Is the Bible excepted as a reliable source as regard to genealogical research?

Question

I am researching Saint Paul of the Bible, but his own words as being related

to the Herod family is not excepted.Why?

Answer 1

Some narratives in the Bible have been confirmed by historical research and others refuted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible The authenticity of many Paulian epistles is uncontested by scholars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles However, even if a passage is generally believed to have been originally written by Paul, it may not be accurate. Personal statements about one's pedigree decrease in reliability (ie, likelihood of accuracy) the further back they reach. In any event, with any source, reliability is always a matter of degree.

Comments

What you say makes perfect sense.In this case the Bible is actualy in agreement with Flavious Josephus(historian).I will proof using the Bible and logic,that Paul of the Bible is the same Saulus described by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews Book 20,chapter 9,par.2  1)Paul was originally known as Saul(Acts 9:17) 2)Paul/Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin(Romans 11:1) 3)The name Saul is asociated with the tribe of Benjamin.Saul son of Kish was of the tribe of Benjamin and first king of Israel(1 Sam.9:21) 4)Paul/Saul was born a Roman citizen(Acts. 22:27,28).This explains the use of the name Saulus(the Roman form of Saul) 5)That he is related to the Herodian family(Romans 16:11).The Saulus in Josephus's writings is related to Agrippa(grandson of Herod the Great) 6)Why the name Paul? The Herodian name Phasael(brother of Herod) was shortened to form Paul,not uncommon in genealogy.The Roman form again would be Paulus.Both names Saulus and Paulus were used for Paul. 7)Costobarus was with Saulus and both regarded as royalty and related to Agrippa according to Josephus.Knowing al these facts Paul can be accurately placed in this family tree.See Wikipedia for chart"Costabar brother of Saul"

---

Hendrik we have discussed this already http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/207410/who-were-the-parents-of-saint-paul?show=207952#c207952

The major problem with equating Saulus in the histories of Josephus and St Paul the Apostle is the dates of these respective people.  Josephus mentions Saulus in connection with the Jewish revolt in 66 (AD or CE) but according to many timelines of Paul's life, he is either deceased by then, or at least imprisoned in Rome.  See here for instance http://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Paul-the-Apostle or here https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/paul/timeline.cfm

If you want us to believe that Saulus is Paul, then you need to explain this discrepancy.

---

Testing my Anti-virus

---

Paul/Saulus was still alive and well in c.65 CE when he wrote his second letter to Timothy.Where he was until his exection by Nero(date unknown) is anybody's guess.The chances are very good that he was still alive in 66 CE.Maybe this event in 66 got him arrested and executed.As any of these dates cannot be verified.For my puposes is the fact that the name Saulus is indeed connected to the Herod family sufficient.If this Saulus was the son of Paul/Saulus or even his sisters son(Acts 23:16-22) is irrelevant,the fact that my ancestor bear both these names proofs they originate from this family.What are the chances that two people with exacly the same name related to the same family and living in the same year,that they are not at least closely related?

Answer 2

No, the Bible is secondary, at best. Yes, Paul wrote letters, but who edited them before they became part of the accepted canon? Which version of the Bible are you going to use?  The Bible has been written and re-written so many times that you can't tell who really wrote what.  Inspiration - yes, evidence - no.

Comments

True ,there are many translations of the Bible and it has been tamperred with to advance certain church doctrine.There are however certain scolars that exposed these additions.Some translators even delete the Author's name from his own book.Lucky for us some of the original manuscripts are still available for scrutany

Answer 3

Here on Wikitree, Paul's ancestor's can remain speculation. The programming doesn't allow for BCE (before the common or current era) persons. And although Paul seems to have been born about 5AD (according to Wikipedia) certainly all his ancestors were born before that and as such can not be added to his pedigree on Wikitree.

Comments

Not knowing history makes it difficult to explain future events.For example if you do not go back at least 2 generations you can not accurately explain where the name Paul originates from.

---

Hi Henrik,

As Robin mentioned, we don't allow BCE profiles on WikiTree so please be sure to not create any. Thanks!

---

Your comment is duly noted.I am merely looking for our family's
origin.I've been searching for 15 years and are not any wiser.
As yet no new infomation was offerred in connection with Sysabba/Susanna Saulus/Paulus born c.1625 in Wagenheim Germany.
I am wondering if this forum has any knowledge on the Saulus family.

---

You might want to pose that as a different question so it might be more noticed by someone who might knowledge of that. You can use the tag Saulus and Paulus to help attract attention to the question.

---

Thank you, I will follow your advice.