Jehoash ., 7th King of Judah - Did Joash found a new dynasty?

If you are saying that a single spurious theory was published 12 years ago to undercut the efficacy of the Books of Malakhim, then, I am unswayed.

There genealogies are taken from their original source - Tanakh.

There have been many spurious theories floated involving aliens...these get the same credence as murderous grandparents.

It's a habit to discredit our lineages isnt it ? Well, not this time.

The basic question is: Does the Bible have a special status or should it be treated like any other source in genealogy? If it should be treated like any other source, then we need to ask how reliable the account in the Book of Kings is. There is no simple answer to this.

One of the first questions historians ask is the distance in time between the author and the events he reported. The Book of Kings was written after the destruction of the First Temple. King Jehoash died around 820 BCE. Thus there is a distance of more than 200 years between these two events. How do we know that his sources were accurate? Would you believe someone who told you a credible story about an ancestor who lived two hundred years ago without showing any evidence?

The next thing a historian would do is look at the credibility of the story. The book of Genesis tells us about people who lived for more than 900 years! No one today believes these ages are correct. Do you? We call this phenomenon "age-overstatement". How do we know that the Book of Kings is a more trustworthy source than Genesis?

The story of a grandmother trying to kill all her sons and grandsons does not look like a very credible story. Of course, that does not prove that the story is not based on the historical truth. All it means is that we need to be more carefull. We cannot except it as the historical truth just because the Bible says so. We need further evidence.

The Bible is full of stories that resemble each other, such as Jacob and Moses meeting their future (second) wife at a well. Today most biblical scholars agree that these two stories are just variations of the same basic story, raising questions about the historicity of these meetings. There is a special name for this type of story: type-scenes. The story of the murderous royal grandparent is another example of a type-scene. Does this prove that the story of Jehoash is not historical and that he founded a new dynasty? Of course not. However, until we have further evidence, we should refrain from using the Book of Kings as evidence in the reconstruction of royal genealogies.

The genealogy of King Jehoash may be a fake genealogy, as we might call this today. But may be it is not. It is much easier to show that the descent of Israel's chief rabbi from Rashi is based on a fake genealogy. (Of course the chief rabbi did not invent his genealogy, someone else did.) We need to ask ourselves the following: Do we except biblical genealogies as the historical truth, until proven otherwise. or do we refrain from publishing them on Geni until we have some independent corroborating evidence. I believe that doing the latter should be accepted practice on Geni.

Does anyone agree with me?

I suggest we take multiple sources and add more ancient re'sources, as well as work from people like the Sabbah brothers, archeological work ( providing they are honest and not paid to hide truths), anthropology and DNA. The bible alone is a mix of half truths and a sack of shit.

Job,
Scholarly Bible Criticism is irrelevant to the Geni genealogical tree of the Bible. (Much of it is pure hyperbole, but that's not the topic here). The Bible Tree on Geni strives to be as consistent as possible with the Bible sources (and other related books).

The Bible was not written as a history book. That is not its purpose. It was also not written as a genealogical source. We know this.

There are a large number of other mythical genealogies. Often they are marked as such.

There are enough links from various ancient royal lineages from Syria, to Greece, Turkey, Spain, Saoudi Arabia, Israel etc to establish a DNA of the bible anyway. Then it goes from myth to reality.

All it takes is money and a group of 2000% independant scientists to compare.

I agree with Shmuel-Aharon Kam. We will never know the historical truth. This is not only the case with the Bible but to a lesser extent (?) also true for our own genealogies.

This raises another question: Why do biblical genealogies belong on Geni? Are they part of the world family tree? To quote from Geni: "The World Family Tree on Geni is the definitive family tree for the entire world".

But perhaps this does not really matter, because no one can prove descent from a biblical figure anyway. As far as I know, the Roman period is a brick wall no genealogist has been able to pass through, at least in Europe and the Middle East. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, please let me know!

Dna will solve a lot of the problems.

DNA won't really solve anything because it's too far back in time, and there are no confirmed descendants.

The primary reason that the Biblical Tree is on Geni, is because it is SO popular that it has been added many hundreds of times (think of the merging involved), and also because it is an important part of culture for billions of people.

BUT the Curator team is constantly making sure that the Biblical Tree is NOT connected to later periods. Job Jona Schellekens, the brick wall is a LOT thicker than that. In the Middle Ages, every two-bit "noble" wanted to gain respectability. This was done by having Monk "researchers" create genealogies going all the way back to Roman and Greek VIPs, and of course biblical characters. These are ALL fabrications. So the curators are constantly cutting these lines.