Using The Bible For Geneology

[The Wrath]

My dad and I have done a bit of work on our geneology lately. My dad has one particular branch traced back to Clovis the Riparian, a descendant of Marcus Aurelius who lived in the 5th century. This is getting pretty close to Bible times and my dad, being a Christian, believes that if we can get it back to Bible times, then we can just use the Bible to get it all the way back to Adam and Eve. Obviously, I don't believe this, but I also don't doubt that many Bible figures (Paul, King David, etc.) actually existed. To what extent is Biblical geneology historically accurate?

[Bryan]

Genesis 5:25 - And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.

Genesis 5:26 - And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:

Genesis 5:27 - And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

I'm pretty sure I'm related to Methuselah.... I hope that I can still have kids when I'm 187 .

[DavidV]

There is no historical evidence for Jesus and good evidence that the Jews were never in Egypt, so given the veracity of the source, biblical records are useful only for confirming knowledge from other sources.

[WI_Rifleman]

There is a different geneology for Jesus in every gospel.

[The Wrath]

No historical evidence for Jesus? How about Josephus? Of all the characters in the Bible, the one whose existence I doubt the least is Jesus Christ.

[The Wrath]

I'm pretty sure I'm related to Methuselah.... I hope that I can still have kids when I'm 187 .

According to what we found, so am I.

[Rex Little]

There is . . . good evidence that the Jews were never in Egypt

Now that is interesting; I'd love to be able to cite that evidence. Can you direct me to it?

[DavidV]

Since it’s impossible to prove a negative, I can’t prove that a person did not exist or that the Exodus did not take place, but we have no contemporary evidence for Jesus, and no evidence for the Jews being in Egypt – something that would have definitely shown up in the historical record if it happened. There IS evidence that the Jews actually came from various nomadic tribes existing in Judea, (and likely invented an Exodus myth to create a common heritage) but I don’t have the sources for that handy.

[The Wrath]

I thought Josephus was considered a contemporary of Jesus.

[BurgessLau]

No historical evidence for Jesus?  How about Josephus?

Specifically where in Josephus's writings did he refer to Jesus?

The Jewish historian Josephus (c. 37 - c. 100 CE?) lived in the generation after Jesus, so he would have been a contemporary of the first and second generation Christians, but not of Christ, assuming there was such a person.

Edited March 28, 2005 by BurgessLau

[DavidOdden]

I thought Josephus was considered a contemporary of Jesus.

In addition to the fact that Josephus was only writing what he heard (thus comparable to me writing about WWII -- actually less credible since my evidence includes written and photographic evidence, not just word of mouth), there is serious question about what he wrote, where the only manusripts of credible antiquity are from the 11th century, in the hands of the Catholic church. Indeed, there is an Arabic version from the 10th century which is rather different.

[dondigitalia]

There is evidence that there were Jews in Ethiopa. Rastafarianism, which has its roots in Ethiopia, is an offshoot of Judaism. It would make sense that if Jews were in both Ethiopia and Israel, then at some point they were in Egypt.

Incidentally, I just saw a report on the History channel that a casket of sorts was recently discovered, which is believed to have contained the bones of Jesus' brother. The inscription on the casket translated to read: Here lies James, brother of Jesus

[punk]

There's better reason to believe in Jesus than most of the people from the ancient world that populate history books (for example Socrates).

The fact is that if Christianity had died out 1000 years ago, no one would really doubt that Jesus wasn't a historical person. People only doubt because Christianity is still around (not really a rational reason for doubt though).

I've been increasingly under the impression that these old texts (Old Testament, Iliad, Qur'an etc.) are more rooted in history than most people would want to credit them. These things weren't totally invented by the authors, and in broad terms the historical events basically happened, though the specifics may be off.

A notable example of specifics being off occurs in a number of Irish texts where often the specific events are radically changed in an otherwise historical event (for example the battle was real, but the winning side was changed).

So basically these are often rather like contemporary Hollywood "historical" films where specifics are changed for both dramatic reasons and just because the audience will like it more if something different happens than what actually happened.

I guess the gist is just approach these texts for history the same way you'd approach that atrocious film "Pearl Harbor" for historical information.

[dondigitalia]

I've been increasingly under the impression that these old texts (Old Testament, Iliad, Qur'an etc.) are more rooted in history than most people would want to credit them.  These things weren't totally invented by the authors, and in broad terms the historical events basically happened, though the specifics may be off.

I agree. If you're interested in researching this further, I'll refer you to the work famed archaeologist Graham Hancock, particularly his book Fingerprints of the Gods, which relates different religious myths throughout the world to one another and known historical events. For instance, most ancient religions have their own version of a "Noah's Ark" story, which he traces back to both a flood known to have occured in Mesopotamia and the cataclysms which accompanied the end of the last Ice Age. (Relating religious myths to these cataclysms is the main focus of the book.)

[DavidV]

It would make sense that if Jews were in both Ethiopia and Israel, then at some point they were in Egypt.

From Wikipedia

...modern scholars of Ethiopian history and Ethiopian Jews, such as James Quirin, Steve Kaplan, Kay Shelemay, and Harold Marcus, consider the Beta Israel to be a native group of Ethiopian Christians, who took on Biblical practices in the 14th to 16th centuries, and came to see themselves as Jews. Marcus pinpoints their origins to the persecutions of the sabbatarian movement of Abba Ewostatewos (c. 1273-1352), the remnants of which he believes grew into the Beta Israel of today. These views also accord with the DNA evidence on the Beta Israel.

By their own and all other accounts, Ethiopean Jews date well after the supposed time of bondage in Egypt.

Incidentally, I just saw a report on the History channel that a casket of sorts was recently discovered, which is believed to have contained the bones of Jesus' brother. The inscription on the casket translated to read: Here lies James, brother of Jesus

So if a grave is found in 4000 AD marked "George, brother of Jeb," would our descendants be right to conclude that they have found the grave of George W. Bush?

The pseudo-history dramatized in popular culture is quite ridiculous.

[Edit: got the brothers mixed up.]

Edited March 28, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[dondigitalia]

By their own and all other accounts, Ethiopean Jews date well after the supposed time of bondage in Egypt.

I'm no historian, so I'm not going to attempt to validate or invalidate this, although I'm a little wary of the validity of any information found on WIKIs.

So if a grave is found in 4000 AD marked "Jeb, brother of George," would our descendants be right to conclude that they have found the grave of George W. Bush?

The pseudo-history dramatized in popular culture is quite ridiculous.

No, of course it wouldn't be right to draw that conclusion based on that alone. I certainly never asserted that it was conclusive evidence of Jesus' existence. It was just an offhand remark on something related.

[The Wrath]

So, does this board's general consensus hold that the Bible is worthless as a geneological tool?

[dondigitalia]

I can't speak for everyone else, but I would say the Bible is worthless for most things, geneology included.

[The Wrath]

It's not worthless for everything...it's quite useful when you want to prove the contradictory nature of Christianity.

[DavidOdden]

It's not worthless for everything...it's quite useful when you want to prove the contradictory nature of Christianity.

Also, if you have the right edition, it can be useful for propping up that table with a wobbly leg.

[scottkursk]

In addition to the fact that Josephus was only writing what he heard (thus comparable to me writing about WWII -- actually less credible since my evidence includes written and photographic evidence, not just word of mouth), there is serious question about what he wrote, where the only manusripts of credible antiquity are from the 11th century, in the hands of the Catholic church. Indeed, there is an Arabic version from the 10th century which is rather different.

Exactly. My family can trace their geneology back to the 1600's on my mom's side and the late 1700's on my dad's. We are really a close family and have met every year since 1865 for a family reunion. Still, with all the updating of our family tree I've done on my dad's side as well as recording all the stories that my aunts and uncles remember, I could probably write a book on my great great great grandfather Elizah but I'd seriously doubt 10% would be accurate since oral histories are relatively bad mediums. Josephus's accounts could only be as accurate as one of my friends writing down the accounts of Elizah and how he and his brother fought together and spent time in prison 150 years ago. Sprinkle the story with a couple "family miracles" and you could turn it into religious thing.

Sure there is generally some truth to oral histories but it has to do with perspective. See the previous discussion about Beowulf, The 13th Warrior, and Eaters of the Dead.

[Alon]

Moose,

Not only is the Bible a useless geneological tool, I would question all your sources before the 17th century. What records are you using to trace your ancestors from the 15th century to the 5th? Unless you have royal blood in you, I cannot imagine what records existed in that period (and survive) to provide you with a factual guide of your ancestry.

[Rex Little]

Also, if you have the right edition, it can be useful for propping up that table with a wobbly leg.

And it will provide a crossword puzzle answer every so often.

[Free Capitalist]

Regarding "no historical records of Jesus' existence":

From Tacitus, circa 90AD,

"To dispel the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was Emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome [...]."

Annals 15 : 44.

Edited March 30, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[The Wrath]

Unless you have royal blood in you...

I have lots and lots of royal blood. I am related to practically the entire British and French monarchies as well as several Roman emperors.