Makhir
david hughes
Makhir is disputed by some academics due to the general ignorance
among them that there were more than one near contemporary Jewish
princes who bore the name Makhir. And, among those academics who are
aware of this there is confusion and/or disagreement among them over
which of the four near contemporary Jewish princes who bore the name
Makhir is to be identified with Theuderic [Thierri] of Narbonne. (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 in his "De Domo et Familia David" article 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) there 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 in question. Nat
Taylor wrote an article against identifying Makhir # 1 (above) with
Theuderic of Narbonne. Bryant-Abraham makes an excellent case in his
"De Domo et Familia David" article that Makhir # 2 (above) is to be
identified with Theuderic of Narbonne. There are some chronological
difficulties in the story of Makhir # 3 (above) for him to be
identified with Theuderic of Narbonne. And, Makhir # 4 lived in the
generation after Makhir #s 1, 2, & 3, who were contemporaries, and
therefore the least likely to be identified with Theuderic of Narbonne
though his identification appears to be popular on the internet. The
identification of Theuderic [Thierri] of Narbonne with one of the
Jewish princes who bore the name Makhir is generally accepted today by
competent scholars, except for a few who prematurely rejected the
identification without any scholarly investigation of the facts on
their parts and can not accept now the fact that they were wrong.
DH
Pierre Aronax
"david hughes" <Rdavi...@Aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:c57e4f24.04022...@posting.google.com...
<...>
> The
> identification of Theuderic [Thierri] of Narbonne with one of the
> Jewish princes who bore the name Makhir is generally accepted today by
> competent scholars
<...>
Actually, it is not, and for excellent reasons.
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/pdfs/Makhir.pdf
Pierre
Todd A. Farmerie
> The identity of Theuderic [Thierri] of Narbonne with the Jewish prince
> Makhir is disputed by some academics due to the general ignorance
> among them that there were more than one near contemporary Jewish
> princes who bore the name Makhir.
This is a mischaracterization. It is disputed because there
never was a single bit of evidence that the two men were the
same. The theory was first put forward based on a combination of
misreading of sources and wishful thinking, and no supporting
evidence has since surfaced, while the original argument has been
soundly refuted.
> And, among those academics who are
> aware of this there is confusion and/or disagreement among them over
> which of the four near contemporary Jewish princes who bore the name
> Makhir is to be identified with Theuderic [Thierri] of Narbonne.
Again, this assumes that any of them are to be so identified with
Theoderic - they are not. There is valid argument as to whether
Makhir is to be identified with various specific exilarch scions,
but this ambiguity has no bearing on whether Makhir can be
identified with Theoderic. This presentation argues about the
first question, as if it somehow determining where Makhir fits in
among the exilarch community will add support to his identity
with Theoderic, but this is not the case - the two questions are
largely independent.
> (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 in his "De Domo et Familia David" article 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) there 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 in question.
Are these really four different Makhirs, or simply four different
placements of a single historical Makhir among the Exilarch clan
- different guesses as to where he fits? Please present
contemporary evidence that each of them exists, or we must
suspect the latter.
> Nat
> Taylor wrote an article against identifying Makhir # 1 (above) with
> Theuderic of Narbonne.
He did nothing of the sort! He wrote an article refuting the
identification of Theoderic with Makhir - any Makhir. He did not
address where Makhir is to be placed among the exilarch pedigrees.
> Bryant-Abraham makes an excellent case in his
> "De Domo et Familia David" article that Makhir # 2 (above) is to be
> identified with Theuderic of Narbonne.
And what, exactly, did he present to show them identical?
> There are some chronological
> difficulties in the story of Makhir # 3 (above) for him to be
> identified with Theuderic of Narbonne. And, Makhir # 4 lived in the
> generation after Makhir #s 1, 2, & 3, who were contemporaries, and
> therefore the least likely to be identified with Theuderic of Narbonne
> though his identification appears to be popular on the internet. The
> identification of Theuderic [Thierri] of Narbonne with one of the
> Jewish princes who bore the name Makhir is generally accepted today by
> competent scholars,
This is simply a lie. While there are a few exceptions, this
identity is NOT generally accepted by competent scholars.
> except for a few who prematurely rejected the
> identification without any scholarly investigation of the facts on
> their parts and can not accept now the fact that they were wrong.
I see. Anyone who agrees with you is a competent scholar, and
anyone who disagrees is an egomaniacal moron. That certainly
puts scholarship in a new light.
There are two independent questions here. Question one is where
the historical Makhir fits among the exilarch pedigree. There
are numerous guesses, as you have rightly pointed out. There is
no actual evidence that enables a conclusion. Question two is
whether Makhir is identical to Theoderic. This conclusion, even
when originally put forward, was tenuous (and that is being
charitable). Since then it has been shown that the strongest
evidence (and it wasn't that strong to begin with) was misread,
and does not support the conclusion that they are identical. You
can argue all you want about where to plug in Makhir, but to
pretend that this ambiguity has prevented his identity with
Theoderic from being evaluated is simply false. It has been
fully investigated, and has been found wanting.
Here is a novel plan - let's actually discuss the evidence for
the identification of Makhir with Theoderic, rather than just
stating that it is true and insulting anyone who disagrees. What
evidence is there that the two are the same? What document
identifies them? I am not talking about modern writers
speculating either - I am talking about actual contemporary or
near-contemporary evidence. It is about time for you to put up
or shut up, rather than pontificating and insulting those who
question your completely unsupportable conclusions. Let's
actually do some genealogy here rather than posturing. Here is
your chance to conduct before us all a "scholarly investigation
of the facts" and educate us all. Go to it.
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
Rdavi...@Aol.com (david hughes) wrote:
> The identity of Theuderic [Thierri] of Narbonne with the Jewish prince
> Makhir is disputed by some academics due to the general ignorance
> among them that there were more than one near contemporary Jewish
> princes who bore the name Makhir.
As I have written earlier, the flaws in Zuckerman's proposed Christian
alias for the allegedly imported nasi Makhir of Narbonne do not depend
on any particular identification of the origin of this Makhir. Makhir's
particular place in the exilarch pedigree is irrelevant to the claim of
his identity with a known Frankish count.
And, as I have written earlier, 'Theuderic [Thierri] of Narbonne' is a
misleading construct representing no historical individual. No source
places anyone named Theuderic [or Aymeric--see my article] in or near
Narbonne in the eighth century.
> And, among those academics who are
> aware of this there is confusion and/or disagreement among them over
> which of the four near contemporary Jewish princes who bore the name
> Makhir is to be identified with Theuderic [Thierri] of Narbonne. (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 in his "De Domo et Familia David" article 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) there 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 in question. Nat
> Taylor wrote an article against identifying Makhir # 1 (above) with
> Theuderic of Narbonne.
My work argues (among other things) against identifying the allegedly
imported nasi Makhir with the Frankish count Magnario who is attested in
Narbonne in 791. This is not the same as selecting a particular
Makhir-origin to argue against.
> Bryant-Abraham makes an excellent case in his
> "De Domo et Familia David" article that Makhir # 2 (above) is to be
> identified with Theuderic of Narbonne.
I do not believe there is anything in Mr. Bryant-Abraham's work which
supports the existence of 'Theuderic of Narbonne', so, again, this is
misleading (more to the point, he adds no independent evidence or
argument to Zuckerman's claim of the Jewish - Frankish dual identity for
the nasi).
I repeat: I have taken no position about which Makhir of the exilarchic
pedigree may be the best candidate to place as nasi of Narbonne, if one
accepts the broad outline of the nasi-importation story contained in the
gloss to the chronicle of Abraham ibn Daud. I am quite prepared to
accept that the nasi-importation story may be true or based on elements
of truth, and I have made no specific study of who the most likely
imported 'Makhir' may have been. On this matter I would refer you to
David H. Kelley.
> The identification of Theuderic [Thierri] of Narbonne with one of the
> Jewish princes who bore the name Makhir is generally accepted today by
> competent scholars
I am not aware of this. Could you cite some?
Nat Taylor
david hughes
DH
Brant Gibbard
>the crows always pick at the best fruit
>DH
If a number of people make similar criticisms of your statements
independently you might want to consider the possibility that their
views might have some value.
And you haven't addressed their substantive points, merely criticized
them as "crows".
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@ca.inter.net
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~bgibbard/gen/
Toronto, ON
Todd A. Farmerie
> the crows always pick at the best fruit
In scandinavian mythology, crows and ravens feed on corpses,
which is appropriate as the identification of Makhir with
Theoderic is a dead issue . . .
That is, unless you have actual evidence that supports it, which
I again invite you to present.
taf
Pierre Aronax
> the crows always pick at the best fruit
Hmm... that must be the argument of a competent scholar.
Pierre
david hughes
materials are written in a foreign language that I don't read, for I
have always been fortunate to find someone to translate them for me
Pierre Aronax
"david hughes" <Rdavi...@Aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:c57e4f24.04022...@posting.google.com...
> materials are written in a foreign language that I don't read, for I
> have always been fortunate to find someone to translate them for me
And so the evidence is...?
Pierre
Nathaniel Taylor
Rdavi...@Aol.com (david hughes) wrote:
In the interests of comprehensiveness, I will give you the benefit of
the doubt. Do you mean to suggest that you are privy to primary sources
(or translations of sources) which justify your support of the
Makhir-Theuderic identity, which the rest of us have ignored? If so,
please cite them.
If you cannot or will not, then there is no point continuing to post.
Insults have no place here whether or not one's sources or theories have
any value.
Nat Taylor
Todd A. Farmerie
Well, it's nice to know that sources in foreign languages are not what
is stopping you from presenting evidence in favor of your position. It
does make one wonder, though, what _is_ stopping you. In case you
missed it when, earlier in this thread, Nat, Pierre and I each asked you
to present the evidence which you think favors the identification of
Theoderic with Makhir, I will ask again. What evidence (not already
dismissed in Nat's paper) do you think supports their unity?
Alternatively, if you think Nat was premature in dismissing a source,
please discuss your alternative interpretation.
We are all ears (or, I guess, eyes in this medium).
taf
Gryphon801
proofs, and we will believe."
david hughes
perhaps I should type up an article about him, and looking at my notes
on the subject I think I could even develop it into a book giving
biographical sketches on all four near contemporary Jewish princes who
bore that name and critiquing what has already been written on the
subject especially Nat's article, and, if I am going to do all of that
I certainly would want to make some money for my time and effort and
try to sell it to a publisher rather than giving everything away,
which I owe to myself and not to you guys
Todd A. Farmerie
That has to be one of the most elaborate versions of, "No, I
don't have any evidence," that we have seen here, . . .
. . . but I guess we must leave you to plan the investment of
your enormous profits.
Please come back when you want to actually discuss genealogy.
taf
Pierre Aronax
"david hughes" <Rdavi...@Aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:c57e4f24.04022...@posting.google.com...
> perhaps I should type up an article about him, and looking at my notes
> on the subject I think I could even develop it into a book giving
> biographical sketches on all four near contemporary Jewish princes who
> bore that name and critiquing what has already been written on the
> subject especially Nat's article,
Except of course Nat has not written any article on the subject of the
biographies of Makhir(s).
> and, if I am going to do all of that
> I certainly would want to make some money for my time and effort and
> try to sell it to a publisher rather than giving everything away,
> which I owe to myself and not to you guys
Remember to add a footnote in your book on the subject we are discussing
here and on which you have been asked to produce your evidences: what reason
(if any) have you to believe that anyone of the Makhirs would have to be
indentified with Theuderic?
Pierre
Nathaniel Taylor
Rdavi...@Aol.com (david hughes) wrote:
Good luck, especially the remuneration part--one more clue that you
don't seem to understand academic genealogy very well.
Although, perhaps, if you write it quickly, you could get a contract
somewhere to cash in on the tide of the _Da Vinci Code_, which has
spurred a renewed appetite for (and lucrative reprint of) _Holy Blood
and the Holy Grail_. There was a good piece in the _NYT Book Review_
last week or a couple weeks ago on this, and if you search for copies of
HBHG on eBay or Amazon you will find some surprising, high-priced
entries.
Seriously: why hasn't anyone attempted to repackage Makhir-William as a
'slightly more true' rival to the HBHG genealogy? Or as junk like Dan
Brown's _Da Vinci Code_? Add some conspiracy to the Carolingian stuff,
and voilą! After all, Rennes-le-Chāteau isn't far from Narbonne.
Right. I'm off to write up a proposal...
Nat Taylor
