which Makhir are you referring to
david hughes
Exilarch Natronai claimed by Zuckerman has been discredited, that I
know; and his identification with the Jewish prince Makhir is also
under fire, however, when reading the criticisms about Makhir one
wonders which Makhir they are referring to; for there were four [4]
near contemporary Jewish princes who bore the name Makhir. They were:
(1) the "DFA" Charts give the pedigree of Prince Makhir, son of
Haninai [Habibai], son of Natronai, Gaon of Pumbeditha, son of
Nehemiah, son of Haninai Baradai [Bar Adoi], son of the Jewish
Exilarch Bustanai; (2) Bryant-Abraham gives the pedigree of Prince
Makhir, son of the Jewish Exilarch Zakkai Yehuda, son of Yomtov
Ruzbihan [Ahunai], son of Shahrijar [Shahari], son of the Jewish
Exilarch Bustanai; (3) then, there is the Jewish Exilarch Makhir,
deposed 773, son of Haninai [the brother of Natronai, Gaon of
Pumbeditha], son of Nehemiah, son of Haninai Baradai, son of the
Jewish Exilarch Bustanai; and, (4) the least likely identification of
all [in my opinion] though popular on the internet is Prince Makhir,
son of Yehuda [Judah], son of Yitzhak [another brother of Natronai,
Gaon of Pumbeditha], son of Nehemiah, son of Haninai Baradai, son of
the Jewish Exilarch Bustanai. I think it would be helpful in the
criticisms of Makhir to distinguish which one is under fire. myself, I
would like to trace a descent-line through Makhir, but am confused as
to which one to trace the line through.
Todd A. Farmerie
> the identity of Theuderic [Thierri] of Narbonne with the Jewish
> Exilarch Natronai claimed by Zuckerman has been discredited, that I
> know; and his identification with the Jewish prince Makhir is also
> under fire,
Also discredited, or rather, discredited at the same time as the
identification of Theoderic with Natronai. Zuckerman's
hypothesis, that Theoderic < = > Makhir < = > Natronai was
discredited at the first link - that all attempts to link
Theoderic with Makhir are misplaced.
> however, when reading the criticisms about Makhir one
> wonders which Makhir they are referring to; for there were four [4]
> near contemporary Jewish princes who bore the name Makhir. They were:
. . .
This misses the point that there is no reason whatsoever to
identify Theoderic with any of them.
> I think it would be helpful in the
> criticisms of Makhir to distinguish which one is under fire.
Theoderic doesn't link to ANY Makhir.
> myself, I
> would like to trace a descent-line through Makhir, but am confused as
> to which one to trace the line through.
e. none of the above.
You may wish to consider the root of your motivations - this
desire to trace from someone, as opposed to a desire for
authentic genealogy even if it doesn't trace from anyone in
particular, is likely to produce more smoke than fire.
taf
david hughes
would have some ill-informed comment to make about my inquiry. you,
Todd Farmerie, must be a pathetic creature to use this public forum to
masturbate your ego.
DH
Jay
Todd rather than being a "stooge" is a most helpful individual,
pointing out important documentation that helps people document or in
some cases disprove a line. It is not being mean when he does this,
it is being helpful. That you take offense at such help is odd, even
his latest message was in fact being very helpful, by chasing down
genealogy back in time from known ancestors rather than forward in
time from a specific supposed ancestor you can save your self
tremendous wasted efforts.
New information comes online since sources were published, and some
represented some shoddy work to begin with, so one is bound to have
lines crossed off that were based on part of the process. We all have
those cross outs!!!! For example I would love to connect to Edward
III and Philipa of Hainaut and plunge into the many ancestral links
that I see posted on this group, but so far I have found no such
links, and the closest I have come is the Katherine Stradling link
which if you have followed the recent discussions is problematical.
So relax, have fun, realize Todd is a very helpful resource and
remember IT IS ONLY GENEALOGY
-Jay
Jon Meltzer
news:c57e4f24.04021...@posting.google.com...
> you again! I should have reckoned that one of the "three stooges"
<plonk>