The Deir Alla Inscription, dated 880-770 BCE, mentions Balaam son of Beor. It doesn’t necessarily prove that he was real, but it is an interesting data point.
Strange choice for Moses to write that they buried Moses a long time ago and nobody remembers where.
Note that even Omri’s dynasty lasted only 40 years and had 5 kings. Furthermore, they don’t appear in the genealogies such as given in Matthew and Luke. (Although a king of Judah, Ahaziah, married a relative of Ahab and those genealogies pass through those families. And yet Matthew skips Ahaziah and some descendants completely. Of course to confuse things he lists an Ahaziah better known as Uzziah.)
So in terms of the “lineage wise” part of the OP, Omri doesn’t really contribute much.
And keep in mind a key point: the existence of a person doesn’t imply the validity of much of the lineages. In some cases we can’t even be sure if someone was a son or grandson of a forebear just using the Biblical accounts. And going extra-Biblical things are a real fog.
Also, existence doesn’t imply that the stories told about a person are true. There’s a lot of obvious mythology in the Bible.
There’s a lot of obvious mythology in *US History. *
Even the zombies?
Several of the Epistles are clearly falsified as to who was their author. (That is not questioning their authenticity as far as having been sent to the places in question.) The Gospels are demonstrably false in their individually impossible and mutually incompatible descriptions of Jesus’ birth and early life.
There are no zombies.
Bah. Those have been explained by biblical experts or can be explained by different memories.
Now, if you’re trying to say that the Bible is NOT “inerrant”- fine.
Maybe you’re talking of Lazarus, etc? Quite a few people were thought dead who actually weren’t.
Steely Dan FTW.
No, I’m talking about Matthew 27:51-53:
The books of the Torah were written/edited in the 6th century BC. While it’s unclear when Moses is supposed to have existed, it was not in the middle of Josiah’s rule.
This isn’t to say that the stories aren’t based on older traditions, but the textual evidence would be that the Abrahamic stories come from the Amorites and Moses’ stories come from a group of Canaanite people who were near to the Kenites and Midianites. The path that Abraham took, starting near Babylon, moving up into Southern Turkey, and down into Northern Canaan matches the movements of the Amorite people. The stories of Moses in Southern Canaan and his marriage give fair evidence that Kaus/Qos is considered to be the same deity as Yahweh, meaning that these tribes were culturally similar.
There were, after all, two kingdoms, Israel and Judeah. And that probably followed from the (archaeological) history where you had the original Canaanites from the valley of Canaan, and the Amorites (who were a Canaanitic, culture, but further removed from beliefs of the people near modern day Israel) that migrated into Syria and the upper half of modern Israel back in the 18th century BC.
The Torah merges the tales of the two kingdoms into a single story, where Moses is descended from Abraham.
There are a number of repeated stories within the Torah, a fairly clear indication of the text being assembled from multiple sources. Abraham mentions that his god did not always go by the same name as the one that people worshipped now (Yahweh). The Amorites would have worshipped Amurru.
Amurru likely traces his roots back to Enlil:
Yahweh is likely to be related to Baal Hadad, who, in turn, comes from Enlil.
Zeus and Thor also, likely, trace back to Enlil.
Odin, Uranus, El, Tengri, etc. trace back to Enlil’s father, the Sky, Anu. In the Eurasian regions, Anu stayed the supreme deity. In the Middle East and Greece, Enlil took prominence.
The Indo-Europeans had their own independent pantheon separate from the Semitic one. “Tracing” back across such groups is what the ancient Greeks and Romans did. We don’t do that sort of stuff anymore.
Various types of gods are universal, but that doesn’t imply a derivation. Otherwise you could just as easily state that Anu was derived from Odin with exactly the same level of “proof”.
I ask that this sideline about the lineage of gods be taken elsewhere. This thread is about the lineage of humans in the Bible and where the mythological names contained therein change into the names of real people.
Santa Claus was a real person. Saint Nicholas was a Bishop who lived in Asia Minor in the 3rd Century.
The real Santa Claus did not wear a red suit, have a team of reindeer, live at the north pole, have a magic toy workshop staffed by elves, or give presents to good little boys and girls every Christmas.
So what exactly do we mean when we say Santa Claus was a real person? Dracula was a real person too.
When a legend grows up around a real person, sometimes to the extent the legend gets a new name, is it still the same person? Or is it a fictional character inspired by the real person?
Lets try to make this as simple as possible, starting at the beginning with Adam and Eve.
Were they real people, or based on two other real people?
Were they totally part of an allegorical story?
If they were just characters in an allegorical story, what of their children, their children’s children and so on? At what point are we talking about a real lineage(not the supposed exploits of said people) involving people that actually existed? You “Santa Claus” example does not work because no one has a family tree with the name “Santa Claus” in it unless they have a screw loose, although they might have the name “St. Nicholas” in there somewhere.
The long and the short is that no one really knows. The Bible is a collection of oral and written traditions over a period of 1500 years. It’s hard to really put a date and say ‘Everything written after David is meant to be historical and everything previous is myth.’ It’s pretty reasonable to guess that much of the OT was compiled around the time of the return from the Exile, so around 450 BC. If you’re going to put a date, you could say everything written after that had people around reading it that could verify its accuracy, so Ezra-Nehemiah onward is likely as solid of historical document as you’ll get from the time period. Of course, just because it was written later doesn’t mean that it was referring to current events. Jonah was likely written quite late, but referred to events much earlier and it’s not unlikely that at the time of its writing, it was understood as fable more so than history. Job has a similar tale in that it was intentionally written to sound older than it was in a similar way to how we might insert old sounding words into stories that we set in an earlier period so was unlikely to have been meant as a literal history.
Of course, some of the earlier stuff was based on oral histories, so you get some confusion and likely adding of very old stories onto more famous figures. David and Goliath as an example. We have no reason to believe that David wasn’t real, so he might have been, but it seems likely that the original tradition had Goliath killed by a rather obscure fellow named Elhanan and the story got moved to David instead over time and retellings.
So, if you had to make me guess, I’d say that the king lists are probably real. We know that other cultures kept king lists, so why wouldn’t the Israelites? I would guess that someone named David and someone named Solomon were real, though likely their stature was made more grandiose than it truly was at the time. I would guess that pretty much everything prior to David was ‘mythic.’ I would wager that Ezra and Nehemiah were pretty close to literal history. I would bet that Esther was real, though perhaps lionized. Isaiah was real, but not all of the book was written by him. Jeremiah was probably real, but possibly very little was written by the real Jeremiah. Daniel is definitely not historical and never thought to be until quite a ways in to the Christian era. Ezekiel is probably pretty historical. Many of the minor prophets were probably real, but not all of them.
The New Testament can largely be regarded as being written to be more historical than mythic. This doesn’t mean of course that there are no mythic elements or that the histories contained are ‘swear in court, literal, this is exactly what happened’ truth, but more of general outlines of what was happening interspersed with commentary. It also uses pseudonyms in multiple books to lend more credence to claims within some of the letters.
Let’s take the linage of Jesus(according to Luke):
How far up this list would you put the “probably not a real person” divider?
Off-topic, but a fun anecdote. The best (almost certainly apocryphal) story about Santa Claus is that during the Council of Nicaea, the big issue of the day was on whether or not Christ was eternal or a creation of God the father. The creation group was led/represented by a priest named Arius. Apparently, the debate got quite heated and according to legend, St. Nick got so mad that he ran across the room and punched Arius in the face. He had to be taken away in chains and jailed for the night.
Santa Claus don’t hold with no non-Trinitarian doctrines!