avotaynu: The International

eview of Jewish Genealogy', 1993, Vol. IX, No. 2, page 34)
Genealogists who value religious tradition could say that our rabbis

nd sages did not make statements about Davidic descent lightly, that

hey were trustworthy and insisted on truth.' Are you under the

mpression that the Rabbinical authorities of the time recognized

avidic descent willy-nilly?
The situation is best summed up by Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk

1919-1985), Albany Herald of Arms (Court of the Lord Lyon), writing

n 'Books & Bookmen', February-March 1976, who wrote: 'What's already

nown is that the Jews in exile in Asia were ruled under the Persian

nd later the Arab empires by 'Princes of the Captivity' called
Exilarchs', with a genealogy claiming descent by at least the second

entury from the Royal House of David, probably with justification

ecause it was based on their acceptance.' (Quoted from 'Lord of the

ance', London, 1986, Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd, p. 155).
Hughes has merely tried to draw a sensible picture from available

ources. Lambast all you like. I couldn't give a toss.

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message

[Wjhonson]

1 is worthless. I can point out top scientists who believe in fairies.
2 is worthless. His opinion is not worth a single cup of coffee in genealogical circles
3 is worthless. It's not a question of proof it's a question of evidence. Come to court with no evidence at all and see where your case goes
4 is worthless. That a person believe a thing, does not in any way carry evidence that anyone else should believe it.

Perhaps you'd do better as a preacher.

1. Sir Ian Moncreiffe of that Ilk was both a lawyer and a herald.

. His opinion was the the exilarchs were probably descended from the

ouse of David, based on their acceptance by the Jews themselves.

. The standard of proof today in civil courts is the balance of

robabilities (i.e. you have to establish that your contention is more

robable than not).

. On the basis that Sir Iain, a lawyer and a herald, accepted that

he exilarchs were of Davidic descent, on the balance of

robabilities, we can reasonably assert that a civil court of law

ould today come to the same conclusion.

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Milne <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 11:00 am
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

On Sep 27, 4:30 pm, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
On Sep 27, 4:21 am, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
wrote:









> On Sep 27, 7:09 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

> > You forgot to add "who is regularly quoted by Jewish scholars so they can

augh at his nonsense."

> > Such as the descent of "King Arthur" from the Roman Julian family
> > And the descent of H8 from Arthur, etc etc.

> > The descent from Jesus' family to Queen E
> > The descent from and to the "Grail Kings"
> > The descent from Cleopatra to Queen E

> > THAT David Hughes.
> > The nutjob.

> > Yes excellent source there bucko.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
> > To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> > Sent: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 6:10 pm
> > Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

> > Seehttp://www.peerage.org/genealogy/exilarch.htmfortheancestry ofHezekiah,

s prepared by David Hughes (who is regularly quoted byJewish scholars).

> David Hughes describes many lines of descent, quite a few of which are
> clearly legendary. He is saying 'here is a line of descent that has
> been given by someone at some stage', as I understand it. Only a
> nutjob would think that he is trying to assert that they are proven.

Umm, no. He defends all lines, including one that unknowingly shows
someone as their own grandfather as representing some form of
genealogical truth. You are making a false distinction in saying that
with all of the other lines he is just playing around, but with the
exilarch lines, those he is taking seriously and treating in a
scholarly manner.

taf
Don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say all lines other than the

xilarchs were legendary; I said 'quite a few' are clearly legendary.

have seen no 'defence' as you call it. Where is this 'defence'. But

he FACTS remain:
1. Sir Ian Moncreiffe of that Ilk was both a lawyer and a herald.

. His opinion was the the exilarchs were probably descended from the

ouse of David, based on their acceptance by the Jews themselves.

. The standard of proof today in civil courts is the balance of

robabilities (i.e. you have to establish that your contention is more

robable than not).

. On the basis that Sir Iain, a lawyer and a herald, accepted that

he exilarchs were of Davidic descent, on the balance of

robabilities, we can reasonably assert that a civil court of law

ould today come to the same conclusion.
That is enough for me. You cannot prove that Edward IV was legitimate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dward_IV_of_England#Was_Edward_illegitimate.3F), therefore I say that

e must treat him as being illegitimate. This is the kind of logic you

re using.

[Graham Milne]

> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> he message

If there is NO evidence (which is what you are saying) that must mean
that the entire pedigree is a fabrication - all of it. Sorry, but you
are talking utter rubbish (see for instance
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=429&letter=S). You
have jumped straight into the realms of sheer stupidity.

[Graham Milne]

On Sep 27, 7:31 pm, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> are talking utter rubbish (see for instancehttp://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=429&letter=S). You

> have jumped straight into the realms of sheer stupidity.

PS With reference to the Exilarch Daniel, who I have mentioned, he is
referred to in Benjamin of Tudela's 'Book of Travels' (1173). To say
that this is NO evidence (i.e. it doesn;t exist) is a straight lie.

[Wjhonson]

Sorry I don't consider a book written a *thousand* years after the fact to be actual credible evidence or evidence at all for that matter.

Likewise I dont' consider Geoffrey of Monmouth to be a credible author to discuss what did or did not happen in Roman britain.

That you do, only speaks to your contempt for the actual practice of genealogy where we rely on sources, not mythologies.

Will "son of thor, son of odysseus, son of thoth" Johnson

>

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 8:22 am
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
If there is NO evidence (which is what you are saying) that must mean
hat the entire pedigree is a fabrication - all of it. Sorry, but you
re talking utter rubbish (see for instance
ttp://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=429&letter=S). You
ave jumped straight into the realms of sheer stupidity.

------------------------------

o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[Wjhonson]

Oooo beware the red herring.
I did not state that some person named Daniel did not exist.
I did not state that he may or may not have claimed to be the Prince of the Jews or whatever.
What I stated is that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that he was actually a descendent of David, Cleopatra, or Mithra

It's possible we could use certain documents to show who, contemporarenously, his close ancestors were supposed to be.
That's quite a different claim, from the attempt to chart his ancestry for 1500 years.

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Milne <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 11:59 am
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

On Sep 27, 7:31 pm, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>

rote:
On Sep 27, 7:17 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:




S With reference to the Exilarch Daniel, who I have mentioned, he is

eferred to in Benjamin of Tudela's 'Book of Travels' (1173). To say

hat this is NO evidence (i.e. it doesn;t exist) is a straight lie.

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[Sholom Simon]

If I could add something here:

I'm reminded of the long lines of rulers in Welsh & Irish genealogy.
Clearly, at the earliest end (Adam, Thor, whoever) it's myth. At the
latter end (9th, 7th, even 5th century at some points) it's accepted as
valid.

The hard part, obviously, is to find out where reality ends and myth begins.

I wouldn't be quite so quick to completely dismiss all of the ancient
Jewish genealogical tables and/or oral traditions. Genealogy was, and is,
important for a number of religious reasons.

Please note: I am not referring specifically to any of the works cited
below, as I don't know of them.

On Tue, September 27, 2011 3:15 pm, Wjhonson wrote:
>
> Sorry I don't consider a book written a *thousand* years after the fact to
> be actual credible evidence or evidence at all for that matter.
>
> Likewise I dont' consider Geoffrey of Monmouth to be a credible author to
> discuss what did or did not happen in Roman britain.
>
> That you do, only speaks to your contempt for the actual practice of
> genealogy where we rely on sources, not mythologies.
>
> Will "son of thor, son of odysseus, son of thoth" Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 8:22 am
> Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

> If there is NO evidence (which is what you are saying) that must mean
> hat the entire pedigree is a fabrication - all of it. Sorry, but you
> re talking utter rubbish (see for instance
> ttp://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=429&letter=S). You
> ave jumped straight into the realms of sheer stupidity.
>

> ------------------------------
> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
> of
> he message
>
>
>

-- Sholom

[taf]

On Sep 27, 10:57 am, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>

wrote:
> On Sep 27, 4:30 pm, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 27, 4:21 am, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > David Hughes describes many lines of descent, quite a few of which are
> > > clearly legendary. He is saying 'here is a line of descent that has
> > > been given by someone at some stage', as I understand it. Only a
> > > nutjob would think that he is trying to assert that they are proven.
>
> > Umm, no.  He defends all lines, including one that unknowingly shows
> > someone as their own grandfather as representing some form of
> > genealogical truth.  You are making a false distinction in saying that
> > with all of the other lines he is just playing around, but with the
> > exilarch lines, those he is taking seriously and treating in a
> > scholarly manner.
>

> Don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say all lines other than the
> exilarchs were legendary; I said 'quite a few' are clearly legendary.

Oh, that makes all the difference in the world. The line you want to
believe is one of several correct ones swimming in a sea of nonsense,
rather than the sole accurate one in that sea. It is still all rather
wet, isn't it?

> I have seen no 'defence' as you call it. Where is this 'defence'.

Check the archives of this group. He does not think he is presenting
mythical tradition.

> But the FACTS remain:
>
> 1. Sir Ian Moncreiffe of that Ilk was both a lawyer and a herald.
> 2. His opinion was the the exilarchs were probably descended from the
> House of David, based on their acceptance by the Jews themselves.
> 3. The standard of proof today in civil courts is the balance of
> probabilities (i.e. you have to establish that your contention is more
> probable than not).
> 4. On the basis that Sir Iain, a lawyer and a herald, accepted that
> the exilarchs were of Davidic descent, on the balance of
> probabilities, we can reasonably assert that a civil court of law
> would today come to the same conclusion.

These are relevant facts that remain? Not facts that pertain to the
historical and genealogical record but the fact that Sir Ian
Moncreiffe is a lawyer?

Your appeal to authority would be better if you picked an authority
that wasn't somewhat credulous when it comes to such descents. Sir Ian
Moncreiffe and his ilk are wont to be wooed by the opportunities these
connections present. He also accepted a completely speculative line
through Rurik of Kiev to the legendary chimera Ragnar Lothbrok and on
from there. As to him being a lawyer, what does that have to do with
anything? Genealogy is not subject to the decisions of juries, and the
outcomes of court cases are about laws and rules and the performance
of the lawyers. One only hopes the outcome bears some resemblance to
the truth, but that is far from guaranteed.

> That is enough for me. You cannot prove that Edward IV was legitimate
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Edward_IV_of_England#Was_Edward_illegitimate.3F), therefore I say that
> we must treat him as being illegitimate. This is the kind of logic you
> are using.

Now who's putting words in mouths. In the post you are responding to,
I didn't even address the exilarch descent. I addressed the fact that
when you pick out of a source rife with ludicrous material such as a
pre-Columbian King of America the one descent you want to be true, and
proclaim the author an accurate expert on that one descent even if he
is a credulous hack with regard to the others, you are deluding
yourself.

Just for the sake of discussion, let's say you are right, and that
Hughes is presenting a lot of traditional pedigrees with the tacit
knowledge that they are not true, and also presenting descents that he
is accurately researching and presenting as authentic. Given that he
doesn't distinguish between the two in any way, by what criteria does
one determine which is which, other than just self-serving personal
preference?

taf

[Wjhonson]

Obviously no one cares much if you descend from Schlomo the great in the seventh century AD.
The point here is that this document, is no genealogical evidence for any descent earlier than perhaps a hundred years before it was written.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sholom Simon <sho...@aishdas.org>
To: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: grahammilne001 <grahamm...@btinternet.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 12:31 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

If I could add something here:
I'm reminded of the long lines of rulers in Welsh & Irish genealogy.

learly, at the earliest end (Adam, Thor, whoever) it's myth. At the

atter end (9th, 7th, even 5th century at some points) it's accepted as

alid.
The hard part, obviously, is to find out where reality ends and myth begins.
I wouldn't be quite so quick to completely dismiss all of the ancient

ewish genealogical tables and/or oral traditions. Genealogy was, and is,

mportant for a number of religious reasons.
Please note: I am not referring specifically to any of the works cited

elow, as I don't know of them.

n Tue, September 27, 2011 3:15 pm, Wjhonson wrote:

Sorry I don't consider a book written a *thousand* years after the fact to
be actual credible evidence or evidence at all for that matter.

Likewise I dont' consider Geoffrey of Monmouth to be a credible author to
discuss what did or did not happen in Roman britain.

That you do, only speaks to your contempt for the actual practice of
genealogy where we rely on sources, not mythologies.

Will "son of thor, son of odysseus, son of thoth" Johnson








>

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 8:22 am
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
If there is NO evidence (which is what you are saying) that must mean
hat the entire pedigree is a fabrication - all of it. Sorry, but you
re talking utter rubbish (see for instance
ttp://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=429&letter=S). You
ave jumped straight into the realms of sheer stupidity.

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
of
he message

- Sholom

[Don Stone]

I will not try to defend any lineage presented by David Hughes, but I
will briefly defend the position that meaningful work can be done on
early Exilarchic genealogy. (A connected pedigree with
generation-by-generation proof is probably unlikely, but that doesn't
mean we cannot say anything meaningful.)

Dr. David Goodblatt is Professor of History and Endowed Chair in Judaic
Studies, University of California, San Diego. His 1994 book _The
Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity_ was
published in Tübingen by J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). He discussed the
Babylonian Exilarchate in his Chapter 8, "Diaspora Lay Monarchy: The
Babylonian Exilarchate." His major goal there was to make a detailed
case that the Babylonian Exilarchs were descended in the male line from
King David, and he analyzed various pieces of evidence that they were
considered Davidic descendants by their contemporaries; he is not much
interested in the relationships among the various Exilarchs themselves,
so he doesn't supply much information that could help us construct
pedigrees.

Dr. Moshe Gil is professor emeritus of the Chaim Rosenberg School of
Jewish Studies at Tel Aviv University and holds the Joseph and Ceil
Mazer Chair in the History of the Jews in Muslim Lands (according to
Wikipedia). In 1992 he presented a paper "The Exilarchate" at an
international conference held by the Institute of Jewish Studies,
University College London. This paper was printed in 1995 as pp. 33-65
of the conference proceedings, _The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community,
Society, and Identity_, ed. by Daniel Frank and published by E. J.
Brill. On p. 33 he says that "a Jewish community as sizable as that of
Babylonia and Persia would not readily have acknowledged unfounded
claims of kinship to the House of David for any length of time," and
that "it is reasonable to assume that the Babylonian exiles acknowledged
the legitimacy of the descendants of the royal house, who maintained
their leadership throughout the Persian period."

Based on comments like the two above, I think it might well be possible
to make a statement like the following: "X, from whom descents to the
present can be traced, is quite probably a male-line descendant of the
House of David." I object to the point of view that if you can't
present a connected pedigree with generation-by-generation proof, you
must remain silent.

-- Don Stone

On 9/27/2011 9:03 AM, Graham Milne wrote:
> On Sep 27, 3:07 pm, Wjhonson<wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>> You are confusing a line of descent *with credible sources* from one with NO credible sources whatsoever.
>>
>> David Hughes does *not* attempt to find a credible line of descent, what he does do however, is spin fantastical nonsense that no credible genealogist would consider.
>>
>> He has been lambasted several times before on this newsgroup.
> I'm not confusing anything. It is clear that the pedigrees of the
> exilarchs cannot be proved to modern genealogical standards, but what
> remains can still be the MOST credible, reasonable and sensible
> account we can arrive at. Modern genealogist would not accept the
> Davidic descent of, say, Daniel (Exilarch 1150-1174) as proven but the
> Jews did at the time - and, frankly, that is more important to me than
> your opinion. If they accepted it then I am prepared to accept it now
> (or the probability of it). As David Einsiedler stated in his article
> 'Descent From King David - Part II' ('Avotaynu: The International
> Review of Jewish Genealogy', 1993, Vol. IX, No. 2, page 34)
> 'Genealogists who value religious tradition could say that our rabbis
> and sages did not make statements about Davidic descent lightly, that
> they were trustworthy and insisted on truth.' Are you under the
> impression that the Rabbinical authorities of the time recognized
> Davidic descent willy-nilly?
>
> The situation is best summed up by Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk
> (1919-1985), Albany Herald of Arms (Court of the Lord Lyon), writing

> in 'Books& Bookmen', February-March 1976, who wrote: 'What's already

[Wjhonson]

It's not a question of proof Don, it's a question of evidence.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any Jewish community at all, anywhere, had ever heard of an exilarch in say, the third century AD or the fith century AD or the first century BC. Where is this term ever used in any contemporary document?

[Leo]

Apparently the Maoris in New Zealand have an oral tradition which records
ancestors for a few thousand years or so. Written is not always necessary.
Leo

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[norenxaq]

Leo wrote:

>Apparently the Maoris in New Zealand have an oral tradition which records
>ancestors for a few thousand years or so. Written is not always necessary.
>Leo
>
>

this is true of polynesian society in general

[Wjhonson]

Oral tradition is not credible genealogical evidence.

[Leo]

Who says? This oral tradition is done in a very specific manner, not open to
accidental errors.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
To: <nore...@san.rr.com>
Cc: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors


>
>

> Oral tradition is not credible genealogical evidence.
>
>
>

[Wjhonson]

Says me. Oral tradition is full of errors. Top to bottom. Rife with them.
Drive a steamer through them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

Who says? This oral tradition is done in a very specific manner, not open to

ccidental errors.
----- Original Message -----
rom: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
o: <nore...@san.rr.com>
c: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
ent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:18 AM
ubject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors



Oral tradition is not credible genealogical evidence.



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

------------------------------

o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of

he message

[Sholom Simon]

My wife's family had a tradition that they were descended from Mayflower
passenger Richard Warren. Nobody every did any research until after a few
hundred years, and my mother-in-law ended up proving that the oral
tradition was correct.

On Tue, September 27, 2011 6:08 pm, Leo wrote:
> Apparently the Maoris in New Zealand have an oral tradition which records
> ancestors for a few thousand years or so. Written is not always necessary.
> Leo
>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>

> To: <sho...@aishdas.org>
> Cc: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>
>
>>

>> Obviously no one cares much if you descend from Schlomo the great in the
>> seventh century AD.
>> The point here is that this document, is no genealogical evidence for
>> any
>> descent earlier than perhaps a hundred years before it was written.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sholom Simon <sho...@aishdas.org>
>> To: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

>> Cc: grahammilne001 <grahamm...@btinternet.com>; gen-medieval
>> <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
>> Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 12:31 pm
>> Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>>
>>

>> Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 8:22 am
>> Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

>> If there is NO evidence (which is what you are saying) that must mean
>> hat the entire pedigree is a fabrication - all of it. Sorry, but you
>> re talking utter rubbish (see for instance
>> ttp://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=429&letter=S). You
>> ave jumped straight into the realms of sheer stupidity.
>>

>> ------------------------------
>> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
>> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the
>> body
>> of
>> he message
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> - Sholom

>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>> the
>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>

-- Sholom

[Graham Milne]

> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> he message

Er, it is contemporary evidence. Benjamin of Tudela records that a man
called Daniel was the Exilarch of the Jews at the time. It is a
statement of fact that Daniel was accepted by the Jews as being of
Davidic descent.

[Wjhonson]

Anecdotal claims do not add any support to the disproven claim that oral traditions are mostly accurate.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sholom Simon <sho...@aishdas.org>

To: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
Cc: sholom <sho...@aishdas.org>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; grahammilne001 <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 3:46 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

My wife's family had a tradition that they were descended from Mayflower

assenger Richard Warren. Nobody every did any research until after a few

undred years, and my mother-in-law ended up proving that the oral

radition was correct.
On Tue, September 27, 2011 6:08 pm, Leo wrote:
Apparently the Maoris in New Zealand have an oral tradition which records
ancestors for a few thousand years or so. Written is not always necessary.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
To: <sho...@aishdas.org>
Cc: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:05 AM

Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors


>

[Graham Milne]

On Sep 27, 11:18 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> Oral tradition is not credible genealogical evidence.

Wrong! The Court of Session in Edinburgh recently accepted an oral
genealogy as proof in court - over-riding the Lord Lyon.

[Wjhonson]

Er you have no idea what you're talking about anymore do you?
Who the hell, except you, is making any statement at all, about Daniel?
Pro or con?
Who?
Stop trying to confuse the people through mis direction.
It is not a "Statement of fact" that Daniel was "Accepted by the jews" as anything at all.

That Benjamin of Tudela said something is only a claim that Benjamin of Tudela said something.
It says nothing at all about what "the Jews" thought or didn't think, which Jews, where, who, what, when, and why :)

Did you pass Logic 101 or not? This is not complex. Try to get with the picture.
On this list, as opposed to the other juvenile lists to which you're apparently accustomed, we don't allow people to "pass".

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Milne <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:00 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

On Sep 27, 8:15 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Sorry I don't consider a book written a *thousand* years after the fact to be

ctual credible evidence or evidence at all for that matter.

Likewise I dont' consider Geoffrey of Monmouth to be a credible author to

iscuss what did or did not happen in Roman britain.

That you do, only speaks to your contempt for the actual practice of genealogy

here we rely on sources, not mythologies.

Will "son of thor, son of odysseus, son of thoth" Johnson









-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 8:22 am
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

If there is NO evidence (which is what you are saying) that must mean
hat the entire pedigree is a fabrication - all of it. Sorry, but you
re talking utter rubbish (see for instance
ttp://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=429&letter=S). You
ave jumped straight into the realms of sheer stupidity.

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message
Er, it is contemporary evidence. Benjamin of Tudela records that a man

alled Daniel was the Exilarch of the Jews at the time. It is a

tatement of fact that Daniel was accepted by the Jews as being of

avidic descent.

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[Leo]

You have heard those? Your word is prove they are "full of errors"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson

To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; nore...@san.rr.com
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

Says me. Oral tradition is full of errors. Top to bottom. Rife with them.
Drive a steamer through them.





-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

Who says? This oral tradition is done in a very specific manner, not open to

accidental errors.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>

To: <nore...@san.rr.com>
Cc: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors


>
>

> Oral tradition is not credible genealogical evidence.
>
>
>

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

[Leo]

You are so good with Wikipedia, ask for Maori Oral Tradition and see what you get.

[Graham Milne]

> That is enough for me. You cannot prove that Edward IV was legitimatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

> dward_IV_of_England#Was_Edward_illegitimate.3F), therefore I say that
> e must treat him as being illegitimate. This is the kind of logic you
> re using.
>
> ------------------------------

> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> he message

1 is worthless. I can point out top scientists who believe in
fairies.

OK, name them.

[Wjhonson]

Yes Leo my word is proof....
Are we back to square one again?
What is this insistence on the mis use of the word proof?
There is no such thing as a genealogical proof. It doesn't exist. It's a figment of the imagination of people who want the world to stop spinning and be concrete. All things are fluid, there is no solid footing.

Tomorrow we will discover through DNA testing that Prince Charles is half African.
THERE IS NO SOLID FOOTING :)

That's the situation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:05 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

You have heard those? Your word is prove they are "full of errors"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; nore...@san.rr.com
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:43 AM

Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

Says me. Oral tradition is full of errors. Top to bottom. Rife with them.
Drive a steamer through them.






-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

Who says? This oral tradition is done in a very specific manner, not open to

ccidental errors.
----- Original Message -----

rom: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
o: <nore...@san.rr.com>
c: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

ent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:18 AM
ubject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors



Oral tradition is not credible genealogical evidence.



-------------------------------

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[Wjhonson]

*That* oral tradition exists, is hardly any kind of claim to *that* it is accurate.
I'm not claiming that oral tradition does not exist.
I'm stating that it is not accurate.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

You are so good with Wikipedia, ask for Maori Oral Tradition and see what you get.

[Leo]

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; nore...@san.rr.com
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

*That* oral tradition exists, is hardly any kind of claim to *that* it is accurate.
I'm not claiming that oral tradition does not exist.
I'm stating that it is not accurate.

------------Not accurate? You say that, I think you stand alone........................

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

You are so good with Wikipedia, ask for Maori Oral Tradition and see what you get.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; nore...@san.rr.com
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

Says me. Oral tradition is full of errors. Top to bottom. Rife with them.
Drive a steamer through them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

Who says? This oral tradition is done in a very specific manner, not open to

accidental errors.

[Wjhonson]

Figure of speech.
"Reliance on authority" only works if others agree to rely.
I don't rely.

"1 is worthless. I can point out top scientists who believe in

airies.
OK, name them"

[Wjhonson]

It seems like I don't stand alone

http://www.google.com/search?q=oral+tradition+inaccurate&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; nore...@san.rr.com
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

*That* oral tradition exists, is hardly any kind of claim to *that* it is

ccurate.

I'm not claiming that oral tradition does not exist.
I'm stating that it is not accurate.
------------Not accurate? You say that, I think you stand alone........................


-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

You are so good with Wikipedia, ask for Maori Oral Tradition and see what you

et.

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; nore...@san.rr.com
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

Says me. Oral tradition is full of errors. Top to bottom. Rife with them.
Drive a steamer through them.


-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

ho says? This oral tradition is done in a very specific manner, not open to

ccidental errors.

[Kristie]

Not all oral traditions are the same. Some African traditions have
passed things down for centuries. The person who is the storyteller
learns it word for word and it stays the same from generation to
generation. I agree with Leo - it depends on the tradition. I'd say
Will is right for most Western cultures, but not all cultures.

On 9/27/2011 6:43 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> Says me. Oral tradition is full of errors. Top to bottom. Rife with them.
> Drive a steamer through them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo<can...@netspeed.com.au>
> To: norenxaq<nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson<wjho...@aol.com>
> Cc: gen-medieval<gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 3:34 pm
> Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>
>

> Who says? This oral tradition is done in a very specific manner, not open to
> ccidental errors.

> ----- Original Message -----
> rom: "Wjhonson"<wjho...@aol.com>
> o:<nore...@san.rr.com>
> c:<gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> ent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:18 AM
> ubject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>
>
>
> Oral tradition is not credible genealogical evidence.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------

> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

>
> ------------------------------
> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> he message
>
>

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

[Graham Milne]

> > GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> > ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
> > of
> > he message
>
> -- Sholom

The point is that the Exilarchs were accepted as descendants of David
by the Jews themselves for 2000 years. The idea that the rabbinical
authorities would have accepted anyone as being of Davidic descent
without satisfying themselves that this was in fact the case is utter
nonsense. To come along a thousand years later and say 'I don't accept
that because they don't have birth certificates - or evidence
providing an equivalent level of proof' is mind-bendingly ridiculous.

[Leo]

You have thrown in a red herring. In general Oral Traditions may not be trustworthy, but the Maori Oral tradition stands alone, nothing to do with what you show.

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; nore...@san.rr.com
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com

Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

It seems like I don't stand alone http://www.google.com/search?q=oral+tradition+inaccurate&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; nore...@san.rr.com
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:16 AM

Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

*That* oral tradition exists, is hardly any kind of claim to *that* it is

accurate.

I'm not claiming that oral tradition does not exist.
I'm stating that it is not accurate.

------------Not accurate? You say that, I think you stand alone........................

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

You are so good with Wikipedia, ask for Maori Oral Tradition and see what you

get.

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; nore...@san.rr.com
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com

Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

Says me. Oral tradition is full of errors. Top to bottom. Rife with them.
Drive a steamer through them.





-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

Who says? This oral tradition is done in a very specific manner, not open to

accidental errors.


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

[J Cook]

On Sep 27, 4:05 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> Obviously no one cares much if you descend from Schlomo the great in the seventh century AD.
> The point here is that this document, is no genealogical evidence for any descent earlier than perhaps a hundred years before it was written.

I'm utterly perplexed by this entire thread. It started out with a
legitimate inquiry, and has now been inundated with posts about why we
should believe the most ridiculous and unsupportable claims. Yes, I
believe that the ancient Jewish lineages were well documented for
their time (not made from the whole cloth), but there's no way to know
when generations were skipped, someone is credited as a "son" when
they were merely a successor, and so on. It doesn't meet any
scientific rigor whatsoever.

Why anyone would try and argue _for_ David Hughes's mythical trees is
beyond me. While it is interesting to think about possible descents
and exotic origins, certainly no one can competently argue that such
links are proven.

--JC

[Wjhonson]

Nonsense. The "Jews" did not accept "as descendants of David" the "Exilarchs"
(whatever that even means)
for 2000 years or any number of years just because some book written a thousand years later
makes any claims up or down or sideways about it.
Which by the way, it doesn't anyway. And I doubt you've even read it or have any
understanding on what exactly it is and isn't.
You can continue to say "Yes" but the answer is "No" no matter what you say.
Is this your first day at doing genealogy? Are you here to be spanked?

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Milne <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:30 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

The point is that the Exilarchs were accepted as descendants of David

y the Jews themselves for 2000 years. The idea that the rabbinical

uthorities would have accepted anyone as being of Davidic descent

ithout satisfying themselves that this was in fact the case is utter

onsense. To come along a thousand years later and say 'I don't accept

hat because they don't have birth certificates - or evidence

roviding an equivalent level of proof' is mind-bendingly ridiculous.

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[Wjhonson]

Actually it doesn't.
There is no evidence that it's more or less accurate than any other oral tradition.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

You have thrown in a red herring. In general Oral Traditions may not be

rustworthy, but the Maori Oral tradition stands alone, nothing to do with what

ou show.

---- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; nore...@san.rr.com
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:25 AM

Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

t seems like I don't stand alone http://www.google.com/search?q=oral+tradition+inaccurate&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; nore...@san.rr.com
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:16 AM

Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

*That* oral tradition exists, is hardly any kind of claim to *that* it is

ccurate.
I'm not claiming that oral tradition does not exist.
I'm stating that it is not accurate.
------------Not accurate? You say that, I think you stand alone........................


-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

You are so good with Wikipedia, ask for Maori Oral Tradition and see what you

et.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; nore...@san.rr.com
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:43 AM

Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

Says me. Oral tradition is full of errors. Top to bottom. Rife with them.
Drive a steamer through them.


-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: norenxaq <nore...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

ho says? This oral tradition is done in a very specific manner, not open to

ccidental errors.

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of

[Don Stone]

I believe that this is simply wrong. There are multiple mentions of
exilarchs in the Talmud. Not everything that is said about them in the
Talmud is necessarily correct, but everything that is said about them in
the Talmud is evidence, to be analyzed for trustworthiness using various
criteria.

-- Don Stone

[Wjhonson]

Please cite specifically. The Talmud is a large body of work.

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Stone <d...@donstonetech.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>; grahammilne001 <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

[Graham Milne]

Get with it. Nobody has argued that these descents are proven, merely
that they are probable. My view is that David Hughes has made an
honest attempt to distill the existing sources. The fact is that there
were Exilarchs and the Jews accepted them as descendants of King
David. On the basis that the Jews would not have accepted anyone as a
descendant of David without good reason I am prepared to accept that
they had good reason.

[J Cook]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:30 pm
> Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>
> The point is that the Exilarchs were accepted as descendants of David
> y the Jews themselves for 2000 years. The idea that the rabbinical

This is just not true. Until the Babylonian Exile, most of the
stories you associate from before that time simply did not exist.
(Were made up at that time)

--Joe C

[Graham Milne]

On Sep 27, 10:46 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> It's not a question of proof Don, it's a question of evidence.
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever that any Jewish community at all, anywhere, had ever heard of an exilarch in say, the third century AD or the fith century AD or the first century BC.  Where is this term ever used in any contemporary document?

The title of 'Pope' was not used until after 300 AD I think I am right
in saying - but the heads of the Roman Catholic Church are generally
described as 'Pope'.

Josephus, in his 'Antiquities of the Jews', book XI, chapter 3, para
10, says 'and the governor of all this multitude thus numbered [being
the Jews who Cyrus the Great allowed to return to Jerusalem] was
Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, of the posterity of David.' So
Josephus does in fact refer to one of the individuals mention in I
Chronicles iii 17-24 and it is clear that this person was the ruler of
the Jews and of Davidic descent. Though not actually referred to by
the title 'Exilarch' it is clear that Zorobabel was ruler of the Jews
in exile, that is a de facto exilarch (since 'exilarch' means 'ruler
in exile'), since he is referred to as 'Zorobabel, the governor of the
Jews' (book XI, chapter 1, para 3).

[Graham Milne]

Eh? The 2000 years run FROM the Babylonian Exile (597 BC) until the
sack of Baghdad by Tamerlane (1401 AD). Jeconiah is recognized as the
first Exilarch on the basis of II Kings xxv. 27.

[Wjhonson]

Sorry but no these are not "the facts" no matter how many times you repeat them.
"The Jews" didn't do anything.
Until you can get that simple concept through your fat head, you can't move forward.
"The Jews" don't get together, have conferences and pass resolutions of faith.

Ka Peesh ?
Holy moses....

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Milne <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 5:20 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

On Sep 28, 12:44 am, J Cook <joec...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 4:05 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

> Obviously no one cares much if you descend from Schlomo the great in the

eventh century AD.
> The point here is that this document, is no genealogical evidence for any

escent earlier than perhaps a hundred years before it was written.

I'm utterly perplexed by this entire thread. It started out with a
legitimate inquiry, and has now been inundated with posts about why we
should believe the most ridiculous and unsupportable claims. Yes, I
believe that the ancient Jewish lineages were well documented for
their time (not made from the whole cloth), but there's no way to know
when generations were skipped, someone is credited as a "son" when
they were merely a successor, and so on. It doesn't meet any
scientific rigor whatsoever.

Why anyone would try and argue _for_ David Hughes's mythical trees is
beyond me. While it is interesting to think about possible descents
and exotic origins, certainly no one can competently argue that such
links are proven.

--JC
Get with it. Nobody has argued that these descents are proven, merely

hat they are probable. My view is that David Hughes has made an

onest attempt to distill the existing sources. The fact is that there

ere Exilarchs and the Jews accepted them as descendants of King

avid. On the basis that the Jews would not have accepted anyone as a

escendant of David without good reason I am prepared to accept that

hey had good reason.

[Graham Milne]

> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> he message

Sorry. They are facts no matter how many times you deny them.

[Wjhonson]

Yes....
because Cyrus allowed "Zorobabel to return to Jerusalem" and "Zorobabel was made governor over the Jews whom Cyrus allowed to return", this means that Zorobabel was ruler of those Jews in Babylonia (and apparently in Jerusalem)

Your mind is definitely twisted, you've go the Mercedes Benz

And you know Zorobabel was ruler by divine right of being descended from David, as were all his descendents not to mention.

That Josephus mentions someone from Chronicles is not any kind of mystery or evidence of anything except that he could read I suppose since the Septuagint was already in existence.

Doesn't it occur to you that he is referred to as Governor of the Jews because he was... made... governor... of.. the.... jews.
By Cyrus. That's the point. He was made governor. He wasn't born governor.

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Milne <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 5:40 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

On Sep 27, 10:46 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
It's not a question of proof Don, it's a question of evidence.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any Jewish community at all, anywhere,

ad ever heard of an exilarch in say, the third century AD or the fith century

D or the first century BC. Where is this term ever used in any contemporary

ocument?
The title of 'Pope' was not used until after 300 AD I think I am right

n saying - but the heads of the Roman Catholic Church are generally

escribed as 'Pope'.
Josephus, in his 'Antiquities of the Jews', book XI, chapter 3, para

0, says 'and the governor of all this multitude thus numbered [being

he Jews who Cyrus the Great allowed to return to Jerusalem] was

orobabel, the son of Salathiel, of the posterity of David.' So

osephus does in fact refer to one of the individuals mention in I

hronicles iii 17-24 and it is clear that this person was the ruler of

he Jews and of Davidic descent. Though not actually referred to by

he title 'Exilarch' it is clear that Zorobabel was ruler of the Jews

n exile, that is a de facto exilarch (since 'exilarch' means 'ruler

n exile'), since he is referred to as 'Zorobabel, the governor of the

ews' (book XI, chapter 1, para 3).

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[Wjhonson]

No. Exilarchs were chosen, not born.

[Leo]

According to the all-knowing Wikipedia the position of Exilarch was
hereditary.
Born not an Exilarch but then they become one...........

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
To: <grahamm...@btinternet.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors


>

> No. Exilarchs were chosen, not born.
>

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Don Stone]

Goodblatt (1994), p. 280:

At Palestinian Talmud Kilayim 9:4, 32b = Ketuvot 12:3, 35a = Genesis
Rabbah 33 we have a story illustrating the modesty of [the patriarch]
Judah I. According to this story, Judah asserted, "If Rav Huneh the
exilarch comes up to here, I shall seat him above me. For he is from
Judah, while I am from Benjamin; he is from the males, while I am from
the females." .... This anecdote, which I find impossible to consider
historical, can be dated between the floruit of its protagonists and the
time of Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Bun who comments on it. So it is third
century at the earliest, and possibly as late as the fourth century. It
asserts that the lineage, and hence the status, of the exilarch was
superior to that of the patriarch. While the explicit genealogy is
descent from Judah, I argued above that at issue is descent from the
royal line of the tribe of Judah, viz., descent from David. What this
anecdote tells us is that in third-fourth century Palestine the Davidic
pedigree of the Babylonian exilarch was taken for granted and even
assumed by some to be superior to that of the House of Gamaliel.

Goodblatt gives other examples, which you can look up yourself if really
interested.

-- Don

On 9/27/2011 6:14 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> Please cite specifically. The Talmud is a large body of work.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Stone <d...@donstonetech.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Cc: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>; grahammilne001
> <grahamm...@btinternet.com>

> Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 5:06 pm
> Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

> On 9/27/2011 3:46 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
>> It's not a question of proof Don, it's a question of evidence.
>> There is no evidence whatsoever that any Jewish community at all,

[J.L.Fernandez Blanco]

On Sep 25, 11:17 pm, J Cook <joec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 9:26 pm, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 1:49 pm, "Leo" <can2...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > In medieval Spain finding Muslim or Jewish ancestors I find fascinating as it can cross races as well as religions. In a  small biography for Fadrique Alfonso of Castile, son of Alfonso XI, king of Castile and Leon, by Eleonore de Guzman, I found a few ancestors of Fadrique's Jewish mistress Paloma.
>
> > > Yahia Ben Rabbi
> > >   |
> > > Yosef Ibn Yahya
> > >    -1264
> > >   |
> > > Shlomo Ha-Zaken
> > >    -1299
> > >   |
> > > Gedaliah
> > >   |
> > > Paloma
>
> > > Paloma is an ancestor Queen Elizabeth II, Lady Diana Spencer, Camilla Shand, Sarah Ferguson, Margrethe II, queen of Denmark, Beatrix, queen of The Netherlands, Harald V of Norway, Boris Johnson, and many more.
>
> > The ancestry of Paloma, even that she was Jewish, is based on material
> > from over a century after the fact and from a context in which anti-
> > Semitic propagandizing can not be excluded.
>
> > taf
>
> The references I see cite a 1384 recording that she was jewish, so
> that's a bit closer than a 100 year gap...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually, this is interesting as, by 1384, Alonso Enríquez is recorded
for the FIRST time in his life.
Nothing is known about him prior to that, and, by that time he was in
his late twenties.
Who he was, who HIS REAL PARENTS (both) were is still very much
debatable in Spain and there is no consensus whatsoever among scholars
as to his (Alonso's) claim of being an illegitimate son of Fadrique.
He was not even a Christian at that time, as he had been raised in the
Jewish faith, having been christened/baptized shortly after his sudden
"appearance" at court.
Of course, by the time he appeared at court, all the main characters
in the tragedy between Pedro I and Enrique II were already dead.
According to the Canciller Ayala, Juan I saw him (Alonso) and cried
because of the resemblance with his own father (Enrique II, twin of
Fadrique, the alleged father of Alonso). Now, only based on this, he
was recognized/accepted as member of the family and given the surname
"Enríquez" (not Fadriquez as it should have been). His alleged half
brother Pedro de Castilla (Fadrique's son by Leonor de Ángulo, whom
Fadrique had acknowledged as his son) often referred to him (Alonso)
as "that Jew" and he never ever treated him as a (half-)brother.
Go figure for the documentary evidence in this case!
Alonso is interred in the Monastery of Guadalupe. The Royal House and
the Duque del Infantado (as Head of Alonso's House) have never given
the authorization to exhume his remains a perform a DNA (or any other)
test to proof or otherwise his ancestry.
There is an almost infinite number of speculative theories regarding
his eventual parentage. One that had gained ground in the late 90s (it
seems that it's loosing ground as of lately) is that if it were true
that he was actually Fradrique's son, the most likely candidate for
being his mother would have been Blanche de Bourbon, Pedro's estranged
wife who most likely died poisoned for no known reason...other than
her close relationship with Pedro's utterly hated half brother,
Fadrique (thing already suggested by Ayala who was a contemporary of
Alonso, Juan I, etc., without, of course mentioning Blanche by name,
just suggesting a woman of very high birth, higher than anybody else's
in the kingdom...).
Anyway, being a skeptic myself, I do believe (as Pedro de Castilla, I
conde de Trastámara, Lemos y Sarria, Alonso's alleged half-brother)
that he was probably an adventurer who got lucky. Those were awfully
difficult times in Castille, and anyone with guts could reach any
position they wanted. A plethora of similar cases are abundant.
And, another thing, Paloma (or whatever her name was) is not mentioned
in any contemporary document at the time of the alleged birth of our
Alonso. Her name appears much later and not as Alonso's mother but as
the woman who cared for him, keeping him out of harms while Pedro I
was still alive. But then, Pedro had been dead for 15 years when
Alonso first showed his face at court...why did s/he take so long when
the danger had long been gone? Now I wonder how on earth it is that we
know even her pedigree. This is a complete and odd surprise.
I'd very much appreciate knowing the source for all this, because
AFAIK...there is none...or, at least, there were none less than a
couple of years ago and it looks like nobody in Spain knows this
source(s).
Thanks and regards.
JL Fernández-Blanco

[Jwc...@aol.com]

Dear Todd, Simon, Leo, Will et alia ,
First , We all
know that the written pedigree can be as precarious or more so than an oral
one given by the right person.

Second , as to my own Jewish ancestry I have only Christian converts whose
forbears I suspect were jews, namely the fourteenth century Isaac family
from around Patrixbourne, Kent, England ancestral to the immigrant Samuel
Appleton via his mother Mary (Isaac) Appleton and Robert Fiske`s wife Sibylla
Gold in sixteenth century Essex plus a early seventeenth century man
named Jarvis (? Gervase) Gold whose descendants inside a century or so were
known as Goold (modern Gould)

Third , The Bishop of Rome acquired the style of Pontifex Maximus from
his pagan predecessor, the High Preist of Jupiter (the Emperor himself) in
time Pontifex became Pontiff and `Maximus ` was dropped. pontiff has
become more familiarly known as pope. Note that Jupiter`s titles such as
Heavenly Father and King of the Universe have been given to Jehovah most likely
in order to calm pagan doubters by utilizing known forms.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Sholom Simon]

At 08:45 PM 9/27/2011, gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com wrote:
>There is no evidence whatsoever that any Jewish community at all,
>anywhere, had ever heard of an exilarch in say, the third century AD
>or the fith century AD or the first century BC. Where is this term
>ever used in any contemporary document?

Huh? The Talmud was written in Aramaic. The Aramaic term for
"Exilarch" is "Reish Galusah", and it appears all over the
Talmud. (E.g., Bava Kamma 102b, last line; Shabbat 20b, middle of
the page; etc.)

As for descents from King David specifically -- journals on Jewish
Genealogy (e.g., Avotaynu) discuss the issue.

-- Sholom

[taf]

On Sep 27, 3:08 pm, "Leo" <can2...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
> Apparently the Maoris in New Zealand have an oral tradition which records
> ancestors for a few thousand years or so. Written is not always necessary.


The problem is that with no historical record, we have not the
slightest basis on which to conclude whether those oral traditions
have a basis in historical reality. There is a body of
anthropological work carried out over the past century among non-
literate tribes, recording their pedigrees, politics, etc. These
studies have shown that the pedigrees reflect the current political
milieu (i.e. members of allied clans are given pedigrees with common
ancestry), and that over relatively short periods of time, these
pedigrees are modified if the politics change (clans previously
'related' are banished from the pedigree, while now-allies are
incorporated into the pedigree structure).

It is begging the question to assume that just because an extended
oral pedigree tradition exists among the Maoris, it must reflect
authentic genealogy.

taf

[Sholom Simon]

>No. Exilarchs were chosen, not born.

It was a hereditary position. (Not always to the first born son,
often to the "most suitable" son)

-- Sholom

[taf]

On Sep 27, 3:46 pm, "Sholom Simon" <sho...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> My wife's family had a tradition that they were descended from Mayflower
> passenger Richard Warren.  Nobody every did any research until after a few
> hundred years, and my mother-in-law ended up proving that the oral
> tradition was correct.


My family has three separate oral tradition of descent from Native
Americans. One was based on descent from a man named Indian John.
Well, it turns out Indian John was born in Loraine to the German
peasant-gardener of the local lord, but who did have a ruddy
complexion. The second claims descent from Wild Bill Hickok and his
Indian wife, because great-great-grandmother had the Hickok surname.
She was also born before Wild Bill. The third claims descent from
someone kidnapped as a child by Indians and married a native bride
before coming back to 'white society'. Well he did exist, but he was
a first cousin, and further, he returned, found he didn't like it, and
went back, with no known children. (This pattern, by the way, is not
atypical for where my people were from - in the 2000 census where
people were allowed to list a second nationality, the most common
second in Pennsylvania was Native American, in spite of the fact that
there hasn't been a significant Native American population in the
commonwealth since before 1800, well before the families of most of
those claiming such a descent immigrated to the US.)

For every tradition that proves accurate, there are those that are
complete nonsense, and you can't tell which is which without the
documentation, in which case the tradition is superfluous.

taf

[taf]

On Sep 27, 4:10 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

> Tomorrow we will discover through DNA testing that Prince Charles is half African.

Well, if you go far enough back, DNA testing has already discovered
that he and the rest of us are all African. (It has also now
discovered that he is part Neanderthal, as are most of the rest of
us.)

taf

[Wjhonson]

It's very hard to parse your reply when you mix your own assumptions into quotations.

"He is from Judah: is not identical to "he is the ruler of all the Jews because he is descended in the royal line from David...."
etc etc etc

That A person thought he was superior, or at least should be "seated higher" then himself, in no way indicates that all Jews thought this or that or recognized the person's authority etc etc.

Same old same old. Taking a non literal quip and making a universal truth out of it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Stone <d...@donstonetech.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>; grahammilne001 <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 6:35 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors


Goodblatt (1994), p. 280:

At Palestinian Talmud Kilayim 9:4, 32b = Ketuvot 12:3, 35a = Genesis Rabbah 33 we have a story illustrating the modesty of [the patriarch] Judah I. According to this story, Judah asserted, "If Rav Huneh the exilarch comes up to here, I shall seat him above me. For he is from Judah, while I am from Benjamin; he is from the males, while I am from the females." .... This anecdote, which I find impossible to consider historical, can be dated between the floruit of its protagonists and the time of Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Bun who comments on it. So it is third century at the earliest, and possibly as late as the fourth century. It asserts that the lineage, and hence the status, of the exilarch was superior to that of the patriarch. While the explicit genealogy is descent from Judah, I argued above that at issue is descent from the royal line of the tribe of Judah, viz., descent from David. What this anecdote tells us is that in third-fourth century Palestine the Davidic pedigree of the Babylonian exilarch was taken for granted and even assumed by some to be superior to that of the House of Gamaliel.

Goodblatt gives other examples, which you can look up yourself if really interested.

-- Don


On 9/27/2011 6:14 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
Please cite specifically. The Talmud is a large body of work.



-----Original Message-----
From: Don Stone <d...@donstonetech.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>; grahammilne001 <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors


On 9/27/2011 3:46 PM, Wjhonson wrote:

It's not a question of proof Don, it's a question of evidence.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any Jewish community at all, anywhere, had ever heard of an exilarch in say, the third century AD or the fith century AD or the first century BC. Where is this term ever used in any contemporary document?

[taf]

On Sep 27, 4:02 pm, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 27, 11:18 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Oral tradition is not credible genealogical evidence.
>
> Wrong! The Court of Session in Edinburgh recently accepted an oral
> genealogy as proof in court - over-riding the Lord Lyon.

And this means what? Courts reject credible evidence and accept
dubious evidence with amazing frequency. There are murderers walking
the streets and innocent men in prison based on such decisions.

taf

[taf]

On Sep 27, 7:54 pm, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:

> Second , as to my own Jewish ancestry I have only Christian converts whose  
> forbears I suspect were jews, namely the fourteenth century Isaac family
> from  around Patrixbourne, Kent, England ancestral to the immigrant Samuel  
> Appleton via his mother Mary (Isaac) Appleton and Robert Fiske`s wife Sibylla  
> Gold in sixteenth century Essex  plus a early seventeenth century man  
> named Jarvis (? Gervase) Gold whose descendants inside a century or so were  
> known as Goold (modern Gould)

Are you reaching this conclusion based on a surname that 'looks
Jewish'? If so, care is called for. (I recall an author a few years
back who compiled a list of orientals who fought in the American Civil
War, reaching their conclusion based on oriental-looking surnames.
When someone actually looked into these people, most of them turned
out to have been Germans.)

taf

[Wjhonson]

There is zero evidence that it was hereditary.

THAT the person was supposed to descend from a certain family descended from David is one thing.
That the next exilarch was the son of the previous one is without any credible evidence.

[Wjhonson]

One half of my own DNA is in common with a sea slug

-----Original Message-----
From: taf <t...@clearwire.net>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

[Sholom Simon]

... Mar Zutra was succeeded by his son Kahana (Kahana II), whose chief
adviser was Rabina, the editor of the Babylonian Talmud (d. 499). Then
followed two exilarchs by the same name: another son of Mar Zutra, Huna V,
and a grandson of Mar Zutra, Huna VI, the son of Kahana....

No evidence?

[Don Stone]

Will,

Everything between "Goodblatt (1994), p. 280:" and "Goodblatt gives
other examples" is quoted from Goodblatt, though I added "[the
patriarch]" and omitted some material, as indicated by "....". The
quotation marks within this big block are surrounding the material from
the Talmud.

So there are no assumptions or commentary from me. It is Goldblatt, not
me, who is saying "This anecdote, which I find impossible to consider
historical, ...", etc. Sorry if this wasn't clear. Do you understand now?

-- Don

On 9/27/2011 10:10 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> It's very hard to parse your reply when you mix your own assumptions
> into quotations.
> "He is from Judah: is not identical to "he is the ruler of all the
> Jews because he is descended in the royal line from David...."
> etc etc etc
>
> That A person thought he was superior, or at least should be "seated
> higher" then himself, in no way indicates that all Jews thought this
> or that or recognized the person's authority etc etc.
>
> Same old same old. Taking a non literal quip and making a universal
> truth out of it.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Stone <d...@donstonetech.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Cc: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>; grahammilne001
> <grahamm...@btinternet.com>

> Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 6:35 pm
> Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

>> Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 5:06 pm
>> Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>>

[Wjhonson]

And you're quoting from the very book in question.
Circular much?

-----Original Message-----
From: Sholom Simon <sho...@aishdas.org>

To: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: sholom <sho...@aishdas.org>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 9:31 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

[Graham Milne]

So you accept that traditions can be true? If that is the case it is
question of assessing each tradition on its own merits. If a
'tradition', say an oral genealogy, is found to be more probable than
not then we can conclude that it is probable. But the pedigree of the
exilarchs is more than a tradition of course. We know for a fact that
certain people were recognized by the Jews as being of Davidic descent
and accorded the title of exilarch. There is no well-founded academic
reason for questioning their recognition.

[Graham Milne]

On Sep 28, 5:23 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>  One half of my own DNA is in common with a sea slug

No, two halves of your DNA are in common with a sea slug. (Joke)

[Sholom Simon]

> And you're quoting from the very book in question.
> Circular much?

Huh? (FWIW, I was quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia (1915), Vol 5)

The fact that the Exilarch position (which you claimed wasn't in any
contemporary sources, despite the fact that it appears hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of times in the Talmud) is hereditary is beyond dispute.

This is not to argue that it is correctly from the Davidic line, as there
may have been some broken links in the chain. But to say that it's not a
hereditary position at all is nonsense.

In fact Jewish law, to this day even, *requires* some positions to be
hereditary (not necessarily father to son, but indeed patrilineal descent
of some sort). This not only included the King, the Nasi, and the
Exilarch in the past, but also the High Priest, and, in fact, everyone who
served in an official capacity at the Temple in Jerusalem (including even
which families got the honor of bringing wood to fuel the fire for the
altar (see Talmud, Tractate Ta'anis, 28a; for examples of the
recordkeeping of genealogical tables, see Mishna, Yevamot 5:4; Tosefta
Haggigah 2:9; Talmud Yevamos 49a-b.), which people sang Psalms, played
instruments, guarded the doors, etc). In fact, thru patrilineal descent,
many of those families are *still* honored today (descendants of Aaron,
called Kohanim (plural of Kohen -- the family from which the High Priest
descends) are honored at synagogues today; and secondary honors go to
Levi'im (plural of Levi, from the tribe of Levi; from which the singers,
guards, treasurers, and other "helpers" around the Temple). See
Maimonides, Mishna Torah, Hilchot Klei HaHamikdash, Chpt 1-4;

Similarly, Chassidic groups in the last few hundred years thru today are
built on this model -- although in this case, the Rebbe, or leader, passes
from father to son or son-in-law. There are even discussions about
whether the Chief Rabbi of Elizabeth, New Jersey, is required to be an
inherited position.

The point of all this is that many positions of communal authority are
required to be an inherited position, and it has been that way for over
3000 years. To say the Exilarch is not such a position displays a lack of
knowledge of Jewish law.

-- Sholom

[Graham Milne]

The fact that courts make mistakes (Wow! That's news!) doesn't mean
that we should dismiss ALL court decisions. Your statement is
RIDICULOUS.

[taf]

On Sep 28, 6:40 am, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>

wrote:
> On Sep 28, 4:45 am, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 4:02 pm, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:

> > > Wrong! The Court of Session in Edinburgh recently accepted an oral
> > > genealogy as proof in court - over-riding the Lord Lyon.
>
> > And this means what?  Courts reject credible evidence and accept
> > dubious evidence with amazing frequency.   There are murderers walking
> > the streets and innocent men in prison based on such decisions.
>

> The fact that courts make mistakes (Wow! That's news!) doesn't mean
> that we should dismiss ALL court decisions. Your statement is
> RIDICULOUS.

You have it backwards. The fact that courts make mistakes means
precisely that any particular court decision does not prove anything.
It becomes an anecdote. More importantly, courts are not and have
never been arbiters of historical reality.

taf

[Graham Milne]

On Sep 28, 3:07 pm, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:

> You have it backwards.  The fact that courts make mistakes means
> precisely that any particular court decision does not prove anything.
> It becomes an anecdote.  More importantly, courts are not and have
> never been arbiters of historical reality.
>
> taf

Yeah right. Court rulings prove nothing. Got it.

[Wjhonson]

You mean other than the fact that they weren't "recognized by the Jews as being of Davidic descent"
And that that at any rate didn't quality them to be "Accorded the title of exilarch"
Other than those two glaring statements which show that you have little to no comprehension of the topic.

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Milne <grahamm...@btinternet.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Wed, Sep 28, 2011 4:05 am
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

So you accept that traditions can be true? If that is the case it is

uestion of assessing each tradition on its own merits. If a
tradition', say an oral genealogy, is found to be more probable than

ot then we can conclude that it is probable. But the pedigree of the

xilarchs is more than a tradition of course. We know for a fact that

ertain people were recognized by the Jews as being of Davidic descent

nd accorded the title of exilarch. There is no well-founded academic

eason for questioning their recognition.

------------------------------

o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of

he message

[Wjhonson]

The Jewish encyclopedia is not a source on this topic is it.
It's using other underlying sources isn't it?
You can quote eighteen levels deep, but if you don't quote the actual underlying source, you can't get anywhere.

That the Exilarch position is heriditary is a false claim. It is not.
Exilarchs were selected.

The word does not appear hundreds nor thousands of times in the Talmud.
It does not appear at all in the Talmud.

You seem to be confusing your terms. "Heriditary" positions are inherited father-to-son.
You would not call a position "heriditary" if it was inherited by your third cousin, when in fact you had sons

Of course men who served in the temple inherited their positions. This is plain from the mind-numbing detail of Chronicles.
However there is no authentic documentation, whatsoever, no one shread of it, that claims that the Exilarch position passed father to son as "King" "Ruler" of "the Jews".

It's all backward looking redaction.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sholom Simon <sho...@aishdas.org>

To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: sholom <sho...@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wed, Sep 28, 2011 5:14 am
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

> And you're quoting from the very book in question.
Circular much?
Huh? (FWIW, I was quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia (1915), Vol 5)
The fact that the Exilarch position (which you claimed wasn't in any

ontemporary sources, despite the fact that it appears hundreds, perhaps

housands, of times in the Talmud) is hereditary is beyond dispute.
This is not to argue that it is correctly from the Davidic line, as there

ay have been some broken links in the chain. But to say that it's not a

ereditary position at all is nonsense.
In fact Jewish law, to this day even, *requires* some positions to be

ereditary (not necessarily father to son, but indeed patrilineal descent

f some sort). This not only included the King, the Nasi, and the

xilarch in the past, but also the High Priest, and, in fact, everyone who

erved in an official capacity at the Temple in Jerusalem (including even

hich families got the honor of bringing wood to fuel the fire for the

ltar (see Talmud, Tractate Ta'anis, 28a; for examples of the

ecordkeeping of genealogical tables, see Mishna, Yevamot 5:4; Tosefta

aggigah 2:9; Talmud Yevamos 49a-b.), which people sang Psalms, played

nstruments, guarded the doors, etc). In fact, thru patrilineal descent,

any of those families are *still* honored today (descendants of Aaron,

alled Kohanim (plural of Kohen -- the family from which the High Priest

escends) are honored at synagogues today; and secondary honors go to

evi'im (plural of Levi, from the tribe of Levi; from which the singers,

uards, treasurers, and other "helpers" around the Temple). See

aimonides, Mishna Torah, Hilchot Klei HaHamikdash, Chpt 1-4;
Similarly, Chassidic groups in the last few hundred years thru today are

uilt on this model -- although in this case, the Rebbe, or leader, passes

rom father to son or son-in-law. There are even discussions about

hether the Chief Rabbi of Elizabeth, New Jersey, is required to be an

nherited position.
The point of all this is that many positions of communal authority are

equired to be an inherited position, and it has been that way for over

000 years. To say the Exilarch is not such a position displays a lack of

nowledge of Jewish law.
-- Sholom

[Graham Milne]

> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> he message

1. The exilarchs were the rulers of the Jews in exile.
2. They were recognized by the Jews as being of Davidic descent.

[taf]

On Sep 28, 11:00 am, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> On Sep 28, 3:07 pm, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
>
> > You have it backwards.  The fact that courts make mistakes means
> > precisely that any particular court decision does not prove anything.
> > It becomes an anecdote.  More importantly, courts are not and have
> > never been arbiters of historical reality.
>

> Yeah right. Court rulings prove nothing. Got it.

Good. Or were you being facetious? Well, I am not. No court has ever
proven a historical fact. They determine legal fact, yes, but that's
not the same thing, not at all.

taf

[Leo]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
To: <sho...@aishdas.org>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors


>

<snip>

> That the Exilarch position is heriditary is a false claim. It is not.
> Exilarchs were selected.
>

---------------As I understand it, you have the belong to a specific family
to be able to be selected. A bit like the early kings of Scotland.

> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
> of
> he message
>
>

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Graham Milne]

On Sep 28, 8:17 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> he message

Doh! The office of exilarch was hereditary within the exilarchal
family. Wake up.

[lostcopper]

On Sep 27, 4:48 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> Actually it doesn't.
> There is no evidence that it's more or less accurate than any other oral tradition.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo <can2...@netspeed.com.au>
> To: norenxaq <noren...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com>
>
> Cc: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:32 pm

> Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

> You have thrown in a red herring. In general Oral Traditions may not be
> rustworthy, but the Maori Oral tradition stands alone, nothing to do with what
> ou show.

>
> ---- Original Message -----
>  From: Wjhonson

>  To: can2...@netspeed.com.au ; noren...@san.rr.com
>  Cc: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
>  Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:25 AM
>  Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

> t seems like I don't stand alonehttp://www.google.com/search?q=oral+tradition+inaccurate&sourceid=ie7... 

>
>   -----Original Message-----
>  From: Leo <can2...@netspeed.com.au>
>  To: norenxaq <noren...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com>
>  Cc: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
>  Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:17 pm
>  Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

>   ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Wjhonson

>  To: can2...@netspeed.com.au ; noren...@san.rr.com
>  Cc: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
>  Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:16 AM
>  Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

>  *That* oral tradition exists, is hardly any kind of claim to *that* it is
> ccurate.
>  I'm not claiming that oral tradition does not exist.
>  I'm stating that it is not accurate.
>   ------------Not accurate? You say that, I think you stand alone........................

>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Leo <can2...@netspeed.com.au>
>  To: norenxaq <noren...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com>
>  Cc: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
>  Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 4:09 pm
>  Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

>  You are so good with Wikipedia, ask for Maori Oral Tradition and see what you
> et.

>    ----- Original Message -----
>    From: Wjhonson

>    To: can2...@netspeed.com.au ; noren...@san.rr.com
>    Cc: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
>    Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:43 AM
>    Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

>    Says me.  Oral tradition is full of errors.  Top to bottom.  Rife with them.
>    Drive a steamer through them.

>
>     -----Original Message-----
>    From: Leo <can2...@netspeed.com.au>
>    To: norenxaq <noren...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com>
>    Cc: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
>    Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 3:34 pm
>    Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

> ho says? This oral tradition is done in a very specific manner, not open to
> ccidental errors.

>
> ------------------------------
> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of

> he message
>
> ------------------------------
> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com
> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> he message

Obviously you are not familiar with the ethnographic work done among
these societies. Yet you make your proclamations.

[lostcopper]

On Sep 27, 4:25 pm, Kristie <girl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Not all oral traditions are the same.  Some African traditions have
> passed things down for centuries.  The person who is the storyteller
> learns it word for word and it stays the same from generation to
> generation.  I agree with Leo - it depends on the tradition.  I'd say
> Will is right for most Western cultures, but not all cultures.

>
> On 9/27/2011 6:43 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
>
>
>
> > Says me.  Oral tradition is full of errors.  Top to bottom.  Rife with them.
> > Drive a steamer through them.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leo<can2...@netspeed.com.au>
> > To: norenxaq<noren...@san.rr.com>; Wjhonson<wjhon...@aol.com>
> > Cc: gen-medieval<gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> > Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 3:34 pm
> > Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>

> > Who says? This oral tradition is done in a very specific manner, not open to
> > ccidental errors.

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > rom: "Wjhonson"<wjhon...@aol.com>
> > o:<noren...@san.rr.com>
> > c:<gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> > ent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:18 AM
> > ubject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>
> >   Oral tradition is not credible genealogical evidence.
>

> >   -------------------------------
> >   To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to

> >   GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the

> >   quotes in the subject and the body of the message

>
> > ------------------------------
> > o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com
> > ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> > he message
>

> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I agree. Among others, the traditional Dine' (Navajo) have ceremonies
that last over a week and include complex chants. It is so important
to keep them exactly the same, time after time, generation after
generation, that if someone makes a mistake, the ceremony must begin
again, from the first moment of the first day, even if it was almost
completed when the mistake was made. People from cultures that rely on
the written word have atrophied memories, but they don't know this. So
they think that everyone in the world has the same memory limitations.
Not so. - Bronwen

[lostcopper]

Speaking of DNA testing, I recall a documentary from a few years ago
in which certain Jewish lineages were traced to Africa, Asia, etc. In
all of the places they went, there was a population that, to all
appearances, was the same as the people living around them, but they
had always called themselves Jews. The DNA testing proved that there
was, indeed, an historical basis for their claim. That is, of course,
a far cry from having a tradition linking specific individuals to
other specific individuals, but it is evidence for the importance of a
"tradition" having scientific support.

[lostcopper]

On Sep 27, 9:23 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>  One half of my own DNA is in common with a sea slug
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taf <t...@clearwire.net>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 8:50 pm
> Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
>
> On Sep 27, 4:10 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Tomorrow we will discover through DNA testing that Prince Charles is half
> African.
>
> Well, if you go far enough back, DNA testing has already discovered
> that he and the rest of us are all African. (It has also now
> discovered that he is part Neanderthal, as are most of the rest of
> us.)
>
> taf
>
> -------------------------------

> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> the message

Actually, more than that. Something like 75% is in common with a
banana.

[taf]

On Sep 28, 1:59 pm, lostcopper <lostcoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Speaking of DNA testing, I recall a documentary from a few years ago
> in which certain Jewish lineages were traced to Africa, Asia, etc. In
> all of the places they went, there was a population that, to all
> appearances, was the same as the people living around them, but they
> had always called themselves Jews. The DNA testing proved that there
> was, indeed, an historical basis for their claim. That is, of course,
> a far cry from having a tradition linking specific individuals to
> other specific individuals, but it is evidence for the importance of a
> "tradition" having scientific support.

Well, this is oversimplified, but the case of the Lemba of southern
Africa is typical. They did not have a tradition of being Jews, per
se, but had a tradition of their ancestors coming from elsewhere and
some of their cultural practices were deemed by anthropologists to be
reminiscent of those of some forms of Judaism. When tested, most of
them had genetics similar to those around, but they did find a rare Y-
chromosome haplotype of the Cohanim, a haplotype thought to have
arisen among the proto-Jewish populations of Palestine and used as a
distinctive marker for Jewish descent. (They are not accepted as true
Jews by the state of Israel, but there is a political aspect to that
since Israel is obligated to allow immigration by any Jew, and their
is intra-faith disagreement over who is and is not a Jew and who gets
to make the determination.)

There have been notable negative results as well - last I saw, genetic
surveys of the New Mexico populations frequently identified as being
Crypto-Jewish failed to find anything the least bit suggestive of
Jewish genetic signature.

taf

[taf]

On Sep 28, 2:01 pm, lostcopper <lostcoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 9:23 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >  One half of my own DNA is in common with a sea slug
>

> Actually, more than that. Something like 75% is in common with a
> banana.

No, that's not right. I bet that was 75% of gene families. There are
too many different ways of counting as is shown by the following two
oft-quotes statistics, both true but counting differently:

1. A human and a chimp share 98.5% of their DNA.

2. Any two unrelated humans differ in their DNA by 10%.

Draw from that what you will.

taf

[Graham Milne]

Listen. It is obvious to all the rest of us that anyone who disagrees
with me has a DNA profile which is:

1. 50% sea slug;
2. 25% banana;
3. 24% chimpanzee;
4. 1% Prince Charles.

END OF ARGUMENT!!!!

[Séimí mac Liam]

Graham Milne <grahamm...@btinternet.com> wrote in news:5861fa3a-4ff9-
4046-bb8e-2...@k6g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

> 4. 1% Prince Charles.
>

It's my ears, innit?

--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

[monke...@centurylink.net]

Well now understand your problem

Janet









-------Original Message-------



From: Wjhonson

Date: 9/27/2011 11:23:50 PM

To: t...@clearwire.net;

Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

One half of my own DNA is in common with a sea slug

.

[Sholom Simon]

>The word does not appear hundreds nor thousands of times in the Talmud.
>It does not appear at all in the Talmud.

Why are you making that ridiculous assertion? C'mon, get
real. That's like saying the word "son" never appears in Latin
Church records. Of course it doesn't. "Son" is English and Latin
Church records are in Latin.

The Talmud was written in Aramaic, and "Exilarch" is not an Aramaic
word. The Aramaic term for "Exilarch" is "Reish Galusa". Do you
dispute this? Do you dispute that "reish galusa" appears hundreds of
times in the Talmud?

Listen -- I may be neophyte compared to you in the area of genealogy
-- but I've been studying Talmud for 20+ years.

-- Sholom