Discussion:
It makes you want to despair!
(too old to reply)
Roy Stockdill
2010-05-30 11:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Across the top of the front page of today's Mail on Sunday is a blurb for a "Free
History Of Your Family Name". Turning to the appropriate page, 45, reveals a whole-
page ad for a "Magnificent Scroll With The History Of Your Family Name" (also in
caps), with an invitation to collect 12 tokens from the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail to
claim this "wonderful gift or keepsake".

The accompanying copy claims: "The scroll will...reveal whether the surname
ultimately has Anglo-Saxon, Viking or Norman roots, or whether it comes from some
different background, perhaps from further afield. Our scrolls are based on more than
30 years or research covering surnames from a variety of origins."

OH NO! I groaned when I saw this rubbish. It is no different to the kind of "Surname
bucket shops", as I call them, that you find in shopping malls or online and that will sell
you these worthless pieces of paper.

What is worse is that the advert showed a scroll for the name, BARKER, and as well
as a potted history of the name, it also described arms and a crest for the name. Well,
we all know full well - or should - that there is no such thing as a "family coat of arms"
or family crest. I am particularly sad that a major newspaper group - I have myself had
numerous letters published in the D. Mail - should allow themselves to take part in
such a charade. I have written a letter (reproduced below) to the Mail on Sunday but
whether they will publish it is doubtful!

Others may wish to follow my lead to make them aware of what the genealogical world
thinks of such offers.

"Sir

"As a serious genealogist, I will not be taking up your offer of a scroll with the history of
my surname.

"The people who produce these things are known to proper researchers and family
historians as "bucket shop genealogists" and are not to be taken seriously.

"If folks just want something pretty to hang on their dining room wall, all well and good.
But they should be aware that many of these so-called surname histories are often
poorly researched and inaccurate.

"Moreover, I note that the example you showed of the surname, Barker, included a
description of a coat of arms and family crest.

"Your readers should be made aware that there is no such thing as a family coat of
arms or crest, or arms for a particular surname. Arms are granted, with a few
exceptions, only to individuals and their heirs in the direct male line.

"You give the impression that everyone with the surname, Barker, is entitled to use the
arms. This is absolutely not the case. Though there are some Barkers who were
granted arms, the vast majority of people of the name will not be entitled to them.

"Indeed, someone using the arms without authority - say, on headed notepaper - with
intent to gain a financial advantage could be guilty of a criminal offence.

"I suggest you should have consulted the College of Arms before proceeding with this
offer. Their officers (known as heralds) would have explained the rules of heraldry to
you."

--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2010-05-30 16:14:52 UTC
Permalink
On 30 May at 12:38, "Roy Stockdill" <***@btinternet.com>
wrote:

<snip in the interests of brevity>
Post by Roy Stockdill
What is worse is that the advert showed a scroll for the name, BARKER,
and as well as a potted history of the name, it also described arms
and a crest for the name. Well, we all know full well - or should -
that there is no such thing as a "family coat of arms" or family
crest.
While I agree with and support your strictures to The Editor of the Mail
on Sunday, I would disagree with you that there is no such thing as a
'family coat of arms'.

My contention is that coats of arms totally belong to a family and all
the male line descendants of the first arms holder are entitled to use
the same arms (in England and Wales, Scotland has different rules).

What you are talking about is the nonsense of 'arms of a name'. Other
people who are not in the family with arms, even though they have the
same surname, should not use those arms. Instead they should invent
their own arms with only one proviso, that they do not borrow the arms
of someone else.

The even worse dishonesty of the bucket shop vendors is that they do not
recognise that for the one name, there can be multiple, and different,
arms. There is nothing unique about the arms of a particular Smith
family; for instance Burke's 'Armory' of 1844 has 237 entries (approx,
I'm not going to count them again!) for Smith, Smyth and Smythe, most of
them with different arms.

<more snip>
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Cwatters
2010-05-30 17:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Across the top of the front page of today's Mail on Sunday is a blurb for a "Free
History Of Your Family Name".
Online version here..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/prmts/article-1281554/Free-history-family-scroll-reader.html
Cwatters
2010-05-30 17:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Across the top of the front page of today's Mail on Sunday is a blurb for a "Free
History Of Your Family Name"....snip.... it also described arms and a
crest for the name.
I believe the editor of the Daily Mail is a Paul DACRE. Perhaps we could
demonstrate how his own arms/crest as supplied by the DM are incorrect as
applied to him?
Charles Ellson
2010-05-31 06:39:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:38:26 +0100, "Cwatters"
Post by Cwatters
Post by Roy Stockdill
Across the top of the front page of today's Mail on Sunday is a blurb for a "Free
History Of Your Family Name"....snip.... it also described arms and a
crest for the name.
I believe the editor of the Daily Mail is a Paul DACRE. Perhaps we could
demonstrate how his own arms/crest as supplied by the DM are incorrect as
applied to him?
Maybe just contact :-
http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/businessandenterprise/tradingstandards.aspx
in whose territory the Daily Wail's head office seems to lie.
Roy Stockdill
2010-05-30 19:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip in the interests of brevity>
Post by Roy Stockdill
What is worse is that the advert showed a scroll for the name,
BARKER, and as well as a potted history of the name, it also
described arms and a crest for the name. Well, we all know full well
- or should - that there is no such thing as a "family coat of arms"
or family crest.
While I agree with and support your strictures to The Editor of the
Mail on Sunday, I would disagree with you that there is no such thing
as a 'family coat of arms'.
My contention is that coats of arms totally belong to a family and all
the male line descendants of the first arms holder are entitled to use
the same arms (in England and Wales, Scotland has different rules).
What you are talking about is the nonsense of 'arms of a name'. Other
people who are not in the family with arms, even though they have the
same surname, should not use those arms. Instead they should invent
their own arms with only one proviso, that they do not borrow the arms
of someone else.
The even worse dishonesty of the bucket shop vendors is that they do
not recognise that for the one name, there can be multiple, and
different, arms. There is nothing unique about the arms of a
particular Smith family; for instance Burke's 'Armory' of 1844 has 237
entries (approx, I'm not going to count them again!) for Smith, Smyth
and Smythe, most of them with different arms. >
I take your point, Tim, but surely we are talking semantics? In effect, we are both
saying the same thing. Surely, other branches of the same arms-bearing family but
not in the direct male line from the original holder would not be entitled to bear them?

Of course, you are right in that what I truly meant generally is that there is no such
thing as a coat of arms for a surname - even though there may well be a number of
different families of the same name entitled to bear arms. I haven't checked but in the
example I gave for the name Barker there are probably several Barker families so
entitled. Doesn't mean anyTom Dick and Harry Barker can use them, though.

--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Anthony Ward
2010-05-30 20:03:01 UTC
Permalink
'It makes you want to despair' - Is this not the kind of sensational
headline-writing that one would find in the tabloids?! Well at least it drew
me in to your post.
If the Mail had offered a give-away recipe booklet does it matter if the
contents might have been scorned by a Michelin chef?



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5155 (20100530) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2010-05-30 20:55:27 UTC
Permalink
<snip of semantics, in the interests of brevity>
Post by Roy Stockdill
Of course, you are right in that what I truly meant generally is that
there is no such thing as a coat of arms for a surname - even though
there may well be a number of different families of the same name
entitled to bear arms. I haven't checked but in the example I gave for
the name Barker there are probably several Barker families so
entitled. Doesn't mean anyTom Dick and Harry Barker can use them, though.
Quite.

The 1844 edition of Burke's Armory has 23 (at the first count) Barker
entries, all with different coats of arms. The 1887, the last, General
Armory will have around double that number.

So it sounds like the Mail on Sunday should be reported to the Trades
Description people as there is no way they can be selling the Arms of
_the_ Barker family. What sort of a fine should they be charged, I
wonder?

Would the News of the World take some delight in reporting the MoS's
discomfiture? Perhaps NOTW should be advised of this incompetent
journalism?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Cwatters
2010-05-31 09:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Perhaps NOTW should be advised of this incompetent
journalism?
Send email to newsdesk at notw.co.uk
Chris Watts
2010-05-31 08:23:41 UTC
Permalink
I'm sure the editor will claim that accepting the advert was in the public
interest!
Chris
Post by Roy Stockdill
Across the top of the front page of today's Mail on Sunday is a blurb for a "Free
History Of Your Family Name". Turning to the appropriate page, 45, reveals a whole-
page ad for a "Magnificent Scroll With The History Of Your Family Name" (also in
caps), with an invitation to collect 12 tokens from the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail to
claim this "wonderful gift or keepsake".
The accompanying copy claims: "The scroll will...reveal whether the surname
ultimately has Anglo-Saxon, Viking or Norman roots, or whether it comes from some
different background, perhaps from further afield. Our scrolls are based on more than
30 years or research covering surnames from a variety of origins."
OH NO! I groaned when I saw this rubbish. It is no different to the kind of "Surname
bucket shops", as I call them, that you find in shopping malls or online and that will sell
you these worthless pieces of paper.
What is worse is that the advert showed a scroll for the name, BARKER, and as well
as a potted history of the name, it also described arms and a crest for the name. Well,
we all know full well - or should - that there is no such thing as a "family coat of arms"
or family crest. I am particularly sad that a major newspaper group - I have myself had
numerous letters published in the D. Mail - should allow themselves to take part in
such a charade. I have written a letter (reproduced below) to the Mail on Sunday but
whether they will publish it is doubtful!
Others may wish to follow my lead to make them aware of what the genealogical world
thinks of such offers.
"Sir
"As a serious genealogist, I will not be taking up your offer of a scroll
with the history of
my surname.
"The people who produce these things are known to proper researchers and family
historians as "bucket shop genealogists" and are not to be taken seriously.
"If folks just want something pretty to hang on their dining room wall, all well and good.
But they should be aware that many of these so-called surname histories are often
poorly researched and inaccurate.
"Moreover, I note that the example you showed of the surname, Barker, included a
description of a coat of arms and family crest.
"Your readers should be made aware that there is no such thing as a family coat of
arms or crest, or arms for a particular surname. Arms are granted, with a few
exceptions, only to individuals and their heirs in the direct male line.
"You give the impression that everyone with the surname, Barker, is entitled to use the
arms. This is absolutely not the case. Though there are some Barkers who were
granted arms, the vast majority of people of the name will not be entitled to them.
"Indeed, someone using the arms without authority - say, on headed notepaper - with
intent to gain a financial advantage could be guilty of a criminal offence.
"I suggest you should have consulted the College of Arms before proceeding with this
offer. Their officers (known as heralds) would have explained the rules of heraldry to
you."
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Roy Stockdill
2010-05-31 13:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Watts
I'm sure the editor will claim that accepting the advert was in the
public interest! Chris >
More likely in the interests of profit for his paper!

Actually, I looked more deeply at the accompanying illustration for the surname
BARKER, which is being used to publicise the offer. It includes the following words.....

"In a conversation between Edward IV (1461-1483) and the tanner of Tamworth
(Percy) it was said: 'What craftsmen art though?' said the King 'I pray tell me trowe' - 'I
am barker sir, by my trade; now, tell me, what art thou?'

The definition does not explain who or what Percy was but the gullible might well
believe this supposed conversation to be historical fact. Of course, it is nothing of the
sort and the quotation comes from a collection of ballads and popular poetry by
Thomas Percy (1729-1811) called Percy's Reliques, published in 1765, almost three
centuries after Edward IV's death.

Googling produces earlier references to the ballad in the late 16th century but not a jot
of evidence that there was any historical substance in the alleged encounter between
the king and a tanner whatsoever. Indeed, as we know, all ballads about medieval
monarchs and supposed historical characters like Robin Hood and King Arthur are
myth and legend.

All in all, the supposed surname history of Barker is the usual mish-mash of facts and
fanciful invention, like so many others of the genre that I have seen.

--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Mick
2010-05-31 14:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Chris Watts
I'm sure the editor will claim that accepting the advert was in the
public interest! Chris>
More likely in the interests of profit for his paper!
Actually, I looked more deeply at the accompanying illustration for the surname
BARKER, which is being used to publicise the offer. It includes the following words.....
"In a conversation between Edward IV (1461-1483) and the tanner of Tamworth
(Percy) it was said: 'What craftsmen art though?' said the King 'I pray tell me trowe' - 'I
am barker sir, by my trade; now, tell me, what art thou?'
The definition does not explain who or what Percy was but the gullible might well
believe this supposed conversation to be historical fact. Of course, it is nothing of the
sort and the quotation comes from a collection of ballads and popular poetry by
Thomas Percy (1729-1811) called Percy's Reliques, published in 1765, almost three
centuries after Edward IV's death.
Googling produces earlier references to the ballad in the late 16th century but not a jot
of evidence that there was any historical substance in the alleged encounter between
the king and a tanner whatsoever. Indeed, as we know, all ballads about medieval
monarchs and supposed historical characters like Robin Hood and King Arthur are
myth and legend.
All in all, the supposed surname history of Barker is the usual mish-mash of facts and
fanciful invention, like so many others of the genre that I have seen.
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer& lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy& Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Generally Myth & Legend have *some* historical basis, though often very
well obscured by the old maxim "don't let the truth spoil a good story".

Makes me think of a comment oft made by me, that if we can't extract the
facts ffom the Legends of Robin Hood (circa 1200 - 1300) and King Arthur
(Circa 500), what hope is there for stories about 2000 years old and
more? Particularly when not written until 200+ years after the described
events. Atlantis comes to mind ;).
Ye Old One
2010-05-31 22:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mick
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Chris Watts
I'm sure the editor will claim that accepting the advert was in the
public interest! Chris>
More likely in the interests of profit for his paper!
Actually, I looked more deeply at the accompanying illustration for the surname
BARKER, which is being used to publicise the offer. It includes the following words.....
"In a conversation between Edward IV (1461-1483) and the tanner of Tamworth
(Percy) it was said: 'What craftsmen art though?' said the King 'I pray tell me trowe' - 'I
am barker sir, by my trade; now, tell me, what art thou?'
The definition does not explain who or what Percy was but the gullible might well
believe this supposed conversation to be historical fact. Of course, it is nothing of the
sort and the quotation comes from a collection of ballads and popular poetry by
Thomas Percy (1729-1811) called Percy's Reliques, published in 1765, almost three
centuries after Edward IV's death.
Googling produces earlier references to the ballad in the late 16th century but not a jot
of evidence that there was any historical substance in the alleged encounter between
the king and a tanner whatsoever. Indeed, as we know, all ballads about medieval
monarchs and supposed historical characters like Robin Hood and King Arthur are
myth and legend.
All in all, the supposed surname history of Barker is the usual mish-mash of facts and
fanciful invention, like so many others of the genre that I have seen.
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer& lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy& Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Generally Myth & Legend have *some* historical basis, though often very
well obscured by the old maxim "don't let the truth spoil a good story".
Makes me think of a comment oft made by me, that if we can't extract the
facts ffom the Legends of Robin Hood (circa 1200 - 1300) and King Arthur
(Circa 500), what hope is there for stories about 2000 years old and
more? Particularly when not written until 200+ years after the described
events. Atlantis comes to mind ;).
Oh! I would have thought JC was the prime example.
--
Bob.
Mick
2010-06-01 00:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Chris Watts
I'm sure the editor will claim that accepting the advert was in the
public interest! Chris>
More likely in the interests of profit for his paper!
Actually, I looked more deeply at the accompanying illustration for the surname
BARKER, which is being used to publicise the offer. It includes the following words.....
"In a conversation between Edward IV (1461-1483) and the tanner of Tamworth
(Percy) it was said: 'What craftsmen art though?' said the King 'I pray tell me trowe' - 'I
am barker sir, by my trade; now, tell me, what art thou?'
The definition does not explain who or what Percy was but the gullible might well
believe this supposed conversation to be historical fact. Of course, it is nothing of the
sort and the quotation comes from a collection of ballads and popular poetry by
Thomas Percy (1729-1811) called Percy's Reliques, published in 1765, almost three
centuries after Edward IV's death.
Googling produces earlier references to the ballad in the late 16th century but not a jot
of evidence that there was any historical substance in the alleged encounter between
the king and a tanner whatsoever. Indeed, as we know, all ballads about medieval
monarchs and supposed historical characters like Robin Hood and King Arthur are
myth and legend.
All in all, the supposed surname history of Barker is the usual mish-mash of facts and
fanciful invention, like so many others of the genre that I have seen.
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer& lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy& Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Generally Myth& Legend have *some* historical basis, though often very
well obscured by the old maxim "don't let the truth spoil a good story".
Makes me think of a comment oft made by me, that if we can't extract the
facts ffom the Legends of Robin Hood (circa 1200 - 1300) and King Arthur
(Circa 500), what hope is there for stories about 2000 years old and
more? Particularly when not written until 200+ years after the described
events. Atlantis comes to mind ;).
Oh! I would have thought JC was the prime example.
Julius Caesar? He's fairly well documented!
Ye Old One
2010-06-01 09:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mick
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Chris Watts
I'm sure the editor will claim that accepting the advert was in the
public interest! Chris>
More likely in the interests of profit for his paper!
Actually, I looked more deeply at the accompanying illustration for the surname
BARKER, which is being used to publicise the offer. It includes the following words.....
"In a conversation between Edward IV (1461-1483) and the tanner of Tamworth
(Percy) it was said: 'What craftsmen art though?' said the King 'I pray tell me trowe' - 'I
am barker sir, by my trade; now, tell me, what art thou?'
The definition does not explain who or what Percy was but the gullible might well
believe this supposed conversation to be historical fact. Of course, it is nothing of the
sort and the quotation comes from a collection of ballads and popular poetry by
Thomas Percy (1729-1811) called Percy's Reliques, published in 1765, almost three
centuries after Edward IV's death.
Googling produces earlier references to the ballad in the late 16th century but not a jot
of evidence that there was any historical substance in the alleged encounter between
the king and a tanner whatsoever. Indeed, as we know, all ballads about medieval
monarchs and supposed historical characters like Robin Hood and King Arthur are
myth and legend.
All in all, the supposed surname history of Barker is the usual mish-mash of facts and
fanciful invention, like so many others of the genre that I have seen.
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer& lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy& Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Generally Myth& Legend have *some* historical basis, though often very
well obscured by the old maxim "don't let the truth spoil a good story".
Makes me think of a comment oft made by me, that if we can't extract the
facts ffom the Legends of Robin Hood (circa 1200 - 1300) and King Arthur
(Circa 500), what hope is there for stories about 2000 years old and
more? Particularly when not written until 200+ years after the described
events. Atlantis comes to mind ;).
Oh! I would have thought JC was the prime example.
Julius Caesar? He's fairly well documented!
Far more than the JC I was thinking of :)
--
Bob.
Renia
2010-06-01 12:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Mick
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Chris Watts
I'm sure the editor will claim that accepting the advert was in the
public interest! Chris>
More likely in the interests of profit for his paper!
Actually, I looked more deeply at the accompanying illustration for the surname
BARKER, which is being used to publicise the offer. It includes the following words.....
"In a conversation between Edward IV (1461-1483) and the tanner of Tamworth
(Percy) it was said: 'What craftsmen art though?' said the King 'I pray tell me trowe' - 'I
am barker sir, by my trade; now, tell me, what art thou?'
The definition does not explain who or what Percy was but the gullible might well
believe this supposed conversation to be historical fact. Of course, it is nothing of the
sort and the quotation comes from a collection of ballads and popular poetry by
Thomas Percy (1729-1811) called Percy's Reliques, published in 1765, almost three
centuries after Edward IV's death.
Googling produces earlier references to the ballad in the late 16th century but not a jot
of evidence that there was any historical substance in the alleged encounter between
the king and a tanner whatsoever. Indeed, as we know, all ballads about medieval
monarchs and supposed historical characters like Robin Hood and King Arthur are
myth and legend.
All in all, the supposed surname history of Barker is the usual mish-mash of facts and
fanciful invention, like so many others of the genre that I have seen.
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer& lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy& Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Generally Myth& Legend have *some* historical basis, though often very
well obscured by the old maxim "don't let the truth spoil a good story".
Makes me think of a comment oft made by me, that if we can't extract the
facts ffom the Legends of Robin Hood (circa 1200 - 1300) and King Arthur
(Circa 500), what hope is there for stories about 2000 years old and
more? Particularly when not written until 200+ years after the described
events. Atlantis comes to mind ;).
Oh! I would have thought JC was the prime example.
Julius Caesar? He's fairly well documented!
Far more than the JC I was thinking of :)
Joe Cocker?
Jasper Conran?
Jim Carrey?
James Cook?
Jacob's Crackers?
Ye Old One
2010-06-01 16:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Mick
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Chris Watts
I'm sure the editor will claim that accepting the advert was in the
public interest! Chris>
More likely in the interests of profit for his paper!
Actually, I looked more deeply at the accompanying illustration for the surname
BARKER, which is being used to publicise the offer. It includes the following words.....
"In a conversation between Edward IV (1461-1483) and the tanner of Tamworth
(Percy) it was said: 'What craftsmen art though?' said the King 'I pray tell me trowe' - 'I
am barker sir, by my trade; now, tell me, what art thou?'
The definition does not explain who or what Percy was but the gullible might well
believe this supposed conversation to be historical fact. Of course, it is nothing of the
sort and the quotation comes from a collection of ballads and popular poetry by
Thomas Percy (1729-1811) called Percy's Reliques, published in 1765, almost three
centuries after Edward IV's death.
Googling produces earlier references to the ballad in the late 16th century but not a jot
of evidence that there was any historical substance in the alleged encounter between
the king and a tanner whatsoever. Indeed, as we know, all ballads about medieval
monarchs and supposed historical characters like Robin Hood and King Arthur are
myth and legend.
All in all, the supposed surname history of Barker is the usual mish-mash of facts and
fanciful invention, like so many others of the genre that I have seen.
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer& lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy& Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Generally Myth& Legend have *some* historical basis, though often very
well obscured by the old maxim "don't let the truth spoil a good story".
Makes me think of a comment oft made by me, that if we can't extract the
facts ffom the Legends of Robin Hood (circa 1200 - 1300) and King Arthur
(Circa 500), what hope is there for stories about 2000 years old and
more? Particularly when not written until 200+ years after the described
events. Atlantis comes to mind ;).
Oh! I would have thought JC was the prime example.
Julius Caesar? He's fairly well documented!
Far more than the JC I was thinking of :)
Joe Cocker?
Jasper Conran?
Jim Carrey?
James Cook?
Jacob's Crackers?
Nah! None of those were around 2,000 years ago, though Joe Cocker may
look like it :)

Think of the fictional character a guy we know as Paul invented to
base a religion on. There is a big book about his fictional exploits
and those of his Dad.
--
Bob.
David Marshall
2010-06-02 11:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Renia
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Mick
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Chris Watts
I'm sure the editor will claim that accepting the advert was in the
public interest! Chris>
More likely in the interests of profit for his paper!
Actually, I looked more deeply at the accompanying illustration for the surname
BARKER, which is being used to publicise the offer. It includes the following words.....
"In a conversation between Edward IV (1461-1483) and the tanner of Tamworth
(Percy) it was said: 'What craftsmen art though?' said the King 'I pray tell me trowe' - 'I
am barker sir, by my trade; now, tell me, what art thou?'
The definition does not explain who or what Percy was but the gullible might well
believe this supposed conversation to be historical fact. Of course, it is nothing of the
sort and the quotation comes from a collection of ballads and popular poetry by
Thomas Percy (1729-1811) called Percy's Reliques, published in 1765, almost three
centuries after Edward IV's death.
Googling produces earlier references to the ballad in the late 16th century but not a jot
of evidence that there was any historical substance in the alleged encounter between
the king and a tanner whatsoever. Indeed, as we know, all ballads about medieval
monarchs and supposed historical characters like Robin Hood and King Arthur are
myth and legend.
All in all, the supposed surname history of Barker is the usual mish-mash of facts and
fanciful invention, like so many others of the genre that I have seen.
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer& lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy& Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Generally Myth& Legend have *some* historical basis, though often very
well obscured by the old maxim "don't let the truth spoil a good story".
Makes me think of a comment oft made by me, that if we can't extract the
facts ffom the Legends of Robin Hood (circa 1200 - 1300) and King Arthur
(Circa 500), what hope is there for stories about 2000 years old and
more? Particularly when not written until 200+ years after the described
events. Atlantis comes to mind ;).
Oh! I would have thought JC was the prime example.
Julius Caesar? He's fairly well documented!
Far more than the JC I was thinking of :)
Joe Cocker?
Jasper Conran?
Jim Carrey?
James Cook?
Jacob's Crackers?
Nah! None of those were around 2,000 years ago, though Joe Cocker may
look like it :)
Think of the fictional character a guy we know as Paul invented to
base a religion on. There is a big book about his fictional exploits
and those of his Dad.
Whatever your religious beliefs your cavalier attitude to historical
documentation suggests that you may be ill-suited to genealogical research.

David
Ye Old One
2010-06-03 10:28:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:33:03 +0100, David Marshall
Post by David Marshall
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Renia
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Mick
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Chris Watts
I'm sure the editor will claim that accepting the advert was in the
public interest! Chris>
More likely in the interests of profit for his paper!
Actually, I looked more deeply at the accompanying illustration for the surname
BARKER, which is being used to publicise the offer. It includes the following words.....
"In a conversation between Edward IV (1461-1483) and the tanner of Tamworth
(Percy) it was said: 'What craftsmen art though?' said the King 'I pray tell me trowe' - 'I
am barker sir, by my trade; now, tell me, what art thou?'
The definition does not explain who or what Percy was but the gullible might well
believe this supposed conversation to be historical fact. Of course, it is nothing of the
sort and the quotation comes from a collection of ballads and popular poetry by
Thomas Percy (1729-1811) called Percy's Reliques, published in 1765, almost three
centuries after Edward IV's death.
Googling produces earlier references to the ballad in the late 16th century but not a jot
of evidence that there was any historical substance in the alleged encounter between
the king and a tanner whatsoever. Indeed, as we know, all ballads about medieval
monarchs and supposed historical characters like Robin Hood and King Arthur are
myth and legend.
All in all, the supposed surname history of Barker is the usual mish-mash of facts and
fanciful invention, like so many others of the genre that I have seen.
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer& lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy& Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Generally Myth& Legend have *some* historical basis, though often very
well obscured by the old maxim "don't let the truth spoil a good story".
Makes me think of a comment oft made by me, that if we can't extract the
facts ffom the Legends of Robin Hood (circa 1200 - 1300) and King Arthur
(Circa 500), what hope is there for stories about 2000 years old and
more? Particularly when not written until 200+ years after the described
events. Atlantis comes to mind ;).
Oh! I would have thought JC was the prime example.
Julius Caesar? He's fairly well documented!
Far more than the JC I was thinking of :)
Joe Cocker?
Jasper Conran?
Jim Carrey?
James Cook?
Jacob's Crackers?
Nah! None of those were around 2,000 years ago, though Joe Cocker may
look like it :)
Think of the fictional character a guy we know as Paul invented to
base a religion on. There is a big book about his fictional exploits
and those of his Dad.
Whatever your religious beliefs your cavalier attitude to historical
documentation suggests that you may be ill-suited to genealogical research.
David
Oh! I think you are very wrong there.

Working with genealogical research the golden rule is "check the
sources". Don't take other people's word for it as they often put
their own slant on things.

In the case of the figure Paul invented to base his religion on there
is absolutely ZERO real authorative evidence for his existence.

Now, if you take texts written, in most cases hundreds of years after
the claimed events, as evidence then it is you that is totally
ill-suited to genealogical research.

If you can find one scrap of real historical evidence for the
fictional character of Jesus Christ then you are a far better
researcher than anyone else before you.
--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
David Marshall
2010-06-03 11:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ye Old One
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:33:03 +0100, David Marshall
Post by David Marshall
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Renia
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Mick
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Chris Watts
I'm sure the editor will claim that accepting the advert was in the
public interest! Chris>
More likely in the interests of profit for his paper!
Actually, I looked more deeply at the accompanying illustration for the surname
BARKER, which is being used to publicise the offer. It includes the following words.....
"In a conversation between Edward IV (1461-1483) and the tanner of Tamworth
(Percy) it was said: 'What craftsmen art though?' said the King 'I pray tell me trowe' - 'I
am barker sir, by my trade; now, tell me, what art thou?'
The definition does not explain who or what Percy was but the gullible might well
believe this supposed conversation to be historical fact. Of course, it is nothing of the
sort and the quotation comes from a collection of ballads and popular poetry by
Thomas Percy (1729-1811) called Percy's Reliques, published in 1765, almost three
centuries after Edward IV's death.
Googling produces earlier references to the ballad in the late 16th century but not a jot
of evidence that there was any historical substance in the alleged encounter between
the king and a tanner whatsoever. Indeed, as we know, all ballads about medieval
monarchs and supposed historical characters like Robin Hood and King Arthur are
myth and legend.
All in all, the supposed surname history of Barker is the usual mish-mash of facts and
fanciful invention, like so many others of the genre that I have seen.
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer& lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy& Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Generally Myth& Legend have *some* historical basis, though often very
well obscured by the old maxim "don't let the truth spoil a good story".
Makes me think of a comment oft made by me, that if we can't extract the
facts ffom the Legends of Robin Hood (circa 1200 - 1300) and King Arthur
(Circa 500), what hope is there for stories about 2000 years old and
more? Particularly when not written until 200+ years after the described
events. Atlantis comes to mind ;).
Oh! I would have thought JC was the prime example.
Julius Caesar? He's fairly well documented!
Far more than the JC I was thinking of :)
Joe Cocker?
Jasper Conran?
Jim Carrey?
James Cook?
Jacob's Crackers?
Nah! None of those were around 2,000 years ago, though Joe Cocker may
look like it :)
Think of the fictional character a guy we know as Paul invented to
base a religion on. There is a big book about his fictional exploits
and those of his Dad.
Whatever your religious beliefs your cavalier attitude to historical
documentation suggests that you may be ill-suited to genealogical research.
David
Oh! I think you are very wrong there.
Working with genealogical research the golden rule is "check the
sources". Don't take other people's word for it as they often put
their own slant on things.
In the case of the figure Paul invented to base his religion on there
is absolutely ZERO real authorative evidence for his existence.
Now, if you take texts written, in most cases hundreds of years after
the claimed events, as evidence then it is you that is totally
ill-suited to genealogical research.
If you can find one scrap of real historical evidence for the
fictional character of Jesus Christ then you are a far better
researcher than anyone else before you.
Your antipathy to Christian beliefs has pushed you to a ridiculously
extreme postion. Did you see the progemme by Bettany Hughes last night
showing how a substratum of historical fact underlies most persistent
myths, whatever the distortions of later commentators?

By the way, I am off on holiday now so you are welcome to the last word
if you wish. This is probably not the best forum to pursue this argument
anyway.

David
Peter Goodey
2010-06-03 12:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Marshall
Did you see the progemme by Bettany Hughes last night
showing how a substratum of historical fact underlies most persistent
myths
Bettany Hughes is a proper historian. I cannot believe that she would
claim that the persistence of a myth in itself is proof of there being
any underlying historical fact.
--
Peter Goodey
http://www.goodey.me.uk
Lesley Robertson
2010-06-03 14:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Goodey
Post by David Marshall
Did you see the progemme by Bettany Hughes last night
showing how a substratum of historical fact underlies most persistent
myths
Bettany Hughes is a proper historian. I cannot believe that she would
claim that the persistence of a myth in itself is proof of there being
any underlying historical fact.
She didn't. I saw the programme - it was along the lines of the Michael Wood
tradition of trying to find hard evidence to test myths. She kept saying "I
want hard evidence" and went over various archaeological sites and museums -
basically trying to see whether the Santorini/Thera community before the
volcano could have been the basis of Plato's Atlantis mythology. It was
worth watching for the chance to see backstage at the Akrotiri excavations.
I think she concluded (I was on the phone as it ended) that there are
tempting correlations but we'll never know the truth. Pretty much what the
Wikipedia page for Santorini says.
Not bad, but I prefer Michael Wood, given a choice.
Lesley Robertson
Ye Old One
2010-06-03 15:15:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:23:52 +0100, David Marshall
Post by David Marshall
Post by Ye Old One
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:33:03 +0100, David Marshall
Post by David Marshall
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Renia
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Mick
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Chris Watts
I'm sure the editor will claim that accepting the advert was in the
public interest! Chris>
More likely in the interests of profit for his paper!
Actually, I looked more deeply at the accompanying illustration for the surname
BARKER, which is being used to publicise the offer. It includes the following words.....
"In a conversation between Edward IV (1461-1483) and the tanner of Tamworth
(Percy) it was said: 'What craftsmen art though?' said the King 'I pray tell me trowe' - 'I
am barker sir, by my trade; now, tell me, what art thou?'
The definition does not explain who or what Percy was but the gullible might well
believe this supposed conversation to be historical fact. Of course, it is nothing of the
sort and the quotation comes from a collection of ballads and popular poetry by
Thomas Percy (1729-1811) called Percy's Reliques, published in 1765, almost three
centuries after Edward IV's death.
Googling produces earlier references to the ballad in the late 16th century but not a jot
of evidence that there was any historical substance in the alleged encounter between
the king and a tanner whatsoever. Indeed, as we know, all ballads about medieval
monarchs and supposed historical characters like Robin Hood and King Arthur are
myth and legend.
All in all, the supposed surname history of Barker is the usual mish-mash of facts and
fanciful invention, like so many others of the genre that I have seen.
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer& lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy& Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Generally Myth& Legend have *some* historical basis, though often very
well obscured by the old maxim "don't let the truth spoil a good story".
Makes me think of a comment oft made by me, that if we can't extract the
facts ffom the Legends of Robin Hood (circa 1200 - 1300) and King Arthur
(Circa 500), what hope is there for stories about 2000 years old and
more? Particularly when not written until 200+ years after the described
events. Atlantis comes to mind ;).
Oh! I would have thought JC was the prime example.
Julius Caesar? He's fairly well documented!
Far more than the JC I was thinking of :)
Joe Cocker?
Jasper Conran?
Jim Carrey?
James Cook?
Jacob's Crackers?
Nah! None of those were around 2,000 years ago, though Joe Cocker may
look like it :)
Think of the fictional character a guy we know as Paul invented to
base a religion on. There is a big book about his fictional exploits
and those of his Dad.
Whatever your religious beliefs your cavalier attitude to historical
documentation suggests that you may be ill-suited to genealogical research.
David
Oh! I think you are very wrong there.
Working with genealogical research the golden rule is "check the
sources". Don't take other people's word for it as they often put
their own slant on things.
In the case of the figure Paul invented to base his religion on there
is absolutely ZERO real authorative evidence for his existence.
Now, if you take texts written, in most cases hundreds of years after
the claimed events, as evidence then it is you that is totally
ill-suited to genealogical research.
If you can find one scrap of real historical evidence for the
fictional character of Jesus Christ then you are a far better
researcher than anyone else before you.
Your antipathy to Christian beliefs has pushed you to a ridiculously
extreme postion.
Reality is NOT an "extreme position".
Post by David Marshall
Did you see the progemme by Bettany Hughes last night
showing how a substratum of historical fact underlies most persistent
myths, whatever the distortions of later commentators?
No, but I am aware of such ideas. Indeed there are a number of areas
where christian mythology steals wholesale from older myths.
Post by David Marshall
By the way, I am off on holiday now so you are welcome to the last word
if you wish. This is probably not the best forum to pursue this argument
anyway.
So why did you start it?
Post by David Marshall
David
--
Bob.
Brian Austin
2010-06-03 13:40:09 UTC
Permalink
JC is referred to by Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-c100). Thus there
is more evidence for his existence than there is for King Arthur or Robin
Hood.

Brian Austin
"Ye Old One" <***@mcsuk.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:33:03 +0100, David Marshall
Ye
snipped
Oh! I think you are very wrong there.

Working with genealogical research the golden rule is "check the
sources". Don't take other people's word for it as they often put
their own slant on things.

In the case of the figure Paul invented to base his religion on there
is absolutely ZERO real authorative evidence for his existence.

Now, if you take texts written, in most cases hundreds of years after
the claimed events, as evidence then it is you that is totally
ill-suited to genealogical research.

If you can find one scrap of real historical evidence for the
fictional character of Jesus Christ then you are a far better
researcher than anyone else before you.
--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Lesley Robertson
2010-06-03 14:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Austin
JC is referred to by Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-c100). Thus
there is more evidence for his existence than there is for King Arthur or
Robin Hood.
Brian Austin
True.
However, since we're considering the validity of sources, Pilate was only
Governor of Judea from 26-36 AD. Many people give the date of the
Crucifixion as 33 AD, but even if it was the last thing Pilate did before he
left, Josephus' report is hardly first hand information, but hearsay - grey
data. Much depends on how accurate his sources were.
Sadly, he doesn't say who he's quoting.

Let that be a lesson to all of us - ALWAYS give your sources!
;)
Lesley Robertson
Ye Old One
2010-06-03 15:24:26 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 14:40:09 +0100, "Brian Austin"
Post by Brian Austin
JC is referred to by Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-c100).
Actually the only credible reference to Jesus seems to have nothing
whatsoever in common with the christian view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James
Post by Brian Austin
Thus there
is more evidence for his existence than there is for King Arthur or Robin
Hood.
It appears that Jesus was not a unique name in the period.

[snip]
--
Bob.
Don Kirkman
2010-06-03 18:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ye Old One
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 14:40:09 +0100, "Brian Austin"
Post by Brian Austin
JC is referred to by Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-c100).
Actually the only credible reference to Jesus seems to have nothing
whatsoever in common with the christian view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James
Post by Brian Austin
Thus there
is more evidence for his existence than there is for King Arthur or Robin
Hood.
It appears that Jesus was not a unique name in the period.
More than "appears," it is dead certain, since Paul himself refers to
a different Jesus in his letter to the church at Colossi, asking them
to welcome a group coming their way, including "Jesus who is called
Justus." "Jesus" was a contemporary spelling of a traditional Jewish
name spelled in various ways, including Joshua and Jehoshua. It
simply means, roughly, "God is [our] salvation."

I hope your scholarship rises above this level for other details. The
definitive point is not the name "Jesus" but the title "Messiah" [Gr.
Christos] meaning anointed, referring to the coronation ritual for the
ancient Jewish kings.

How does your theory of Pauline invention square with communities of
believers throughout the eastern Mediterranean willing to face
persecution by the Jewish hierarchy and the Roman anti-Christian
crackdown? Were they all besotted by the teachings of a man who had
once sworn to persecute the Christians?

What actual evidence do you have for the theory that Paul
single-handedly founded Christianity (leaving unexplained the spread
of the church into North Africa contemporaneously with Paul's travels
in the eastern Mediterranean areas)?

And, according to non-Pauline writings (Luke, in particular) Paul's
views were opposed by the early leaders of the church in Jerusalem,
including Peter, though they later accepted his self-described
mission to the non-Jews--something they surely would not have done if
he was inventing Christianity on his own terms.
--
Don
***@charter.net
Ye Old One
2010-06-04 07:14:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 11:09:01 -0700, Don Kirkman
Post by Don Kirkman
Post by Ye Old One
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 14:40:09 +0100, "Brian Austin"
Post by Brian Austin
JC is referred to by Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-c100).
Actually the only credible reference to Jesus seems to have nothing
whatsoever in common with the christian view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James
Post by Brian Austin
Thus there
is more evidence for his existence than there is for King Arthur or Robin
Hood.
It appears that Jesus was not a unique name in the period.
More than "appears," it is dead certain, since Paul himself refers to
a different Jesus in his letter to the church at Colossi, asking them
to welcome a group coming their way, including "Jesus who is called
Justus." "Jesus" was a contemporary spelling of a traditional Jewish
name spelled in various ways, including Joshua and Jehoshua. It
simply means, roughly, "God is [our] salvation."
I hope your scholarship rises above this level for other details. The
definitive point is not the name "Jesus" but the title "Messiah" [Gr.
Christos] meaning anointed, referring to the coronation ritual for the
ancient Jewish kings.
How does your theory of Pauline invention square with communities of
believers throughout the eastern Mediterranean willing to face
persecution by the Jewish hierarchy and the Roman anti-Christian
crackdown? Were they all besotted by the teachings of a man who had
once sworn to persecute the Christians?
strange as it may be, that seems to be a human trait.
Post by Don Kirkman
What actual evidence do you have for the theory that Paul
single-handedly founded Christianity (leaving unexplained the spread
of the church into North Africa contemporaneously with Paul's travels
in the eastern Mediterranean areas)?
Paul invented the version of christianity that grew to be a world wide
religion. It is clear from his writings that he wasn't even interested
in a living Jesus, just in a divine one.
Post by Don Kirkman
And, according to non-Pauline writings (Luke, in particular) Paul's
views were opposed by the early leaders of the church in Jerusalem,
including Peter, though they later accepted his self-described
mission to the non-Jews--something they surely would not have done if
he was inventing Christianity on his own terms.
Again, what credibility can be placed on third party writings made
long after the claimed events?
--
Bob.
Brian Austin
2010-06-04 16:10:12 UTC
Permalink
You have changed your stance - you said that there is no evidence that JC
existed. It has been pointed out to you that there is. Now you are saying
that "Christianity" was invented by the man formerly known as Saul. So what?
These are two totally different things.

Brian Austin
"Ye Old One" <***@mcsuk.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 11:09:01 -0700, Don Kirkman
Post by Don Kirkman
Post by Ye Old One
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 14:40:09 +0100, "Brian Austin"
Post by Brian Austin
JC is referred to by Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-c100).
Actually the only credible reference to Jesus seems to have nothing
whatsoever in common with the christian view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James
Post by Brian Austin
Thus there
is more evidence for his existence than there is for King Arthur or Robin
Hood.
It appears that Jesus was not a unique name in the period.
More than "appears," it is dead certain, since Paul himself refers to
a different Jesus in his letter to the church at Colossi, asking them
to welcome a group coming their way, including "Jesus who is called
Justus." "Jesus" was a contemporary spelling of a traditional Jewish
name spelled in various ways, including Joshua and Jehoshua. It
simply means, roughly, "God is [our] salvation."
I hope your scholarship rises above this level for other details. The
definitive point is not the name "Jesus" but the title "Messiah" [Gr.
Christos] meaning anointed, referring to the coronation ritual for the
ancient Jewish kings.
How does your theory of Pauline invention square with communities of
believers throughout the eastern Mediterranean willing to face
persecution by the Jewish hierarchy and the Roman anti-Christian
crackdown? Were they all besotted by the teachings of a man who had
once sworn to persecute the Christians?
strange as it may be, that seems to be a human trait.
Post by Don Kirkman
What actual evidence do you have for the theory that Paul
single-handedly founded Christianity (leaving unexplained the spread
of the church into North Africa contemporaneously with Paul's travels
in the eastern Mediterranean areas)?
Paul invented the version of christianity that grew to be a world wide
religion. It is clear from his writings that he wasn't even interested
in a living Jesus, just in a divine one.
Post by Don Kirkman
And, according to non-Pauline writings (Luke, in particular) Paul's
views were opposed by the early leaders of the church in Jerusalem,
including Peter, though they later accepted his self-described
mission to the non-Jews--something they surely would not have done if
he was inventing Christianity on his own terms.
Again, what credibility can be placed on third party writings made
long after the claimed events?
--
Bob.
Steve Hayes
2010-06-04 17:21:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:10:12 +0100, "Brian Austin"
Post by Brian Austin
You have changed your stance - you said that there is no evidence that JC
existed. It has been pointed out to you that there is. Now you are saying
that "Christianity" was invented by the man formerly known as Saul. So what?
These are two totally different things.
Not to mention that while he/she asserted that Jesus did not exist, he/she
makes a lot of assertions based on the assumption that Saul/Paul *did* exist,
when the main evidence for the existence of both comes from the same sources.

And since noone in this newsgroup claims descent from either it is clear that
"Ye old one" (shouldn't that be "Ye old ones", since "ye" is plural?) is
simply a troll, trying to stir up an off topic argument.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/famhist1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
Ye Old One
2010-06-04 23:19:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:21:45 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:10:12 +0100, "Brian Austin"
Post by Brian Austin
You have changed your stance - you said that there is no evidence that JC
existed. It has been pointed out to you that there is. Now you are saying
that "Christianity" was invented by the man formerly known as Saul. So what?
These are two totally different things.
Not to mention that while he/she asserted that Jesus did not exist, he/she
makes a lot of assertions based on the assumption that Saul/Paul *did* exist,
when the main evidence for the existence of both comes from the same sources.
Actually, no. There is evidence for the man we now know as Paul, and
for his travels.
Post by Steve Hayes
And since noone in this newsgroup claims descent from either it is clear that
"Ye old one" (shouldn't that be "Ye old ones", since "ye" is plural?) is
simply a troll, trying to stir up an off topic argument.
I passed a comment, a perfectly valid one.

FYI.

ye
n determiner pseudo-archaic term for the.

The modern use of ye has arisen from a misunderstanding. In Old
English the sound th- was represented by a letter called the thorn,
written þ. In medieval times this character came to be written
identically with y, so that the could be written ye. This spelling was
kept as a convenient abbreviation as late as the 19th century, but it
was never pronounced as 'ye'.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
2010-06-04 23:09:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:10:12 +0100, "Brian Austin"
Post by Brian Austin
You have changed your stance - you said that there is no evidence that JC
existed.
There isn't.
Post by Brian Austin
It has been pointed out to you that there is.
Yet none has been offered.
Post by Brian Austin
Now you are saying
that "Christianity" was invented by the man formerly known as Saul. So what?
These are two totally different things.
By the way. Replies go AFTER the quoted text.
Post by Brian Austin
Brian Austin
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 11:09:01 -0700, Don Kirkman
Post by Don Kirkman
Post by Ye Old One
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 14:40:09 +0100, "Brian Austin"
Post by Brian Austin
JC is referred to by Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-c100).
Actually the only credible reference to Jesus seems to have nothing
whatsoever in common with the christian view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James
Post by Brian Austin
Thus there
is more evidence for his existence than there is for King Arthur or Robin
Hood.
It appears that Jesus was not a unique name in the period.
More than "appears," it is dead certain, since Paul himself refers to
a different Jesus in his letter to the church at Colossi, asking them
to welcome a group coming their way, including "Jesus who is called
Justus." "Jesus" was a contemporary spelling of a traditional Jewish
name spelled in various ways, including Joshua and Jehoshua. It
simply means, roughly, "God is [our] salvation."
I hope your scholarship rises above this level for other details. The
definitive point is not the name "Jesus" but the title "Messiah" [Gr.
Christos] meaning anointed, referring to the coronation ritual for the
ancient Jewish kings.
How does your theory of Pauline invention square with communities of
believers throughout the eastern Mediterranean willing to face
persecution by the Jewish hierarchy and the Roman anti-Christian
crackdown? Were they all besotted by the teachings of a man who had
once sworn to persecute the Christians?
strange as it may be, that seems to be a human trait.
Post by Don Kirkman
What actual evidence do you have for the theory that Paul
single-handedly founded Christianity (leaving unexplained the spread
of the church into North Africa contemporaneously with Paul's travels
in the eastern Mediterranean areas)?
Paul invented the version of christianity that grew to be a world wide
religion. It is clear from his writings that he wasn't even interested
in a living Jesus, just in a divine one.
Post by Don Kirkman
And, according to non-Pauline writings (Luke, in particular) Paul's
views were opposed by the early leaders of the church in Jerusalem,
including Peter, though they later accepted his self-described
mission to the non-Jews--something they surely would not have done if
he was inventing Christianity on his own terms.
Again, what credibility can be placed on third party writings made
long after the claimed events?
--
Bob.
Don Kirkman
2010-06-04 21:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ye Old One
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 11:09:01 -0700, Don Kirkman
Post by Don Kirkman
Post by Ye Old One
It appears that Jesus was not a unique name in the period.
More than "appears," it is dead certain, since Paul himself refers to
a different Jesus in his letter to the church at Colossi, asking them
to welcome a group coming their way, including "Jesus who is called
Justus." "Jesus" was a contemporary spelling of a traditional Jewish
name spelled in various ways, including Joshua and Jehoshua. It
simply means, roughly, "God is [our] salvation."
How does your theory of Pauline invention square with communities of
believers throughout the eastern Mediterranean willing to face
persecution by the Jewish hierarchy and the Roman anti-Christian
crackdown? Were they all besotted by the teachings of a man who had
once sworn to persecute the Christians?
strange as it may be, that seems to be a human trait.
But a trait hardly proves anything about a specific historical event
or non-event.
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Don Kirkman
What actual evidence do you have for the theory that Paul
single-handedly founded Christianity (leaving unexplained the spread
of the church into North Africa contemporaneously with Paul's travels
in the eastern Mediterranean areas)?
Paul invented the version of christianity that grew to be a world wide
religion. It is clear from his writings that he wasn't even interested
in a living Jesus, just in a divine one.
So far the only evidence we've seen is your assertion that it is so.
And without your claim that Paul invented Christianity his views are
only one example of the many views of Jesus and Christianity in the
early church. In fact Paul *interpreted* Christianity in his own way,
as shown by his quarrel with the early church in Jerusalem and by the
divergent interpretations in other parts of the Near East..
Post by Ye Old One
Post by Don Kirkman
And, according to non-Pauline writings (Luke, in particular) Paul's
views were opposed by the early leaders of the church in Jerusalem,
including Peter, though they later accepted his self-described
mission to the non-Jews--something they surely would not have done if
he was inventing Christianity on his own terms.
Again, what credibility can be placed on third party writings made
long after the claimed events?
There are two issues that you're failing to comprehend. First, the
events reportedly happened around 30 AD. Paul's writings are from
around 50Ad to around 70AD, roughly one generation. Do you believe
you can't know anything about your own grandfather's life apart from
written sources? Oral tradition was a centuries-old fact of ancient
culture before writing was invented, and persisted until the age of
printing (and in fact still persists in some cultures).

Second, it's impossible to equate our earliest surviving manuscripts
with when an event was first written about.
--
Don
***@charter.net
Steve Hayes
2010-06-04 06:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ye Old One
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 14:40:09 +0100, "Brian Austin"
Post by Brian Austin
JC is referred to by Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-c100).
Actually the only credible reference to Jesus seems to have nothing
whatsoever in common with the christian view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James
Post by Brian Austin
Thus there
is more evidence for his existence than there is for King Arthur or Robin
Hood.
It appears that Jesus was not a unique name in the period.
Quite, so if anyone tries to sell you the "family crest" of the Jesus name
together with the history of the surname "Christ", you can tell them exactly
what they can do with it.

[follow-ups set to alt.troll]
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/famhist1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...