Hello! I am unaware of any evidence, biblical or otherwise, suggesting that the lineages were originally recorded on documents housed in the Temple. While this remains a possibility, I find it more likely that these details first circulated orally. However (and I personally have no opinion on the historicity of Abraham), we should not discount the role of orality in transmitting historical memories.

That said, the traditions about Abraham appear to have existed as early as the tenth century B.C. Evidence for this comes from a monumental relief at the Temple of Amun in Karnak (the so-called Bubastite Portal) set up by Pharaoh Shoshenq I, who led a campaign into Palestine in c. 927/6. Among the various places that Shoshenq claimed to have conquered is "the Fort[/Field?] of Abram" (Pȝ-ḥwqrwỉȝ Ỉwbȝrȝm or pȝ ḥa-q-ru-’a ’i-bi-ra-ma) in the Negev. Ron Hendel at UC Berkeley has argued that the Fort of Abram here refers to the biblical Abram/Abraham. To summarize his main points:

(1) Abram lived in the Negev, according to Genesis. Again, this is the same region where Fort Abram was situated.

(2) The stories about Abram seem to support or propagate the royal ideology of the tenth-century United Monarchy. Hendel observes: "It would make sense that a fortified site in the Negeb ... would be named by royal officials after the father of the nation, whose stature would glorify the Davidic king."

(3) Fort Abram was just one of a series of fortified sites established in the Negev in the tenth century, presumably as a defense against Egypt. Governments typically name fortifications after famous figures or "national heroes," such as Abram.

(4) Shoshenq does not specifically mention Beersheba, even though it was a major settlement at the time. In fact, as Yohanan Aharoni proposed, Fort Abram may refer to Beersheba, which was supposedly founded by Abram.

Hendel also maintains that the biblical accounts of Abraham, "written down probably no earlier than the eighth century B.C.E.," preserve some genuine memories of the Patriarchal period. He points to the absence of personal names using Yahweh as the theophoric element and the preponderance of those that incorporate El (the chief deity of the ancient Canaanites). The geographic references also correspond with places in Syro-Mesopotamia known from second and first millennium texts. Since this area later belonged to the Aramaeans, who were enemies of the Israelites from the time of early monarchy, Hendel believes that the narratives must have originated in the second millennium, when the Amorites lived there instead. This disassociates Abraham's homeland from the Aramaeans.

Anyway, whether Abraham was historical or not is besides the point; what is important is that these traditions may have already taken shape centuries before they were put down in writing. I realize that this may not completely answer your question, but I hope you find it helpful nonetheless. :)

Sources and further reading: Ronald Hendel, Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 45-55; Edward Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographical Researches, OLA 153 (Leuven, Paris, Dudley: Peeters, 2006), 115; Robert K. Ritner, The Libyan Anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt's Third Intermediate Period, SBLWAW 21 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 208 (for the relevant section of Shoshenq's inscription).

People invent lineage all the time to give themselves roots. Martin da Canal, who wrote a history of Venice, claimed that the Venetians were descended from Trolius as a way of providing an illustrious past for a people who fled into the sea with nothing more than their fishing boats and the clothes on their backs. Snorri Sturlsson goes to great lengths to prove that the Norse gods are actually Trojan warriors who migrated north, Monmouth gives a similar account of the founding of the British nation by Brutus, descendant of Aeneas. In each case the chronicler is attempting to create a legitimacy and a lineage, a reason for existing if you will, by appealing to a more illustrious past. History is replete with other such examples of equally dubious historicity and I see no reason why the Judeans would be the exception. either they unknowingly made it up or they knowingly made it up.