In Parts l and 2 of this present study, we have conducted an
all-too-brief survey of a great deal of documentary historical
evidence that supports the account given in Genesis regarding the
early post-Flood history of man. Included in that study have been
numerous records from the ancient Middle East, statements from
classical authors, and accounts contained in the early
Irish-Celtic, British, and Saxon chronicles and genealogies. We
have not examined, it must be stressed, all of the documentary
material that exists for this particular episode of history.
Space alone dictated much has had to be omitted; yet, even if it
had been possible to include every student and document, they
would all have told the same story; namely, that all this
evidence, this truly vast fund of knowledge, is at an astonishing
variance with the claims currently being put forward by the
modernist school of historical and Biblical interpretation.
According to that school of thought, the Genesis record is
without foundation, and therefore historically meaningless. We
have seen here, however, that exactly, the opposite is true.
The veracity of many other documents and historical evidence
has been rightly and readily accepted by historians on much
less evidence than that which exists (in such abundance) for the
Genesis Table of Nations; and the reasons for its current and
unwarranted rejection must therefore be sought in areas that lie
outside any pretence towards a true, historical integrity of
scholarship. A paper is in preparation for possible future
publication that will seek to analyze both the philosophy and
methods of the modernist system from its inception in
eighteenth-century Germany, to the schools of so-called
"higher-criticism" that arose in the nineteenth
century. Suffice it to say here, however, the modernist system is
by no means the genuine and scientific enquiry to the Word of God
and the early history of man it is proclaimed to be. The men who
founded it, and those who propagated it, had interests other than
historical vindication of the Scriptural record.
Meanwhile, the evidence we have surveyed in these pages must
simply speak for itself...
___________________________________________________________________________
(NOAH)
|
SEAXNET (WODEN)
| |
Gesecg |
| |
Antsecg |
| |
Swaeppa (Witta)
| |
Sigefugl (Wihtgils)
| |
Bedca (Hengist)
| |
Offa (Oisc)
| |
Aescwine (Irminric)
| |
Sledd---m. Ricula (sister of Ethelbert,
| K. of Kent - see Table 5.)
__________________________|_______________
Saberht Seaxa
_______|______ |
| | Sigeferth
Saweard Seaxred |
| | Selerferth
Sigberht (1) Sebbe |
| | Sigebald
Sighere Sigehard |
| | Sigherht (II)
Offa Sigemund |
| Selered
Swithred |
Sigeric
|
Sigered
TABLE
6. A chart clarifying a portion of the Saxon genealogies when
east and west Saxon dynasties intermarried.
The genealogy set out in Table 6 answers many of the
questions that have bewildered students of Saxon pedigrees:
"Historians and ethnologists have been puzzled to find the
West Saxon genealogy joining with...Woden, where Seaxnet, the god
of the Saxons, or at least a separate line from Woden might have
been expected." Sisam (see Bibliography,) p. 302.
The descent of the East Saxon kings is the exception that
proves the rule so sought after by Sisam et al. This genealogy,
discovered only comparatively recently in the binding of an
ancient book and published by Sweet in The Earliest English Texts
(Oxford Univ. Press. 1885. p. 179,) is set out in the original
document as follows:
de regibus orientalium seaxonum
Offa sighering, sighere sigberhting, sigberht s(aweard)ing,
saweard saberhting, saberht sledding, sle(dd)aescwining, aescwin
offing, offa bedcing, bedca sigefugling, sigfugl swaepping,
swaeppa antsecging, ants(ecg) gesecging, gesecg seaxneting. item
de regibus orientallum seoxo(num) Sigered sigericing, sigeric
selerreding, selered sigberhting, sigeberht siged(aid)ng,
sigebald selerferthing, selerferth sigeferthing, sigeferth
seaxing, seaxa sledding.
All of which translates, in today's genealogical terms, into
the above table of descent. The letters appearing in brackets
were cut away when the parchment was used for binding a new
book.) Sadly, the line of Seaxnet's own predecessors is not
given. Perhaps it hasn't survived at all. Yet the fact that the
East Saxons (whose name still survives in the English county of
Essex,) were able to trace their own descent from the ancestral
Seaxnet (instead of from Woden,) speaks forcibly for the
genuineness of their own records (and those of other Saxon
families,) rather than against it! Had these records been merely
the inventions of uagsart Saxon Dynasties, as we are commonly
asked to accept, then the East Saxons would surely have conformed
to the norm of descent from Woden, lest their royal pedigrees
went unrecognized and hence unrespected by their peers and
rivals.
It was not until the marriage of Sledda, King of the East
Saxons, to Ricula, sister of Ethelbert, King of Kent, that the
lines of Woden and Seaxnet were finally united. This marriage
took place in about 580 AD, and it is worth noting that no record
survives of either line declaring that the other's claimed
descent was in any way spurious. Many other things are recorded
between them, but not that, and this fact alone is of sufficient
significance to warrant further consideration from today's
scholars. Some conclusions, certainly, should be revised in the
light of it.
Equally worthy of further consideration is the method used by
the early Saxons for preserving their pedigrees intact with the
minimum risk of distortion or error. Their method was simple and
virtually foolproof. Thus set out, the tables were easily
remembered by heart, and it was almost impossible to accidentally
omit a name when copying the tables out by hand. It was so
simple, it was ingenious. Try copying out the above table as it
appears in the original and in these notes. While spelling errors
may well occur, errors of omission will be seen to be virtually
impossible, as each name is repeated twice, once with the
sufficing (which means son of,) and once without it. This assures
us that the omissions that do occur were usually deliberate
abbreviations of the table - genealogical gaps, in other words -
and not necessarily sloppiness on the part of the scribe. It also
assumes us that where names are inserted into otherwise shortened
pedigrees, then these are usually the results of correction and
the completeness of the records, not the invariable inventions of
sycophantic or fraudulent monks!
___________________________________________________________________________
FOOTNOTES
1. Flavius Josephus, 1981. Against Apion. See
Josephus' Complete Works, tr. Whiston, Pickering and Inglis, pp.
607-636.
2. Cusack, M.F., 1868. The Illustrated History of Ireland,
(see facsimile ed. by Bracken Books, p. 38.)
3. Cusack, Ref. 2, p. 43n.
4. Cusack, Ref. 2, p. 71.
5. Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of
Britain, tr. Lewis Thorpe, Guild Publishing, London, pp.
100-101.
6. Mackie, J.D., 1964. A History of Scotland,
Penguin Books, p. 16. It is remarkable that, given Mackie's
observation on the Pictish language's use of "Gaulish
forms," Miss Cusack should write:
"...those who have maintained the theory od a Gaulish
colonisation of Ireland, have been obliged to make Spain the
point of embarkation" (p. 71.)
7. Cusack, Ref. 2, p. 60.
8. Cusack, Ref. 2, p. 75.
9. Cusack, Ref. 2, p. 85.
10. Brewer, E.C., enl. ed. 1894. Dictionary of Phrase and
Fable, p. 1112.
11. As Sellar and Yeatman once put it:
"The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at
this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out
of Scotland; while the Picts (originally Scots) were not
Irish...and vice versa. It is essential to keep these
distinctions clearly in mind...(!)"
1066 And All That, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth,
1962, p. 13.
12. Cusack, Ref. 2, p. 70.
13. It cannot be entirely without significance that Ussher was
himself an Irishman, well versed in Irish lore!
14. A mere ten-year discrepancy is as nothing when reconstructing
ancient chronologies. Many an Egyptologist has wished that he
could get that close!
15. Cusack, Ref. 2, p. 82.
16. The best and earliest surviving text of Nennius is Harleian
MS 3859. It was written in the year 828 AD.
17. Morris, p. 1. (See Bibliography.)
18. Wood, G. Bernard, 1968. Secret Britain,
Cassell, London, p. 93.
19. See Bibliography.
20. Thorpe, p. 16.
21. Thorpe, p. 18.
22. tr. Groos, G.W., 1981. The Diary of Baron Waldstein,
Thames & Hudson, London, p. 61.
23. tr. Groos, G.W., Ref. 22, p. 169.
24. Sellar and Yeatman, 1962. 1066 And All That,
Penguin Books, p. 9.
25. Sisam, p. 320.
26. Sisam, p. 322.
27. Mitchell, James, 1982. The Illustrated Reference Book
of Ancient History, Windward, London (Editor's
Introduction.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This reading list will give the student a good background
knowledge in this complex though rewarding subject. Most of the
works cited, however, on the British and Saxon genealogies and
records interpret the material in accordance with modernist
precepts. This must be bore in mind when unravelling these
complex and sometimes contradictory statements, although the
material within them is invaluable in spite of this.
The Irish Celtic Records
MacFirbis, The Book of Genealogies, Dublin.
1650.
Keating, G., (1634). The History of Ireland.,
Dublin. 1902-14.
The O'Clery Book of Genealogies, Analecta Hibernica.
18, Dublin, l9l5.
O'Brien, M. A., Corpus Genealogarium Hiberoiae.
Dublin, 1962.
Cusack, M.F., The Illustrated History of Ireland.
1868, (Facsimile ed. by Bracken Books, 1987.)
The British Chronicles
Morris, J., Nennius: British History and the Welsh
Annals:Chichester, 1980.
Wade-Evans, A. W., Nennius's History of the Britons,
S.P.C.K., 1938.
Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain,
tr. Lewis Thorpe, Guilding Publishing, London, 1982
Thompson, Aaron, The British History, translated into
English from the Latin of Geoffrey of Monmouth, with a large
preface concerning the authority of the history, London,
1718.
Griscom, Acton, The Historia Regum Britanaiae of
Geoffrey of Monmouth, London, 1929.
Tatlock, J. S. P., The Legendary History of Britain:
Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae and its early
vernacular versions, University of California Press,
1950.
The Saxon Records
Wright, ed., Reliquiae Antiquae, 1841-5.
Plummer, C., Two Saxon Chronicles Parallel, II
(1892).
Stevenson, W. H., Asser's Life of King Alfred,
Oxford, 1904.
Magoun, F.P., 1951. King Aethewulf's Biblical ancestors.
Modern Language Review, 46:249-50
Dickins, B., 1952. The genealogical preface to the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. University of Cambridge
Museum of Archaeology Occasional papers, No. 11 (printed
for the Department of Anglo-Saxon Studies.)
Sisam, K.,1953. Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies, Proc. of
the Brit. Academy, 39:287-348.
Dumville, O.N., 1976. The Anglian collection of royal genealogies
and regnal lists. Anglo-Saxon England, 5:23-50.
Asser, Alfred the Great, tr. Anne Savage,
Guilding Publishing, 1983.
Stowe, John, The Annales or Generall Chronicle of English
(begun first by maister John Stowe and after him continued and
augmented with matters forieyne, and domestique, auncient and
moderne, unto the ende of this present yeere 1614, Londini.
Printed by Thomas Adams).
Ralegh, Sir Walter, The Historie of the World in Five
Bookes, 1628. Printed by Walter Burre.
APPENDIX I
Here follows the Latin text of chapters 17 and 18 of Nennius'
Historia Brittonum. (My translation appears below.)
Cap. xvii.
Aliud experimentum inueni de isto Bruto ex ueteribus libris
uetetum nostrorum:
Tres filii Noe diuiserunt orbem in tres partes post
Diluuvium. Sem in Asia; Cham in Africa; Iafeth in Europa
dilitauerunt terminos suous. Primus homo uenit ad Europam de
genere Iafeth Alanus cum tribus filiis quattuor. Hi sunt Francus,
Romanus, Britto, Albanus. Armenon autem habuit quinque filious:
Gothus, Ualagothus, Gebidus, Burgundus. Negue autem habuit tres
filious: Uuandalus, Saxo, Boguarus, Ab Hisitione autem ortae sent
quattuor gentes: Franci, Latini, Albani et Britti. Ab Armenone
Autem quinque: gothi, Uualagothi, Gebidi, Burgundi, Langobardi. A
Neguio uero quattuor: Boguarii, Uandali, Saxones et Turingi.
lstae autem gentes subdiuisae sent per totam Europam. Alanus
autem ut aiunt filius fuit Fetebit, fili Ougo mun, Filii Thoi,
filii Boib, filii Simeon, filii Mair, filii Ethach, filii
Aurthach, filii Ecthet, filii Oth, filii Abir, filii Rea, filii
Ezra, filii Izrau, filii Baath, filii Iobaath, filii Iovan, filii
Iafeth, filii Noe, filii Lamech, filii Matusalem, filii Enoch,
filii Iareth, filii Malaleel, filii Cainan, filii Enos, filii
Seth, filii Adam. filii Dei uiui. Hanc peritiam inueni ex
traditione ueterum.
cap. xviii.
Qui incolae in primo fuerunt Brittanniae. Brittores a Bruto.
Brutus filius Hisitionis, Hisition Alanei, Alaneus filius Reae
Siluiae. Rea Siluia filia Numae Pampilii, filii Ascanii. Ascanius
filius Aeneae, filii Anchisae, filii Troi, filii Dardani, filii
Elise, filii Iuuani, filii Iafeth. Iafeth uero habuit septem
filios. Primus Gomer, a quo Galli. Secundus Magog, a quo Scylhas
et Gothos. Tertius Madai, a quo Medos. Quartus Iuuan, a quo
Graeci. Quintus Tubal, a quo Hiberei et Hispani et Itali. Sextus
Mosoch, a quo Cappadoces. Septimus Tiras, a quo Traces, Hi sunt
filii Iafeth, filii Noe, filii Lamech.
TRANSLATION:
Chapter 17
I found another explanation concerning this Brutus in the
Ancient books of our elders. After the Flood, the three sons of
Noah divided the earth into three parts. Shem (settled) in Asia;
Ham in Africa; (and) Japheth expanded his borders in Europe.
Alanus, of the line of Japheth (was) the first man who came to
Europe with his three sons, whose names were Hessitio, Armeno,
and Negue. Hessitio had four sons, Francus, Romanus, Britto, and
Albanus. Armeno had five sons, Gothus, Walagothus, Gepidus,
Burgundus (tr. note: the name Langobardus should also have
appeared here.) Negue had three sons, Wandzlus, Saxo, (and)
Boguarus.
Four tribes are risen from Hessitio: the Franks, the Latins,
the Albans and the Britons. From Armeno (come) five (nations):
the Goths, the Walagoths, the Gepids, the Burgundians and the
Lombards. From Negue (come) four (peoples): the Bavarians, the
Vandals, the Saxons and the Thuringians. These tribes are
subdivided throughout all Europe.
Alanus, it is said, was the son of Felebir, the son of
Ougomun, the son of Thous, the son of Boib, the son of Simeon,
the son of Mair, the son of Ethach, the son of Aurthach, the son
of Ectbet, the son of Oth, the son of Abir, the son of Rea, the
son of Ezra, the son of Izrau, the son of Baath, the son of
Iobaath, the son of Javan, the son of Japheth, the son of Noah,
the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the
son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son
of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, child of the Living
God. I found this teaching in the tradition of the elders.
Chapter 18
The first inhabitants of Britain were the Britons (so named)
from Brutus. Brutus was the son of Hessitio; Hessitio (was the
son) of Alanus. Alanus was the son of Rhea Silvia, the daughter
of Numa Pompilius, the son of Ascanius, Ascanius (was the) son of
Aeneax, the son of Anchises, the son of Trous, the son of
Dardanus, the son of Elishah, the son of Javan, the son of
Japheth.
Japheth, in fact, had seven sons: the first (being) Gomer,
from whom (came) the Gauls. The Second (was) Magog, from whom
(came) the Scythians and the Goths. The third (son was) Madai,
from whom (came) the Medes. The fourth (son was) Javan, from whom
(came) the Greeks. The fifth (was) Tubal, from whom (came) the
Iberians, the Spanish and the Italians. The sixth (was) Meshech,
from whom (came) the Cappadocians: (and) the seventh (son was)
Tiras, from whom (came) the Thracians. These are the sons of
Japheth, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech.
Author's Note: It would be difficult to overstate the
historical importance of the above chapter of Nennius. Two
separate documents are preserved here, and they show none of the
tampering or interference that should be evident if modernist
assumptions were valid. Indeed, one particular feature, a glaring
inconsistency, is apparent in both, and its presence assures us
that neither Nennius, nor any other "editor" has sought
to correct the fault.
The inconsistency in question is the statement that Alanus
was the first man to enter Europe, when at the same time he is
shown to have been descended from European ancestors whose names
are known to us from other (pagan) sources!
For example, the material line of Alanus, ancestors shows
Numa Pompilius, who, we know, was the second king after the
founding of Rome in the mideighth century BC. Other names, that
of Aeneas for instance, are also familiar to us, and there is no
good reason to doubt that these men were once historical
personages who had exercised sufficient influence in the Ancient
World to have their descent and exploits recorded. (This is in
spite of the fact that some of those exploits are hopelessly
exaggerated, and the fact that some of these men were later
deified.)
The historical Alanus, therefore, was obviously confused with
the European scene,) in much the same way as Brutus, the original
founder of the British, was confused in another document that
Nennius has preserved, with the Brutus of Julius Caesar fame! Brittania
insula a quodam Bruto, Consule Romano, dicta! (Nennius.
vii.)
In this context, it is interesting to see that those nations
descended from Negue, that is, the Bavarians, Vandals, Saxons and
Thuringians, were so closely related to one another, historically
and ethnically, that the differences between their various
languages were hardly more than dialectic. Thus, it becomes
clear, from these and many other points, that beneath these
genealogies, confused though they undoubtedly are, is a great
deal of authentic historical data.
As we have seen, Geoffrey of Monmouth stated that his
Historia Regum Britanniae was merely his translation into Latin
of a much older book written in the early British (i.e. Welsh)
language: librum istum britannici sermonis quem Gualterus
Oxenefordensis archidiaconus ex Brittannia aduexit. Today,
howevert, most (modernist) scholars doubt the truth of Geoffrey's
claim to have translated such a book, mainly on the grounds that
it no longer exists! Yet, such would do well to consider that,
firstly, many more ancient books have perished than have
survived; and, secondly, that Geoffrey cited not only his source,
but also the provenance of that source, namely Walter of Oxford,
a justly famous and then still-living high official of the
medieval Church. Thus, any contemporary scholar could easily have
checked and refuted Geoffrey's claim had it been false. That none
of them did so, and the fact that Walter of Oxford himself never
denied the truth of it, are facts that deserve far more
consideration than they have hitherto received.
Whatever we may think of some of the stories
surrounding certain characters mentioned in the book, we have
already seen the general accuracy of the way in which lists of
personal names have been preserved over vast periods of time,
whether they be preserved orally or in writing, and
there is very little reason indeed to doubt the historicity of
the genealogy-cum-king list that is set out in Table 4, and which
underlies the entire narrative of Geoffrey's Historia. (And a
remarkably complicated genealogy it is for one who allegedly
was writing pure fancy!)
Geoffrey's heavy latinisation of some of those names (for
example, Britto becomes Brutus; Loegr becomes Locrinus, and so
on.) has doubtless contributed in some degree towards the charge
of sheer invention, yet little enough of his work can be so
easily dismissed.
Consider one particular episode that he relates on book 5,
chapter 4. There he recounts (and he is alone amongst all the
medieval scholars in recounting it!) the slaughter of a Roman
legion occupying London during the reign of Asclepiodotus (see
Table 4, no. 58.) Asclepiodotus, we read, was prepared to spare
the Romans on their surrender, but the Venedoti (a British
warrior tribe) decided to slaughter them all by beheading. The
slaughter took place, according to Geoffrey's account, at a
stream in London called by the British, Nantgallum. The
Saxons later knew the stream as Galabroc, which is known to us
today as Walbrook. (The stream no longer flows above
ground. It has been built over, although the present-day street
is still called Walbrook.) All this seemed an unlikely enough
story, until excavations under the Walbrook carried out in the
1860's by General Pitt-Rivers and others: and they recovered
"a large number of skulls, with practically no other bones
to accompany them," - a vindication, indeed, that has
received all too little notice from Geoffrey's modern critics!
(See e.g. Thorpe, p.l9 for a discussion of this.)
Other, similar, examples of vindication could be cited, but
space in this present study permits us only to reflect upon these
words by Aaron Thompson, written when he translated Geoffrey's Historia
in the year 1718:
"I will venture to say farther, that we see in
this History the Traces of venerable Antiquity, obscured
indeed and perplexed with a Mixture of Fable, as are all the
profane Histories of those ancient Times. But where we want
sufficient Light to Distinguish Truth from fiction, the
Reverence due to one should make us bear with the other, and
it can be no warrantable Zeal that would destroy both
together" (Thompson, p.ix.)
The Historia Regum Britanniae does indeed
contain some demonstrable errors, yet if we rejected histories in
general on that account, then we should soon be left without any!
The causes behind Geoffrey's rejection, however, go some way
beyond any pretended horror of such errors, and if we look at the
genealogy that begins with the founder of the British nation, who
himself was descended from Japheth according to other independent
sources, then we need perhaps look no further than that for the
real reason for modernism's rejection of this otherwise vitally
otherwise important account.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This article is reproduced by permission of the author and the
editor of the "Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal"
(PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld. AUSTRALIA 4109.)
.../Next
Page
.../Back
to Contents