Transcription
Last year, I redesigned our Biblical family tree chart and posted a video giving a basic overview of the tree. However, several years before this, I had posted several episodes about the Biblical family tree, in which I did a deeper dive into the subject and spoke about things from a more secular academic perspective. So, in this video, what we're going to do is give you those previous episodes again, but this time stitch them together as a single video and re-animate it using the latest version of the chart.
Now, if you don't want to hear the extra commentary and you just want to see the chart with a basic overview, you can use the link in the description to find the video that we did last year. But if you want to hear what scholars think about the Bible and find out which parts are myth and legend and which parts are history, keep watching because we're going to dive into it right now.
According to the Book of Genesis, the first two humans were named Adam and Eve, and they were created directly by God. Now, according to modern DNA research, all humans alive today can, in fact, be traced back to a single male ancestor, which scientists have cleverly named Y-chromosomal Adam, and a single female ancestor named mitochondrial Eve. But keep in mind that these two DNA ancestors are very different from the Adam and Eve from the biblical story. For one thing, Y-chromosomal Adam probably did not live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve, and even if, by some strange coincidence, the science showed that they did live at the exact same time, they were likely not a couple, and they certainly would not have been the only two Homo sapiens on Earth. Instead, they were simply the male whose Y-chromosome DNA ended up beating out everyone else's and the female whose mitochondrial DNA ended up beating out everyone else's. I hope to cover the science behind all of this in a separate video sometime next year.
But back to the Bible. According to the biblical account, Adam and Eve were a couple and initially the only two humans on Earth. Eventually, though, after getting kicked out of the Garden of Eden, they had two sons named Cain and Abel. Cain was a farmer, and Abel was a shepherd. But one day, Cain ended up killing his brother Abel out of jealousy. Now, considering that the Israelites were originally pastoralists, like the good son Abel, this story may actually have a basis in some sort of historical conflict between the Israelites and some nearby agriculturalists. But, as I explained in the earlier video in this series, the biblical writers were more interested in making theological points than they were about simply recording exact historical details.
Anyway, Adam and Eve went on to have a third son named Seth, as well as a bunch of other children. It is from Seth's line that we eventually get the next major character in the Bible, Noah. But before I go on, I want to point out that both Cain's line and Seth's line are recorded in the Bible and that they have some interesting similarities. Both contain a series of six names that are almost identical, except for one small swap and several alternate spellings. So, one possibility is that both genealogies share a common origin. In other words, maybe there was originally one list of ancestors that was passed down orally, but over the centuries, people in one area remembered the names in a slightly different way, and eventually, it developed into a parallel tradition. Then, at some later point, editors combined the two traditions and made it seem like they were separate genealogies. This is not the only example of parallel accounts in the first five books of the Bible. In fact, there are lots of them, indicating that these books were pieced together from multiple sources and traditions. Again, this is a topic that I hope to cover in a separate video sometime next year.
For now, let's return to the family tree. Noah is the guy who built the large boat called the Ark and filled it with a bunch of animals. This is because God decided to destroy the Earth in a flood and then start all over again with Noah and his family, who were the only survivors. Now, as many commenters pointed out in previous videos, flood stories are a common theme found in cultures throughout the world. This seems to indicate that there may have been some sort of major flood event that was retained in humanity's collective memory, or perhaps there were just a bunch of smaller events.
According to the Bible, Noah had three sons, and therefore everyone alive on Earth today would be a descendant of either Shem, Ham, or Japheth. This is where the idea of there being three distinct human races comes from, usually named white, black, and yellow. But let me emphasize strongly that this idea is not true. Modern DNA research shows us that we can divide people into hundreds of different ethnicities based on regional genetic variation, but there is no genetic marker that allows us to then take those ethnicities and group them together into just a handful of categories called races. The closest thing would be to group ethnicities by continent, but even there, the categories would overlap quite a bit, and they would not line up very nicely with continental lines.
But the authors of the Bible did not have knowledge of DNA or historical migration patterns, so according to them, the various nations of the Earth that they were familiar with could, in fact, be explained using a simple family tree. And that's what the next part of the biblical family tree is: a family tree of nations. Shem had five sons, Ham had four, and Japheth had seven, so in total, Noah had 16 grandsons. In most cases, the names of those 16 grandsons match perfectly with the names of nations that existed in the Middle East during the time when the Bible was written.
So, on this map are five sons of Shem shown in red, four sons of Ham shown in yellow, and seven sons of Japheth shown in blue. Let's look at Ham first. From this map, it's clear that Ham was primarily associated with Africa. In fact, up until recently, the term "Hamitic" was still used to refer to language groups from North Africa. Nowadays, the term "Afroasiatic" is used instead. The most important Hamitic nation was Mitzraim. This was and is the Hebrew word for Egypt, but it was also the ancient Babylonian word for Egypt. So, keep in mind that most of these names are not the names of people; they are quite clearly place names, Canaan and Kush being two more good examples.
Turning our attention to the red section representing the descendants of Shem, there are also several recognizable place names here too. Aram being an ancient name for Syria, Asher being an alternate name for Assyria, and Elam being a nation that existed on the Iranian Plateau prior to the rise of Persia. The only one that stands out as being a personal name rather than a place name is Arphaxad, which, as we'll see, is the person from whom Abraham from Ur of the Chaldeans descended. I should also point out that it is from the name Shem, ancestor of all these red areas, that we get the term "Semitic" and "anti-Semitic."
Finally, let's talk about Japheth, shown in blue. These names are more obscure and uncertain, as they are all names given to places much farther away from the land of Israel. Javan is usually associated with the Greeks, and Madai with the Medes, but when it comes to the other five, it's mostly guesswork. During the medieval period, it was thought that some of these nations, in particular Gomer, spread into Europe. So, when it comes to the three sons of Noah, very roughly, you could say that Ham represented Africa, Shem represented West Asia, and Japheth represented Europe. This is exactly what certain medieval Christian thinkers promoted, which in turn led to the idea of three races, which unfortunately was used to promote a heck of a lot of racism.
But we don't need modern DNA research to conclude that the classification system offered by the Bible is, at the very least, incomplete. You'll notice that the people living in India, China, Australia, the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, etc., were not included in this classification system. That's simply because the biblical writers weren't aware that those people even existed. What they were doing was simply painting a picture of the world as they knew it.
Okay, let's continue down the tree. Arphaxad had a grandson named Eber, and this is probably where the term "Hebrew" comes from. From there, if we go down another five generations, we get a man named Terah, who had three sons: Abraham, Nahor, and Haran. Of these three, Abraham was by far the most important. In fact, the Book of Genesis is really a book about Abraham, his son Isaac, and Isaac's son Jacob, together known as the three patriarchs. Everything in the Bible that comes before Abraham, like the Adam and Eve story and the flood story, is really just a prologue. Abraham is said to be the father of three major world religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is because of this that these religions are often called the Abrahamic religions.
So, let's look at his family tree. Abraham was married to his half-sister Sarah, but Sarah had difficulty having children, so Abraham married her handmaid Hagar as well, who was Egyptian, and had a son by her named Ishmael. But as the story goes, God promised that Sarah would miraculously have a child in her old age, and indeed she did, naming the child Isaac. Shortly thereafter, Hagar gets banished and winds up in Arabia, where, according to Islamic tradition, Ishmael became the ancestor of the northern Arabic tribes. A lot of people forget this, but Abraham actually had a third wife as well named Keturah. According to the Bible, the people who later became the Midianites are the descendants of Abraham's son named Midian from his marriage to Keturah.
One last thing to mention about Abraham: it is curious that the name Abraham is comprised of the exact same consonants as the name of the Hindu god Brahma, who is the father of several other important Hindu gods and who happens to have a wife named Saraswati. So, maybe the two oldest religions on the planet, Judaism and Hinduism, both have links to a similar, even earlier tradition that includes a couple named something like Brahma and Sara. It's a very big maybe, but it's fun to think about.
So, Abraham's son Isaac ended up marrying a relative named Rebecca. She was the granddaughter of Abraham's brother Nahor, thus making Isaac and Rebecca first cousins once removed. Together, they had two sons: Esau and Jacob. Esau was the eldest and therefore entitled to the main inheritance, but through trickery, Jacob managed to get Esau to pass his birthright on to him. So, Jacob becomes the next big character in the story. He falls in love with his cousin Rachel. You can see here that her father Laban was Rebecca's brother, but Laban tricks him into marrying his other daughter Leah instead. In the end, he ends up marrying both sisters but has to work for Laban for 20 years in total. Jacob, whose name is later changed to Israel, has 12 sons and one daughter named Dinah. The 12 sons eventually end up becoming the 12 tribes of Israel.
But before we move on, let's quickly look at a map of the biblical land of Israel. To the east, in what is today Jordan, there were three nations that were on and off enemies of the Israelites: Ammon, Moab, and Edom. Well, according to the Bible, these three nations were actually relatives of the Israelites. The Moabites and Ammonites were the descendants of Abraham's nephew Lot, and the Edomites were the descendants of Jacob's older brother Esau.
Okay, the 12 tribes of Israel. Out of the 12, there are two that are the most important: Levi, from which the priestly line comes, shown in red, and Judah, from which the royal line comes, shown in blue. Now, the other tribes are shown in yellow, and if you count them, you'll notice that there are actually 11, meaning that in total we actually have 13 tribes, not 12. Let me explain. Jacob's most famous son was Joseph, who was given the multicolored coat but wound up being sold to Egypt, where he became an advisor to the Pharaoh. He was the firstborn son of Jacob's favorite wife, Rachel, so he was given a double portion in terms of inheritance. Therefore, the tribe of Joseph is usually split into two tribes based on his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. Since the tribe of Levi were appointed to be priests, they didn't get any physical inheritance. So, once we take them out, we're back to 12.
Anyway, Jacob and his family ended up moving to Egypt, where Joseph was living, and it is there that they grew into a nation. But as the story goes, after a few generations, the Egyptians forced them to become slaves, which brings us to the Exodus story and the story of Moses, the most important prophet in Judaism. According to the second book of the Bible, called Exodus, Moses was placed in the Nile River as a baby and then discovered by one of the Pharaoh's daughters, who adopted him and raised him as her own. But as an adult, he sees an Egyptian beating an Israelite and kills the perpetrator. He then escapes to Midian to avoid punishment, where he meets Jethro and marries Jethro's daughter Zipporah. It is in Midian that God appears to Moses in the form of a burning bush and tells him that he has to go lead his people out of Egypt and into the Promised Land, which was back where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had lived.
Moses gets help from his brother Aaron, and after God gives Egypt a series of 10 plagues, Pharaoh eventually lets the Israelites go. Although, as the story goes, the Pharaoh then changes his mind and traps the Israelites near the Red Sea, where God then performs a great miracle, causing the sea to part and the Israelites to escape for good. They end up wandering in the desert for 40 years, though, at the end of which Moses passes on the torch to a man named Joshua from the tribe of Ephraim, who then leads the Israelites to conquer the land of Canaan, where they end up dividing the land amongst the 12 tribes, with the descendants of Aaron being appointed as priests.
Now, as I mentioned in part one of this series, according to secular historians, the leading theory is that the Israelites were actually just one of the many Canaanite tribes and that they never did live in Egypt as a nation—not in the main part of Egypt anyway. During this period, Canaan was actually a part of the Egyptian Empire, so it's possible that some of them were, in fact, Egyptian slaves and that they were somehow able to throw off that yoke of slavery, but in Canaan, not in Egypt. The exact details are not known, but this is yet another topic that I hope to come back to and explore in more detail at a later date.
According to the biblical account, the period between the conquest of Canaan and the rise of the Davidic monarchy was a period in which the Israelites were ruled by a series of military leaders called judges. Among these judges are several famous Bible characters such as Samson, Gideon, and the female judge Deborah. Deborah is important because, according to biblical scholars, a portion of the Book of Judges called the Song of Deborah is thought to be the oldest layer of text in the entire Bible. The last major character before the monarchial period is the prophet Samuel, who was a Levite. It was Samuel who initially appointed Saul to be king and then later David. David is followed by his son Solomon, and then after Solomon, the Israelites split into two major kingdoms: the Kingdom of Judah in the south and the Kingdom of Israel in the north. Judah, of course, was mostly comprised of the tribe of Judah, whereas Israel was comprised of all the remaining tribes.
The first king was actually a man named Saul. Prior to Saul, the 12 tribes of Israel were said to have been ruled by a series of judges, who were basically temporary leaders who led armies during times of crisis. But according to the Bible, the people eventually got tired of that system and demanded to have a king. So, they drew lots, and in the end, Saul from the tribe of Benjamin was chosen. This marked the beginning of what's referred to as the United Monarchy, which means that all 12 tribes of Israel were united under a single king.
Now, as I mentioned in part one, there is no evidence outside of the Bible that a united Israelite kingdom ever actually existed. When we look at the archaeological record for this time period, what we find is a bunch of small Israelite villages with seemingly no centralized government. This greatly contrasts with the biblical description of the period, which paints Israel as being a large, powerful, and extremely wealthy nation. So, the most likely conclusion is that these first few kings are more legendary than historical. This means that they likely did exist but were perhaps more akin to local tribal chieftains than mighty kings, and that the Bible exaggerates their power.
With that said, let's continue the story. During Saul's reign, a young hero named David from the tribe of Judah starts to grow in popularity after an incident in which David was able to kill an enemy giant named Goliath. After that event, David joins Saul's army, becomes best friends with Saul's eldest son Jonathan, and even marries one of Saul's daughters named Michal. He then goes on to be very successful in several battles against the Israelites' main enemy, the Philistines. Eventually, Saul becomes jealous of David and tries to have him killed, forcing David to go into hiding. Then both Saul and Jonathan die in a battle against the Philistines. At this point, the tribe of Judah declares David to be their king, but the rest of the tribes choose Saul's only remaining son, Ishbosheth. There's a seven-year civil war between the two sides, and eventually, Abner, who was Saul's main general as well as his first cousin, switches sides and supports David. Soon thereafter, Ishbosheth is killed by his own men, and David becomes king of all Israel. He makes Jerusalem his capital, and in total, he reigns 40 years.
So, let's now look at David's tree in more detail. David was the youngest son of a man named Jesse, who in turn was the son of Obed, and Obed was the son of Boaz and Ruth, the two main characters from the Book of Ruth. So, basically, Ruth was David's great-grandmother. I'd also like to point out David's nephew Joab, who was the son of one of his sisters. He becomes David's main general and features quite prominently in the story of David's life. Oh, and remember David's best friend Jonathan? Well, Jonathan had a disabled son named Mephibosheth, whom David adopts after he becomes king.
Now, I've already mentioned that David married one of Saul's daughters, but he also married seven other women and had at least 18 children. His firstborn son and heir was named Amnon, but there's a story in the Bible in which Amnon rapes his half-sister Tamar, who was the full sister of Absalom. Absalom seeks revenge and has Amnon killed. Later, Absalom instigates a coup against his father David and tries to take the throne. But following a battle, Absalom gets his long, beautiful hair stuck in the branches of a tree. Joab finds Absalom and, disobeying David's orders to take him alive, kills him, for which Joab ends up losing his job.
Another famous story associated with David is the story of David and Bathsheba, in which David sees Bathsheba bathing on a rooftop and conspires to have her husband killed in battle so that he could marry her. So, yeah, as literary figures go, David is a pretty complicated character. He does a lot of good things, but he also does a bunch of bad things too. But generally, he's seen as a good guy because he always seems to repent and learn from his mistakes. Anyway, he has a son with Bathsheba named Solomon, and it is Solomon that ends up becoming the next king.
Okay, so Solomon is mostly remembered as being the one who built the first temple, as well as for being really wise, really rich, and for supposedly having 1,000 wives. One of his wives was possibly the Queen of Sheba. She's mentioned only briefly in the Bible, but in Ethiopian tradition, the story is told in more detail. There, she is said to have had a son named Menelik, who becomes the king of Ethiopia and the progenitor of the Solomonic dynasty. If you're interested in learning more about that line, I've got a separate video on that topic, which I'll link to in the description.
So, like his father David, Solomon reigns for a total of 40 years. The fact that both these kings have nice round, very symbolic reign lengths is further evidence that they are likely legendary figures as opposed to strictly historical ones. So, after the reign of Solomon, the kingdom splits in two. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the south continue to be ruled by the House of David in Jerusalem and are known as the Kingdom of Judah, whereas in the north, the 10 remaining tribes declare independence and become known as the Kingdom of Israel. Their first king is a man named Jeroboam, who is from the tribe of Ephraim, which was the largest of the 12 tribes.
Let's look at the Kingdom of Israel first, and then we'll go back and look at the Kingdom of Judah second. So, in Israel, we get several ruling dynasties. Jeroboam is followed by his son Nadab, but two years into his reign, Nadab is killed by one of his army captains named Baasha, and Baasha becomes king instead. Baasha was from the tribe of Issachar, but then history repeats itself. He has a decently long reign and passes things on to his son Elah, but then after just two years, Elah is assassinated by one of his army commanders, a man named Zimri. But Zimri is unable to hold on to power and commits suicide after just seven days as king. At this point, there's a civil war. Some of the people support Tibni, who was probably a relative of Zimri, but others support Omri, who was likely from the tribe of Issachar, like Baasha and Elah. Eventually, Omri's side wins, and he becomes the sole king.
Now, Omri is a very important figure. Strangely, unlike many other Bible characters, his name is not well known today. However, in my opinion, he was one of the most important kings in ancient Israel. He holds the distinction of being the earliest known person in the entire Bible for which we have evidence in the archaeological record. So, you'll notice that he has a red check mark next to his name, kind of like the verification symbols you see on social media. On this chart, whenever you see a red check mark, it means that we have a source outside of the Bible that confirms the existence of that person in real life.
So, let's talk quickly about how we know Omri was a real historical king. If you're ever in Paris, you can check out the following artifact at the Louvre. It's called the Mesha Stele and comes from the ancient Kingdom of Moab, which today would be part of Jordan. It dates to just a few decades after the reign of Omri and describes Omri, king of Israel, capturing some Moabit territory. The name Omri shows up on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, which is now housed at the British Museum in London. I'll be talking about this artifact more in a bit, but for now, note that it clearly mentions the phrase "House of Omri," indicating that other nations at the time knew that the Kingdom of Israel was being ruled by a dynasty that started with Omri.
Omri is also important because he founded the city of Samaria, which went on to be the capital of the northern kingdom for the rest of its existence. Anyway, Omri was followed by his son Ahab, and the Bible talks a lot more about him and also about his wife Jezebel. Ahab and Jezebel were the king and queen of Israel at the time that the prophet Elijah lived, Elijah being one of the more famous prophets in Jewish history. The Bible paints Ahab as being a very wicked king influenced strongly by his wife Jezebel, who was a Phoenician and thus not an Israelite.
From a literary point of view, Jezebel is an interesting figure because in most cases, she is portrayed as the ultimate evil seductress. But on the other hand, those who see the evil seductress trope as being a dangerous stereotype and an attempt to discredit strong, confident women, Jezebel has actually become somewhat of a feminist icon. Anyway, we do not have any corroborating evidence for the existence of Jezebel, but we do have mention of her father and brother in a now-lost history of Tyre that was quoted by Josephus. Her brother Baal-Eser II was supposedly the grandfather of the legendary Queen Dido, who is said to have founded the city of Carthage, so that's an interesting link there.
One thing to keep in mind about the biblical account of the northern kingdom is that it was primarily written and edited much later by scribes from the southern kingdom. So, there's an obvious bias toward the monotheistic religion that developed at Jerusalem and went on to evolve into what's called Second Temple Judaism, which in turn led to the development of the better-known Rabbinical Judaism as well as Christianity and Islam. So, basically, from the southern kingdom's perspective, the northern kingdom was seen as being disobedient to the one true God, Hashem. Ahab and Jezebel were famous for promoting the worship of the god Baal instead.
Ahab has a red check mark because he shows up in a set of Assyrian monuments known as the Kurkh Monoliths, currently located at the British Museum. In those inscriptions, the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III claims that he defeated 2,000 chariots and 10,000 soldiers of Ahab the Israelite. According to the Bible, he's killed during a war with the kingdom of Judah and is followed by his sons Ahaziah and Jehoram. Jehoram's name appears on an artifact known as the Tel Dan Stele, which was discovered in the 1990s and currently is housed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. That inscription confirms a story told in the Bible in which Jehoram, king of Israel, and Ahaziah, king of Judah, are defeated by Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus. I'll talk more about the Dan Stele when we talk about Judah, but in the Bible's version, a man named Jehu ends up replacing Jehoram as king of Israel.
It's at this point that Jezebel is killed by being pushed out of a window. Although the Bible doesn't make it clear, it's possible that Jehu was a descendant of Omri through a junior branch. In fact, his name appears on the Black Obelisk of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III, where he is described as "Jehu, son of Omri," most likely meaning Jehu from the house of Omri. But the Black Obelisk is even more important because it actually includes an image of Jehu bowing down and giving gifts to Shalmaneser. This is the first and only contemporary image we have of an ancient Israelite king.
Things seem to have stabilized at this point because after Jehu's reign, we get a series of four father-son successions. I'll point out Jehoash because his name appears in the archaeological record as well. He is mentioned in the Stele of Adad-Nirari III, now located in Baghdad at the Iraq Museum. There, he is referred to as the king of Samaria, which is the earliest reference we have outside of the Bible of that particular city. We don't have any direct evidence outside of the Bible for a king named Jeroboam II. However, in one verse, it describes an earthquake that occurred during Jeroboam II's reign, and according to the geological record, we know that there was indeed a big earthquake in the region around 760 BCE, which fits.
So, following Jeroboam II, things start to go downhill. His son Zachariah is assassinated in his first year and replaced with an army commander who, in turn, is assassinated after just one month and replaced with another army commander named Menahem. Menahem is mentioned in the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III as being one of the many kings who paid him tribute. He was eventually followed by his son Pekahiah, who, like so many Israelite kings, was eventually assassinated and replaced with one of his army commanders. That king, named Pekah, is also mentioned in Assyrian records as paying tribute to Tiglath-Pileser. And guess what happened to Pekah? Yep, he was assassinated and replaced by one of his army commanders. This fact is confirmed in Assyrian records.
That king, named Hoshea, would be the last king of Israel. He made a deal with Egypt in the hopes of avoiding paying tribute to Assyria. That was a bad move because Assyria, now led by Shalmaneser V, responded by conquering the kingdom for good and destroying their capital at Samaria. So, over here, I've been pointing out several of the Assyrian kings. Unlike the ancient Israelite kings, the existence of all of them can be confirmed by the archaeological record. So, instead of giving them all a red check mark, what I've done instead is give the ones that are mentioned by name in the Bible a little blue check mark. So, that's what those symbols mean.
Okay, let's now look at the southern Kingdom of Judah. There, King Solomon was followed by his son Rehoboam, whose mother was a non-Israelite named Naamah. She came from the nearby Kingdom of Ammon, now located in Jordan. Interestingly, Rehoboam married a granddaughter of Absalom, so in a way, Absalom's line did end up on the throne. In the end, he was followed by their son Abijah and then by Asa, who had a long and peaceful reign. Generally, the Bible describes the kings of Judah as being good kings who destroyed idols and encouraged the worship of the one true God, in contrast with the kings of Israel, who did the opposite and were therefore punished with more internal conflict.
Next in line in Judah comes Jehoshaphat, who was a contemporary with Elijah, Ahab, and Jezebel. In fact, his son Jehoram married a daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. Together, that couple had Ahaziah, who, as I mentioned earlier, allied with his uncle King Jehoram of Israel against the king of Aram-Damascus, which brings me back to the Tel Dan Stele, which describes the incident in that inscription. It appears to read "Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, of the House of David." This is important because it is the earliest reference in the archaeological record to the House of David. But note that it doesn't directly reference David as king, nor does it describe anything that David did. Instead, it simply references the existence of a royal dynasty named after someone called David.
This is a bit different from the reference to the House of Omri, being that Omri lived just a few decades before the earliest mention of his name, whereas David lived over 100 years before the earliest mention of his name. This is why David is still considered to be more of a legendary figure, whereas Omri is considered more of a historical figure.
Anyhow, Ahaziah died following the conflict with Aram-Damascus. At this point, his mother, Queen Athaliah, became the ruling monarch—the only monarch of the Kingdom of Judah that was a female and the only one that did not belong to the paternal line of David. Remember, she was the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. She proceeded to kill all the possible claimants to the throne of Judah, but she missed one because, unbeknownst to her, a relative smuggled away and hid one of Ahaziah's sons, who was just a baby at the time. When that child, named Joash, was seven, he was revealed, and with the help of the priests, he was made king, thus reestablishing the line of David. He would be the first of two child kings who feature prominently in the biblical story of ancient Israel. He was followed by Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, most of whom are attested to somehow in the archaeological record.
For example, a royal seal has been found belonging to Ahaz, son of Jotham, thus confirming the names of these two kings. Hezekiah is generally considered to be one of the greatest kings in the history of ancient Israel. He reigned shortly after the fall of the northern kingdom, and he used the opportunity to reorganize and strengthen the kingdom of Judah. Prior to this, the Kingdom of Israel was by far the larger and more important of the two kingdoms. This is why the idea of a united monarchy ruled by a southern dynasty, the House of David, is most likely just a legend that was created later in order to make Judah seem more important. Either way, it was definitely at this point that the kingdom of Judah did become larger and more important. One can imagine that there were likely lots of refugees streaming down from the ruins of the northern cities and that this led to a population boom in the southern cities.
There is certainly a lot of archaeological findings from this period, both from Assyrian records as well as from evidence found in Jerusalem. For example, we know that Hezekiah rebuilt the walls around Jerusalem in preparation for an Assyrian attack. Remnants of these walls can still be seen today. It is also thought that he is the one who ordered the construction of the Siloam Tunnel, another feature in Jerusalem that still exists today. The Bible also mentions two major historical figures who existed at the same time as Hezekiah: Sennacherib, king of Assyria, and Taharqa, king of Kush, who was also a pharaoh of Egypt. It was during the reign of Hezekiah that the prophet Isaiah lived, the first of the four so-called major prophets. It is thought that Isaiah was probably a grandson of King Josiah and thus a member of the royal family. It is also possible that he was Hezekiah's father-in-law.
However, the most important thing to mention about Hezekiah is that the Assyrians did, in fact, attack the kingdom of Judah during his reign, which was a logical next step after having destroyed the Kingdom of Israel. However, Hezekiah was able to hold them off, and thus Judah survived and went on to become the main power in the Levant over the next century. He was followed by his son Manasseh, who is also mentioned in Assyrian records, and then by Ahaz, who was assassinated after just two years on the throne. This led to an 8-year-old boy named Josiah becoming king.
Although Josiah is not nearly as famous as kings David and Solomon, I would actually argue that he was much more important, for it was Josiah who laid the foundation for what became Second Temple Judaism, which in turn, as I mentioned earlier, was the religion from which Rabbinical Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all stemmed. Biblical scholars have concluded that it was during the reign of Josiah that the original parts of the Book of Deuteronomy were written, and some scholars even believe that this core part of Deuteronomy was actually the earliest part of the Bible to be written. One theory is that the story of Joshua's conquest of Canaan was invented in order to inspire the people living during Josiah's time to conquer the lands to the north that had recently been laid waste by the Assyrians and that the story of the united monarchy was invented in order to legitimize the House of David's rule over the entire land of Israel.
Whether or not this is true, we do know for certain that Josiah did try to conquer the northern areas during his reign, but unfortunately, he failed, and in fact, he died in the process. According to the Bible, he was killed by a pharaoh named Necho, who we know from Egyptian records was, in fact, a historical pharaoh that had just recently come to power at that exact time. After the death of Josiah, Judah started to decline rapidly. Three of his sons and one of his grandsons followed him as king, and it was his third son Zedekiah who would be the final king of Judah. By this point, the Babylonians had conquered Assyria and were now the major power in the Middle East. Their famous king Nebuchadnezzar defeated the kingdom of Judah and destroyed Jerusalem along with its temple in 586 BC. At this point, most of the Jews were transported to Babylon, where they then lived in exile.
The second and third of the four major prophets are Jeremiah and Ezekiel. They both lived during the final days of Judah and during the early part of the exile. Jeremiah was the son of the high priest Hilkiah, who served during the reign of King Josiah. The fourth and final major prophet is Daniel. He is thought to be a literary invention, not a historical figure according to most scholars. The Book of Daniel was the last book of the Hebrew Bible to be written and is usually dated to the Maccabean period. However, the story places Daniel and his three companions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, as members of the Jewish royal family living in exile in Babylon and later Persia.
But eventually, the kingdom of Babylon is conquered by Cyrus the Great of Persia. Cyrus allows the exiles, now known as Jews, to return to Jerusalem and gives them permission to rebuild the temple in what is now called Judea. It is during the Babylonian and Persian periods that most of the Hebrew Bible is written. On the bottom right of the chart, you'll find a timeline that shows when each book was most likely written according to modern critical scholarship.
Going back to the family tree, the governor of the first wave of returnees is Sheshbazzar, the son of King Jehoiachin, and the first high priest of the second temple is Joshua, grandson of Jehozadak. The Bible also mentions a governor named Zerubbabel, who leads the second wave. He is either the son of Shealtiel or Pedaiah, both sons of Jehoiachin. I'll come back to him a bit later when discussing the ancestors of Jesus. There is also a third wave led by a priest and scribe named Ezra and a fourth wave led by a governor named Nehemiah, both of them appointed by the Persian king Artaxerxes I.
How Esther fits in is a bit more complicated because the Persian king in that story is named Ahasuerus, but this doesn't match with any of the known kings of Persia. However, Ahasuerus is usually assumed to be Xerxes I. It is at this point that the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament, comes to an end. We thus enter the intertestamental period, which we can learn about by using the apocryphal books as well as extra-biblical sources. For example, we know that eventually, the Persians are defeated by the famous Greco-Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great and that after his death, his generals fight over the empire, and it is eventually split into four main parts. Two main dynasties are formed consisting of the descendants of Ptolemy I and Seleucus I. Initially, the Ptolemies, who were based in Egypt, ruled Judea, but later it is the Seleucids, based in Syria.
By using Jewish sources, we can get the names of every high priest from Joshua up to the Maccabean Revolt. This revolt occurs when the Seleucid king Antiochus IV stops the usual Jewish sacrifices and replaces them with sacrifices to the Greek god Zeus. The revolt is initially led by a man named Mattathias, but after he dies, it is his son Judah who successfully recaptures the temple and restores the usual sacrifices, with himself as the new high priest. He is nicknamed Maccabee, which means "the hammer," and this is why his entire family becomes known as the Maccabees. Eventually, the Maccabees, also known as the Hasmoneans, end up serving not only as high priests but also as monarchs, first as princes under Simon and Hyrcanus I, but then later as kings, starting with Aristobulus I.
During this period, a legislative body known as the Sanhedrin is also formed, led by a pair of leaders known as the Zugot. This consists of the Nasi, who was sort of the president, and the Ab Bet Din, who was sort of the vice president. Eventually, however, there's a civil war in Judea between two Hasmonean brothers, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. Rome intervenes, and in the process, Judea becomes a client state of the Roman Republic. In addition to this, the Hasmonean dynasty is eventually replaced with the Herodian dynasty, Herod the Great being the husband of one of the last Hasmonean princesses.
At this point, the monarchy and the high priesthood are split, with the high priests now getting the job by appointment instead of by inheritance. I do believe that Jesus was a historical person. This is actually the view of most professional historians, although there are some who argue that Jesus never existed. This is currently a minority position and one that I myself do not hold. That said, I should point out that there is, in fact, very little information available about Jesus and his family outside of the New Testament and other early Christian sources, and even within those sources, the information is often unclear. This has led different branches of Christianity to develop different traditions about the family of Jesus, and this means that there is no one single "correct" family tree.
So, what I'm going to show you today is kind of an amalgamation of the various traditions. This means that it may or may not be the same as what you personally are used to seeing, so keep that in mind. I'm not saying that my tree is correct; I'm just going to use this one configuration in order to discuss some of the other possible configurations.
So, let's begin. The one thing that all Christians agree on is that Jesus's parents were named Joseph and Mary. Now, obviously, according to Christians, Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus because, well, the main idea of Christianity is that Jesus was the son of God, miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. But legally speaking, Jesus would have been considered the son of Joseph. Now, I'll come back to Joseph a little later when we discuss the ancestries given in Matthew and Luke.
In addition to his parents, the New Testament also mentions siblings. In Matthew 13:55 and 56, it says, "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary? And aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" So, first of all, this is where we learn that Joseph was a carpenter, but this is also where we learn that Jesus had both brothers and sisters. Now, the sisters are not named, but the brothers are, and it would appear that there were four of them: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.
And this is where different branches of Christianity start to disagree. According to some Christians, these four individuals were, in fact, the literal brothers of Jesus, i.e., children born to Mary sometime after the birth of Jesus. Remember, Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, so these would have to be younger brothers. They would also technically be half-brothers, being that Jesus was the son of God and they were not. However, there are a few other possibilities. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and some Protestants believe that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life; therefore, these so-called brothers must either be sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, which would make them older brothers, or they were actually Jesus's cousins.
The argument for them being cousins is based on the fact that Jews at the time did not have separate words for brother versus cousin. Any male relative of a similar age was simply your brother. Sometimes, like today, even a non-relative with whom you are really close is called your brother. For the sake of this chart, I'm going to go with the cousin theory, and I'm going to assume that they were cousins from Mary's side of the family, not Joseph's. This is because, in the gospel accounts, Joseph seems to disappear from the story by the time Jesus reaches adulthood, yet Jesus remains close to his mother and several other women who seem to have been his maternal aunts.
Now, speaking of women that Jesus was close to, let's take a moment to talk about the Marys. And yes, notice that I just said Marys, plural, not Mary, singular. I've already mentioned Mary, the mother of Jesus, but that Mary is not the only Mary mentioned in the New Testament. In fact, there are at least three Marys and perhaps as many as six. So, let's take a moment to sort them out. I'm going to start with John 19:25. There we read, "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." So, from this verse, it's clear that there were at least three separate people named Mary. Although the verse doesn't mention it, we know that the mother of Jesus was named Mary. Then we get at least two more: Mary the wife of Clopas, who, according to the grammar of the sentence, seems to be Jesus's aunt, and someone called Mary Magdalene.
So, three Marys. But things get a bit confusing when we look at the same part of the story in the other gospel accounts. Matthew also mentions three women at the crucifixion. In his version, in Matthew 27:55 and 56, we read, "Many women were there watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons." So, here there is no mention of Jesus's mother, but we do get Mary Magdalene again, as well as someone who is referred to as Mary the mother of James and Joseph. According to many scholars, the assumption is that this Mary is the same Mary as Mary the wife of Clopas. So, if this is true, it is confirmation that Jesus did indeed have two cousins named James and Joseph.
Finally, we get a third person who is simply referred to as the mother of Zebedee's sons. Now, we know from other parts of the New Testament that the sons of Zebedee were James and John, two of the original 12 disciples. Okay, now let's look at the Gospel of Mark. In that version of the story, in Mark 15:40, we read, "Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome." So, here it seems that we have the same three women mentioned by Matthew, but we get a few more pieces of information. First, we learn that James, the cousin of Jesus, had a nickname: he was called "the younger." This was probably to distinguish him from James, the son of Zebedee, who is called "James the Elder." In later tradition, the terms "James the Less" and "James the Great" were used, but keep in mind that these terms do not refer to importance.
From Mark, we also learn that the mother of the two sons of Zebedee was named Salome, and according to tradition, her full name was actually Mary Salome. So, this gives us four different Marys in total. Now, there's one more gospel, the Gospel of Luke, but unfortunately, Luke does not name the women at the cross. However, he does include a story not given in the other gospels about two women named Mary and Martha who lived in a town called Bethany. So, this is possibly a fifth Mary. However, according to tradition, Mary of Bethany was the same person as Mary Magdalene, so that once again leaves us with four.
Let's now return to the tree. We can now fill in the name of Mary's sister and her husband. I'll also add Mary Salome off to the side, as well as her husband Zebedee and her two sons, James and John. I'll also add Mary Magdalene and her sister Martha. From other verses in the gospels, we know that Mary and Martha had a brother named Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead, so I'll add him as well.
Okay, let's now focus a bit more on Jesus's cousins. To do this, let's talk about the 12 disciples, later known as the 12 apostles. Simon Peter is always mentioned first, along with his brother Andrew. This is because Peter ended up becoming the leader of the Jesus movement after Jesus's death. In fact, Catholics consider him to have been the first pope. After Peter and Andrew come James and John, the sons of Zebedee. As I've already mentioned, this James became known as James the Great. We then get Philip, Bartholomew, also known as Nathaniel, Thomas, and Matthew. Finally, we get another James mentioned as being the son of Alphaeus, in order to distinguish him from James, the son of Zebedee. Then Thaddeus, who was also called Judas, Simon, nicknamed the Zealot, and last of all, Judas Iscariot. He comes last because he's the one who famously betrayed Jesus. He's the only one of the 12 who didn't become an apostle; he was later replaced by a man named Matthias.
Now, here's the interesting thing: the last three names before Judas Iscariot match three of the names of Jesus's cousins, and according to some scholars, the name Alphaeus is an alternative version of the name Clopas. So, according to several branches of Christianity, these three disciples were, in fact, the cousins of Jesus. What happened to Joseph, the fourth cousin? We do not know, but the fact that these three are always listed last in the lists of the disciples, other than Judas Iscariot, of course, I think is further evidence that they were, in fact, the cousins of Jesus. It's likely that the early Christians were being careful not to give them any special treatment.
So, let me tell you a bit more about them. Not only was James the last one of the 12 apostles, he was also one of the main leaders of the early church. In fact, some branches of Christianity call him the first bishop of Jerusalem. He is also thought to have written one of the books in the New Testament, the one called James. Simon is notable in that he is thought to have taken over the leadership of the Jerusalem church after the death of James and is thus considered by some to have been the second bishop there. Finally, Judas is traditionally thought to be the author of the New Testament book of Jude.
While we're at it, let's talk about the sons of Zebedee as well. According to legend, James the Great traveled to Spain and then reappeared there centuries later to help fight against the Muslim invaders. For these reasons, he is considered to be the patron saint of Spain. His brother John, however, is perhaps more well-known. He is thought by many to be the author of the Gospel of John, who is also known as the disciple whom Jesus loved, as well as the author of three letters named First, Second, and Third John, and the Book of Revelation.
Now, remember, I'm just presenting one view among many, and one that is based entirely on tradition, not on historical evidence. There are other scholars who, for example, would say that John of Patmos, who wrote Revelation, was probably a totally different John than this John, and others who think that there were possibly three or four different people named James, not just two. So, let me say it again: there is no one "correct" way to look at all of this.
All right, we're not done yet. According to many branches of Christianity, we actually know the names of Mary's father and mother as well, who would also be the parents of Mary of Clopas and the grandparents of not only Jesus but of at least three of the 12 apostles. According to tradition, they are named Joachim and Anne. In the Quran, Joachim is called Imran, and although Anne is not named, the Semitic version of her name would be Hannah. Now, in the Middle Ages, a tradition developed that considered Mary Salome to be the daughter of Anne as well. In some versions, the three Marys had three different fathers, but in other versions, they were all the daughters of Joachim and Anne. I'm going to leave a question mark here because, to me, it seems that the earliest traditions considered these four to be the cousins of Jesus, but not these two.
Okay, we can actually go one step further in this family tree. According to tradition, Anne was the daughter of a priest named Mathan and the sister of a woman named Elizabeth, who in turn was the mother of John the Baptist. Anne and Elizabeth do not appear in the New Testament, but Elizabeth and her husband Zechariah do. According to the Gospel of Luke, Elizabeth was a close relative of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the two women were pregnant at the same time. Mary, of course, had Jesus, and Elizabeth had John the Baptist. And this John was definitely a different John from the John who wrote the Gospel of John. According to Christianity, John the Baptist was sort of a forerunner for Jesus and prepared the way for him, but according to the New Testament, he was killed by Herod Antipas.
Prior to the death of Jesus, as the story goes, his head was delivered to Antipas on a plate at the bequest of his wife and niece, Herodias. At this point, let's return to Joseph, the father of Jesus. The problem here is that the New Testament gives us two conflicting genealogies for Joseph. In Matthew, Joseph is said to be the son of Jacob, who in turn was the son of Mathan. However, in Luke, Joseph is said to be the son of Heli, the son of Mathat.
Now, interestingly, in both cases, the name of Joseph's grandfather is similar. It also happens to be the same name that is traditionally given to Mary's grandfather. So, one possibility is that Joseph and Mary were cousins, a practice that was certainly not unheard of at the time. But let's look at the genealogies in Matthew and Luke in more detail. On this chart, I have three columns. The left column is the genealogy given in the Gospel of Matthew, which traces a direct line from Abraham to Jesus. The middle column is the genealogy given in the Gospel of Luke, which traces a direct line all the way from Adam to Jesus. Finally, the right column is a genealogy based on the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament. Obviously, this one doesn't include Jesus, but it does cover everything from Adam to a man named Zerubbabel.
So, let's start at the top. From Adam to Abraham, we can only compare Luke and the Hebrew Bible, and what we find is that the genealogy is exactly the same, with one exception. Curiously, Luke includes an extra generation: a man named Kanan is placed between Arphaxad and Shelah. Once we get to Abraham, we can compare all three genealogies, and up until King David, all three are exactly the same, except once again, Luke adds an extra generation. In place of Rah, we get two names: Arie and Adamin.
But when we get to King David, this is where the accounts in Matthew and Luke start to diverge. Matthew continues with Solomon, and his list pretty much matches up with the royal line of Judah as described in the Hebrew Bible. The only difference is that he leaves out four names: Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim. One possible reason for this is that these four kings were said to have been particularly evil. In contrast, Luke continues his list with an obscure son of David known as Nathan. He then goes on to list a bunch of names that do not match with any known genealogy in the Bible or anywhere else.
But then, curiously, something strange occurs: two names on his list suddenly match up with two of the names found on both Matthew's list and the list from the Hebrew Bible: Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Now, it's possible that this could be just a coincidence and that Luke's Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are totally different people, but because of their placement in time on the lists and the importance of these two individuals in Jewish history, it does seem that Luke is referring to the same two people.
But from this point, Matthew and Luke diverge again, and now neither list can be compared to the Hebrew Bible because the main story in the Hebrew Bible ends around the time of Zerubbabel. The obvious difference between the last set of names on Matthew's list and the last set of names on Luke's list is that Luke's includes about twice as many names. So, the assumption is that Matthew must have left out some generations here and there. After all, we already know that he did this earlier. The adding and skipping of generations is probably related to the fact that both Matthew and Luke were aiming to come up with particular sets of numbers.
In Matthew, the entire genealogy can be divided into three sets of 14, 14 being 2 times 7, and we know that seven was and is a particularly important number for Jews. In Luke, the entire genealogy adds up to exactly 77 names, again, the whole thing is centered on the number seven. But the big question is: how can there be two different sets of names between Zerubbabel and Joseph? Well, the most common explanation is that one of these lists is actually showing Jesus's maternal line—in other words, the line of Mary. Even though they both say Joseph, most Christian scholars say that Matthew covers Joseph's line and Luke covers Mary's line, although I have seen some scholars who argue for the reverse.
There are even some attempts out there to reconcile the two lists by adding in things like second marriages and stepchildren, but to me, I don't think that's necessary. Personally, I think there is a simpler solution, but please note that at this point, I am strictly stating my own opinion. I think the reason why the two genealogies don't match is that neither of them are genuine. In other words, I think that both Matthew and Luke made up the final parts of their genealogies basically from scratch.
Now, as I said at the beginning of this video, I am not a Christian, but even if I were, I don't think the fact that they made up genealogies would necessarily be a problem. It's clear that both genealogies have several poetic, symbolic elements. For example, I've already talked about the numerology, but there's more. There are some very slight spelling changes in Matthew's account. For example, he changes Asa to Asaf and Amon to Amos. Asa was a writer of Psalms, and Amos was one of the prophets, so this would appear to be a nod to the prophets and the writings, the two sections of the Hebrew Bible that, together with the Torah, make up the Tanakh. He also specifically mentions four women, all four of whom were probably non-Israelites, so that's a little nod to the Gentiles.
As I said at the very beginning of this series, the purpose of the Bible is to make theological points, not to record literal history, and I think this goes for certain sections of the gospels as well. Yes, the gospel writers certainly believed that Jesus was the son of God, and yes, they certainly believed that as the Jewish Messiah, he was the literal descendant of King David, but I don't think that the exact specifics matter to them as much as they matter to us in our very detail-oriented modern minds today. Again, this is just my opinion, but please understand that the Bible can be understood in different ways, and just because someone understands it differently than you, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are non-religious.
Okay, so that wraps up the family tree of Jesus, as well as the complete series that I've been doing on biblical genealogy. Thanks for watching.