High Priest Jeshua III

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Matthew Rockefeller

High Priest Jeshua III

Legg inn av Matthew Rockefeller » 20 nov 2004 23:14:31

IF "High Priest Jeshua III" existed? Come on Will, seriously. Are you
just trying to anger me? Jeshua III ben Phabet was the High Priest of
Israel from 30 to 22 BC. What I can't verify at the moment are his
children. David Hughes, who you don't like we get it, says his
children are Anne the mother of Mary, Elizabeth the mother of John the
Baptist, and Jane who married Joachim. I may disagree with Hughes on
some points, but his genealogical research isn't faith based, that's
ridiculous. He sometimes uses conjectures in his genealogies, but all
of his information has a source somewhere. He has scanned many
articles for me that I didn't have access too and I consider him a
friend, so I would appreciate you not putting him down like a second
grader when I use him as a source.

Matthew

Gjest

Re: High Priest Jeshua III

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 nov 2004 23:31:01

In a message dated 11/20/2004 2:15:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
matthew_rockefeller@yahoo.com writes:

IF "High Priest Jeshua III" existed? Come on Will, seriously. Are you
just trying to anger me? Jeshua III ben Phabet was the High Priest of
Israel from 30 to 22 BC.


Any kind of proof for this undocumented statement ?

What I can't verify at the moment are his
children. David Hughes, who you don't like we get it, says his
children are Anne the mother of Mary, Elizabeth the mother of John the
Baptist, and Jane who married Joachim.


Based on what? A Grimm's fairy tale or something?

I may disagree with Hughes on
some points, but his genealogical research isn't faith based, that's
ridiculous. He sometimes uses conjectures in his genealogies, but all
of his information has a source somewhere. He has scanned many
articles for me that I didn't have access too and I consider him a
friend, so I would appreciate you not putting him down like a second
grader when I use him as a source.

It's not my fault that you use as a source a person who has been excoriated
over and over in this newsgroup for posting ridiculous connections. You have
already cited things like that Archko Volume which only show that you do next
to nothing in the way of actual research before posting such ludicrous sources.

And have a nice day!! No I really mean it!
Will

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: High Priest Jeshua III

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 21 nov 2004 01:53:43

Matthew Rockefeller wrote:
David Hughes, who you don't like we get it, says his
children are Anne the mother of Mary, Elizabeth the mother of John the
Baptist, and Jane who married Joachim. I may disagree with Hughes on
some points, but his genealogical research isn't faith based, that's
ridiculous. He sometimes uses conjectures in his genealogies, but all
of his information has a source somewhere.

As little as I want to continue this OT thread, it should be pointed out
for the sake of those who consult his medieval web pages that Mr. Hughes
does genealogy with different motivations than many people in this
group. He is interested in putting together lines of descent, not in
putting together accurate lines of descent. He refuses to apply
critical evaluation to his pedigrees. Not just fails to - refuses to.
He stated here that it would be doing a disservice to eliminate an
alternative solution because it is likely invented, because that would
deprive someone of an interesting 'possible connection'. Thus, what he
presents need not be found in a reliable source, in an accurate source,
in a contemporary source, in a knowledgable source - it just must be
found in ANY source. His pedigrees include Gods of varying nationality,
and numerous mythical individuals, not to mention genealogical
inventions - non-existent individuals, the result of genealogical
speculation since disproven. Likewise, there is one place where he
unknowingly (and not for want of it having been pointed out to him)
makes someone his own great-grandfather, and several where he
unknowingly treats alternative versions of the same person's genealogy
as genealogies of entirely distinct persons (as you noticed with his
list of Makhirs).

Simply put, there is no scholarly value to the fact that Mr. Hughes
provides a particular relationship - it has no higher probability of
being accurate just because you find it on one of his pages, and for
some pages, it is virtually certain to be false. I say this not to
demean Mr. Hughes, but to allow others to approach his site with an
appropriate number of salt grains.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: High Priest Jeshua III

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 nov 2004 02:01:02

Good, Straightforward, Worthwhile Review....

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:419fe6ce@news.ColoState.EDU...

| As little as I want to continue this OT thread, it should be pointed
out
| for the sake of those who consult his medieval web pages that Mr.
Hughes
| does genealogy with different motivations than many people in this
| group. He is interested in putting together lines of descent, not in
| putting together accurate lines of descent. He refuses to apply
| critical evaluation to his pedigrees. Not just fails to - refuses to.
| He stated here that it would be doing a disservice to eliminate an
| alternative solution because it is likely invented, because that would
| deprive someone of an interesting 'possible connection'. Thus, what
he
| presents need not be found in a reliable source, in an accurate
source,
| in a contemporary source, in a knowledgable source - it just must be
| found in ANY source. His pedigrees include Gods of varying
nationality,
| and numerous mythical individuals, not to mention genealogical
| inventions - non-existent individuals, the result of genealogical
| speculation since disproven. Likewise, there is one place where he
| unknowingly (and not for want of it having been pointed out to him)
| makes someone his own great-grandfather, and several where he
| unknowingly treats alternative versions of the same person's genealogy
| as genealogies of entirely distinct persons (as you noticed with his
| list of Makhirs).
|
| Simply put, there is no scholarly value to the fact that Mr. Hughes
| provides a particular relationship - it has no higher probability of
| being accurate just because you find it on one of his pages, and for
| some pages, it is virtually certain to be false. I say this not to
| demean Mr. Hughes, but to allow others to approach his site with an
| appropriate number of salt grains.
|
| taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: High Priest Jeshua III

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 nov 2004 02:01:02

Good, Straightforward, Worthwhile, Thumbnail Review....

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:419fe6ce@news.ColoState.EDU...

| As little as I want to continue this OT thread, it should be pointed
out
| for the sake of those who consult his medieval web pages that Mr.
Hughes
| does genealogy with different motivations than many people in this
| group. He is interested in putting together lines of descent, not in
| putting together accurate lines of descent. He refuses to apply
| critical evaluation to his pedigrees. Not just fails to - refuses to.
| He stated here that it would be doing a disservice to eliminate an
| alternative solution because it is likely invented, because that would
| deprive someone of an interesting 'possible connection'. Thus, what
he
| presents need not be found in a reliable source, in an accurate
source,
| in a contemporary source, in a knowledgable source - it just must be
| found in ANY source. His pedigrees include Gods of varying
nationality,
| and numerous mythical individuals, not to mention genealogical
| inventions - non-existent individuals, the result of genealogical
| speculation since disproven. Likewise, there is one place where he
| unknowingly (and not for want of it having been pointed out to him)
| makes someone his own great-grandfather, and several where he
| unknowingly treats alternative versions of the same person's genealogy
| as genealogies of entirely distinct persons (as you noticed with his
| list of Makhirs).
|
| Simply put, there is no scholarly value to the fact that Mr. Hughes
| provides a particular relationship - it has no higher probability of
| being accurate just because you find it on one of his pages, and for
| some pages, it is virtually certain to be false. I say this not to
| demean Mr. Hughes, but to allow others to approach his site with an
| appropriate number of salt grains.
|
| taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»