Archibald Sayce, a Bad Guide to Biblical Genealogies

His criterium for understanding them was Egyptian and perhaps even more Babylonian royal genealogies. Let's look at a Bourbon genealogy remade in their style:

Henry IV begat Lewis XIII, Lewis XIII begat Lewis XIV, Lewis XIV begat Lewis XV (!), Lewis XV begat Lewis XVI (!), who was killed by the Revolution.

Why would an Oriental genealogy look like that? Because, if Lewis XV had been an Oriental Despot, he would not have wanted to mention a father and a grandfather who never ruled France. Likewise Lewis XVI, if he had been an Oriental despot, would not have mentioned his own father who never ruled France.

Adam		1 to 930		1 to 930
Seth		130 to 1042		230 to 1142
Enos		235 to 1140		435 to 1340
Cainan		325 to 1235		625 to 1535
Malaleel		395 to 1290		795 to 1690
Jared		460 to 1422		960 to 1922
Henoch		622 to 987		Henoch 1122 to 1487
987 is before 1422!				1487 is before 1922!
Mathusela		687 to 1656		1287 to 2256
Lamech		874 to 1651		1474* to 2227
1651 is before 1656!				2227 is before 2256!
Noah		1056 to 1656 to 2006		Noah 1662 to 2262 to 2612

So, Henoch and Lamech were both outlived by their father, would never have held monarchic rule over the Sethite clan, and therefore the corresponding Bourbon genealogy would have been:

Henry IV begat Lewis XIII, Lewis XIII begat Lewis XIV, Lewis XIV begat Lewis the Great Dauphin, Lewis the Great Dauphin begat Lewis of Burgundy, Lewis of Burgundy begat Lewis XV, Lewis XV begat Lewis Dauphin of France, Lewis Dauphin of France begat Lewis XVI, Lewis XVI begat Lewis de jure XVII and Madame Royal who were persecuted** by the Revolution that killed him.

Non-rulers are mentioned. Pride doesn't rule over record.

Archibald Sayce was pretty foolish to take the format that Oriental (usually) Pagan Despots used as template for interpreting the Biblical genealogies. Let's recall, he was an archaeologist, apt to overestimate the importance of his findings as such, and please tell me if I make some similar mistake, can't guarantee I'll listen, but you can try, and he was of the Anglican confession, falsely termed priest, though he had no Apostolic Succession, and under a system that had much more tolerance for heterodoxy than Catholicism had in his day.

It was a bad day for the Catholic Church, when some otherwise good priest wrote a piece that referred to Archibald Sayce as an expert on Biblical genealogies.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Martyrs St. Cyprian and St. Justina, Virgin
26.IX.2024

Nicomediae natalis sanctorum Martyrum Cypriani, et Justinae Virginis. Haec, sub Diocletiano Imperatore et Eutolmio Praeside, cum multa pro Christo pertulisset, ipsum quoque Cyprianum, qui erat magus et suis magicis artibus eam dementare conabatur, ad Christianam fidem convertit; cum quo postea martyrium sumpsit. Eorum corpora, feris objecta, rapuerunt noctu quidam nautae Christiani, et Romam detulerunt; quae, postmodum in Basilicam Constantinianam translata, prope Baptisterium condita sunt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Sayce

* The standard text of the LXX seems to be a scribal error. Early text witnesses indicate that Mathusela was 187 years old when fathering Lamech.

** Minimally. For Lewis XVII, it is arguably the Revolution killed him. I recently heard an argument that the official grave of Lewis XVII had been tested for DNA proving fairly well he was the real Lewis XVII, leaving little chance for Nauendorff to have been so.