CONCLUSION


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 upstart 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.
APPENDIX II
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.

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents


Which brings us to the following point: namely, why should allegedly fraudulent Christian monks try to convince readers of their present king's descent from Noah through Japheth, by rendering Japheth's name in a form that would have been entirely unfamiliar to those same readers? And further, why should they then proceed to compound their folly by inventing the story of Sceaf's birth in the Ark? - (Se Sceaf waes Noes sunu and he waes innan theare earce geboren. Rel. Antiq., p. 173. See Bibliography.)
Any of their readers