Genealogy of Jesus Christ

[farpinho]

Well, I know there has been extensive discussion regarding the differences between Jesus Christ’s genealoty in Luke and Matthew for ages, with lots of very interesting hypothesis. While we may still not have any definitive answer for this discrepancy, it doesn’t really bother me that much. Actually the small differences in small details in the Gospels don’t contradict the teachings in them at all, since the core of all Gospels, including the apocriphal ones that haven’t been poisoned with aberrant gnostic theology, is the same. Even if there indeed ARE errors (which I still dare to believe there aren’t and the Gospels can be perfectly harmonized if we have all missing pieces of this puzzle put together), the Gospels were still all written by Jews, they rely upon FACTS, and they BELIEVE in what they are writing, and mainly they did the best they could to write down as faithfully as possible the teachings and the life of Christ.
Now, what is really worrying me a bit (or rahter puzzling?) is that this matter doesn’t seem to have bothered any of the first Church Fathers prior to St. Augustine at all!
Let’s take a look at what St. Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) wrote in Adversus haereses (Against Heresies), 3.22.3, which can be read in ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxiii.html#ix.iv.xxiii–p10

Wherefore** Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains seventy-two generations**, connecting the end with the beginning, and implying that it is He who has summed up in Himself all nations dispersed from Adam downwards, and all languages and generations of men, together with Adam himself. Hence also was Adam himself termed by Paul “the figure of Him that was to come,”3746 because the Word, the Maker of all things, had formed beforehand for Himself the future dispensation of the human race, connected with the Son of God; God having predestined that the first man should be of an animal nature, with this view, that he might be saved by the spiritual One. For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving Being, it was necessary that what might be saved should also be called into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in vain.

Now, let’s compare what he says with St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) wrote in De consensu evangelistarum (On the Harmony of the Gospels, c. 400), 2.4.12–13, available for reading in ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vi.v.v.html

in the number used by Luke we find included both Christ Himself, with whom the enumeration begins, and God, with whom it closes; and the sum becomes thus seventy-seven, which denotes the thorough remission and abolition of all sins. This perfect removal of sins the Lord Himself also clearly represented under the mystery of this number, when He said that the person sinning ought to be forgiven not only seven times, but even unto seventy times seven.

Now, St. Irenaeus writing about the genealogy according to Matthew, as it can be read in
Adversus haereses (Against Heresies), 3.21.9, ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxii.html#ix.iv.xxii–p32

But besides, if indeed He had been the son of Joseph, He could not, according to Jeremiah, be either king or heir. For Joseph is shown to be the son of Joachim and Jechoniah, as also Matthew sets forth in his pedigree.3731 But Jechoniah, and all his posterity, were disinherited from the kingdom; Jeremiah thus declaring, “As I live, saith the Lord, if Jechoniah the son of Joachim king of Judah had been made the signet of my right hand, I would pluck him thence, and deliver him into the hand of those seeking thy life.”3732 And again: “Jechoniah is dishonoured as a useless vessel, for he has been cast into a land which he knew not. Earth, hear the word of the Lord: Write this man a disinherited person; for none of his seed, sitting on the throne of David, shall prosper, or be a prince in Judah.”3733 And again, God speaks of Joachim his father: “Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning Joachim his father, king of Judea, There shall be from him none sitting upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the heat of day, and in the frost of night. And I will look upon him, and upon
454
his sons, and will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, upon the land of Judah, all the evils that I have pronounced against them.”3734 Those, therefore, who say that He was begotten of Joseph, and that they have hope in Him, do cause themselves to be disinherited from the kingdom, failing under the curse and rebuke directed against Jechoniah and his seed. Because for this reason have these things been spoken concerning Jechoniah, the [Holy] Spirit foreknowing the doctrines of the evil teachers; that they may learn that from his seed—that is, from Joseph—He was not to be born but that, according to the promise of God, from David’s belly the King eternal is raised up, who sums up all things in Himself, and has gathered into Himself the ancient formation [of man]

As one can see, St. Irenaeus, one of the first witnesses, counted in the Gospel of Luke only 72 generations from Jesus Christ back to Adam, while St. Augustine of Hippo counted 77 generations (which is the same number of generations we can count today in our versions of the Gospel of Luke). Also, St. Irenaeus doesn’t seem to be bothered or concerned at all by the fact the genealogy according to the Gospel of Matthew differs from the one in Luke’s, and he even mentions that Jesus couldn’t have been a legitimate son of Joseph, because following Joseph’s genealogy Jesus wouldn’t be allowed to be considered a king.

So, what do we have in here?? Did St. Irenaeus miscount the number of generations? Did he skip some generations on purpose like Matthew did in order to harmonize the same generations in both? Did he know some missing information we don’t know and that vanished forever? Or maybe, since Augustine’s time, the version of the Gospel of Luke we have today got corrupted due to a scribal error? Could it be that the original Gospel of Luke traced Jesus’ genealogy back to Mary?? Or my reasoning is unreasobable?

 

[aragonjohn1]

this could help : )

• philvaz.com/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm

Shalom
God Bless

 

[Taestron]

I’m not sure about the number of generations, but I would say that Matthew and Luke are highlighting different things in their accounts and so their genealogies reflect different things. Matthew for instance is much more focused on demonic activity and Kingship than Luke. It makes sense then that Matthew traces the royal line of David through Solomon who, it was thought, was the greatest exorcist besides Christ himself. As for the number:shrug:, it was not uncommon for historians to skip over generations to avoid or highlight certain facts. Hope that helps.

 

[TimothyH]

My favorite geneology in the Bible is at the beginning of John’s Gospel.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1-2)

That’s it. Jesus is God, and God doesn’t have a geneology. He was in the beginning - that is his geneology.

-Tim-

 

[pgnat1]

My favorite geneology in the Bible is at the beginning of John’s Gospel.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1-2)

That’s it. Jesus is God, and God doesn’t have a geneology. He was in the beginning - that is his geneology.

-Tim-

I would agree!

However, (fully man) Jesus is related to all of us! (starts with Adam)

 

[patrick457]

Well, I know there has been extensive discussion regarding the differences between Jesus Christ’s genealoty in Luke and Matthew for ages, with lots of very interesting hypothesis. While we may still not have any definitive answer for this discrepancy, it doesn’t really bother me that much. Actually the small differences in small details in the Gospels don’t contradict the teachings in them at all, since the core of all Gospels, including the apocriphal ones that haven’t been poisoned with aberrant gnostic theology, is the same. Even if there indeed ARE errors (which I still dare to believe there aren’t and the Gospels can be perfectly harmonized if we have all missing pieces of this puzzle put together), the Gospels were still all written by Jews, they rely upon FACTS, and they BELIEVE in what they are writing, and mainly they did the best they could to write down as faithfully as possible the teachings and the life of Christ.
Now, what is really worrying me a bit (or rahter puzzling?) is that this matter doesn’t seem to have bothered any of the first Church Fathers prior to St. Augustine at all!
Let’s take a look at what St. Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) wrote in Adversus haereses (Against Heresies), 3.22.3, which can be read in ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxiii.html#ix.iv.xxiii–p10

Now, let’s compare what he says with St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) wrote in De consensu evangelistarum (On the Harmony of the Gospels, c. 400), 2.4.12–13, available for reading in ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vi.v.v.html

Now, St. Irenaeus writing about the genealogy according to Matthew, as it can be read in
Adversus haereses (Against Heresies), 3.21.9, ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxii.html#ix.iv.xxii–p32

As one can see, St. Irenaeus, one of the first witnesses, counted in the Gospel of Luke only 72 generations from Jesus Christ back to Adam, while St. Augustine of Hippo counted 77 generations (which is the same number of generations we can count today in our versions of the Gospel of Luke). Also, St. Irenaeus doesn’t seem to be bothered or concerned at all by the fact the genealogy according to the Gospel of Matthew differs from the one in Luke’s, and he even mentions that Jesus couldn’t have been a legitimate son of Joseph, because following Joseph’s genealogy Jesus wouldn’t be allowed to be considered a king.

So, what do we have in here?? Did St. Irenaeus miscount the number of generations? Did he skip some generations on purpose like Matthew did in order to harmonize the same generations in both? Did he know some missing information we don’t know and that vanished forever? Or maybe, since Augustine’s time, the version of the Gospel of Luke we have today got corrupted due to a scribal error? Could it be that the original Gospel of Luke traced Jesus’ genealogy back to Mary?? Or my reasoning is unreasobable?

This is an area where the text of Luke’s gospel is very unclear. Luke’s genealogy is actually infamous for tripping up a lot of scribes, because of the string of highly-similar names. The Greek text as published in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (27th edition) give the following names:

Iēsous > Iōsēph > Hēli > Matthat > Leui > Melchi > Iannai > Iōsēph > Matthathias > Amōs > Naoum > Esli > Nangai > Maath > Matthathias > Semein > Iōsēk > Iōda > Iōanan > Rēsa > Zorobabel > Salathiēl > Nēri > Melchi > Addi > Kōsam > Elmadam > Ēr > Iēsous > Eliezer > Iōrim > Matthat > Leui > Symeon > Iouda > Iōsēph > Iōnam > Eliakim > Melea > Menna > Mattatha > Natham > Dauid > Iessai > Iōbēd > Boos > Sala > Naasōn > Aminadab > Admin > Arni > Esrōm > Phares > Iouda > Iakōb > Isaak > Abraam > Thara > Nachōr > Serouch > Ragau > Phalek > Eber > Sala > Kainam > Arphaxad > Sēm > Nōe > Lamech > Mathousala > Enōch > Iaret > Maleleēl > Kainam > Enōs > Sēth > Adam > God

The one thing you’ll notice is, this version of the list does name seventy-seven people. (I’ve bolded names which appear more than once, and italicized what seems to be variants of the same name BTW.) However, there are manuscripts which have a total of much less: all in all, the numbers range from sixty-six (Codex Bezae, half of which is really just Matthew’s genealogy in reverse order - talk about harmonization! ) to seventy-seven. A couple of manuscripts seem to have decided to deal with any difficulty and omitted the genealogy wholesale. (Wieland Willker’s Textual Commentary on Luke gives more in-depth info about these variants.) St. Irenaeus seem to have known a textual variant which lists seventy-two people; he believed that this corresponds to the number of names in Genesis 10.

 

[farpinho]

My favorite geneology in the Bible is at the beginning of John’s Gospel.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1-2)

That’s it. Jesus is God, and God doesn’t have a geneology. He was in the beginning - that is his geneology.

-Tim-

You are absolutely right I have no doubt that any genealogy shown in the Bible would be able to trace down Jesus, as Jesus Himself is God (although Jesus’ “flesh” self is Mary’s). What I’m actually questioning here is the possibility that the genealogy in the Gospel of Luke as we have today might have been corrupted by some propagating over time scribal error (thus making any further discussion regarding Christ’s genealogy useless).

 

[farpinho]

This is an area where the text of Luke’s gospel is very unclear. Luke’s genealogy is actually infamous for tripping up a lot of scribes, because of the string of highly-similar names. The Greek text as published in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (27th edition) give the following names:

Iēsous > Iōsēph > Hēli > Matthat > Leui > Melchi > Iannai > Iōsēph > Matthathias > Amōs > Naoum > Esli > Nangai > Maath > Matthathias > Semein > Iōsēk > Iōda > Iōanan > Rēsa > Zorobabel > Salathiēl > Nēri > Melchi > Addi > Kōsam > Elmadam > Ēr > Iēsous > Eliezer > Iōrim > Matthat > Leui > Symeon > Iouda > Iōsēph > Iōnam > Eliakim > Melea > Menna > Mattatha > Natham > Dauid > Iessai > Iōbēd > Boos > Sala > Naasōn > Aminadab > Admin > Arni > Esrōm > Phares > Iouda > Iakōb > Isaak > Abraam > Thara > Nachōr > Serouch > Ragau > Phalek > Eber > Sala > Kainam > Arphaxad > Sēm > Nōe > Lamech > Mathousala > Enōch > Iaret > Maleleēl > Kainam > Enōs > Sēth > Adam > God

The one thing you’ll notice is, this version of the list does name seventy-seven people. (I’ve bolded names which appear more than once, and italicized what seems to be variants of the same name BTW.) However, there are manuscripts which have a total of much less: all in all, the numbers range from sixty-six (Codex Bezae, half of which is really just Matthew’s genealogy in reverse order - talk about harmonization! ) to seventy-seven. A couple of manuscripts seem to have decided to deal with any difficulty and omitted the genealogy wholesale. (Wieland Willker’s Textual Commentary on Luke gives more in-depth info about these variants.) St. Irenaeus seem to have known a textual variant which lists seventy-two people; he believed that this corresponds to the number of names in Genesis 10.

Yeah! Luke’s genealogy seems to be so susceptible to corruption, doesn’t it?

 

[farpinho]

this could help : )

• philvaz.com/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm

Thank you Although, I strongly believe Papias and Irenaeus were referring to different Gospels while talking about the “Gospel of Matthew”.

Shalom
God Bless

 

[TimothyH]

You are absolutely right I have no doubt that any genealogy shown in the Bible would be able to trace down Jesus, as Jesus Himself is God (although Jesus’ “flesh” self is Mary’s). What I’m actually questioning here is the possibility that the genealogy in the Gospel of Luke as we have today might have been corrupted by some propagating over time scribal error (thus making any further discussion regarding Christ’s genealogy useless).

You could say that about the entire Bible, that it is possible for it all to have been corrupted over time by transcription errors, ambiguities in translation, etc.

That’s why it is is so imporant to have the lives of the saints, the constant teaching of the Church, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium guided by the Holy Spirit. The system of checks and balances is inherent in the Catholic faith.

-Tim-

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

From Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen’s “Life of Christ”. If you havent read this book then I would recommend reading it.

Here is a link that has an excerpt from this book regarding Christs genealogy.

copiosa.org/christology/christ_family_tree.htm

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Well, I know there has been extensive discussion regarding the differences between Jesus Christ’s genealoty in Luke and Matthew for ages, with lots of very interesting hypothesis. While we may still not have any definitive answer for this discrepancy, it doesn’t really bother me that much. … Even if there indeed ARE errors (which I still dare to believe there aren’t and the Gospels can be perfectly harmonized if we have all missing pieces of this puzzle put together), the Gospels were still all written by Jews, they rely upon FACTS, and they…

As one can see, St. Irenaeus, one of the first witnesses, counted in the Gospel of Luke only 72 generations from Jesus Christ back to Adam, while St. Augustine of Hippo counted 77 generations (which is the same number of generations we can count today in our versions of the Gospel of Luke). Also, St. Irenaeus doesn’t seem to be bothered or concerned at all by the fact the genealogy according to the Gospel of Matthew differs from the one in Luke’s, and he even mentions that Jesus couldn’t have been a legitimate son of Joseph, because following Joseph’s genealogy Jesus wouldn’t be allowed to be considered a king.

So, what do we have in here?? Did St. Irenaeus miscount the number of generations? Did he skip some generations on purpose like Matthew did in order to harmonize the same generations in both? Did he know some missing information we don’t know and that vanished forever? Or maybe, since Augustine’s time, the version of the Gospel of Luke we have today got corrupted due to a scribal error? Could it be that the original Gospel of Luke traced Jesus’ genealogy back to Mary?? Or my reasoning is unreasobable?

I would tend to think there is at least a scribal error in the OT.

In the book of Genesis, from the Herbrew – there is a direct connection from sala to Arphaxad that reads: “Genes 11:10 Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two years after the flood; He lived five hundred years more. Arphaxad was thirty-five years old when he begot Sale.”

This connection gives us the date of the Father’s begetting, which IMHO rules out the skipping of generations commonly done in family trees. Sale is the direct son of Arphaxad.

The connection is preserved in the book of Chronicles as well, but without the specific date of the begetting – so this one COLULD be a generation skip; and doesn’t present a problem.

1Chro 1:18 And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber.

But Luke has a different listing, he says: “Sala ← Kainam ← Arphaxad”.

In the Greek, Lxx, however – Genesis reads:
Genes 11:11 και εζησεν σημ μετα το γεννησαι αυτον τον αρφαξαδ πεντακοσια ετη και** εγεννησεν υιους και θυγατερας** και απεθανεν
Genes 11:12 και εζησεν αρφαξαδ εκατον τριακοντα πεντε ετη και εγεννησεν τον καιναν
Genes 11:13 και εζησεν αρφαξαδ μετα το γεννησαι αυτον τον καιναν ετη τετρακοσια τριακοντα και** εγεννησεν υιους και θυγατερας** και απεθανεν και εζησεν καιναν εκατον τριακοντα ετη και εγεννησεν τον σαλα και εζησεν καιναν μετα το γεννησαι αυτον τον σαλα ετη τριακοσια τριακοντα και εγεννησεν υιους και θυγατερας και απεθανεν

The name Kainan is clearly in V13; Sala is delayed to V. 13, Some ages also appear different from LXX to Hebrew variants (I need to re-check… but it looks like it), I think that’s just a calendar difference between the Egyptian accounting used in the LXX and another similar calendar system (unknown) more common in Hebrew usage.

The passage in Chronicles, in my version of the LXX, has the name Arphaxad followed by a dis-embodied Sela. But the word, “Begot” does not appear between in the passage as it does in other places; so the list could very well be abbreviated skipping generations.

In any event – the Hebrew codex, in Jerusalem, omits Kainan.
mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0111.htm

So, there is a discrepancy in the OT codecies; Luke appears to be quoting either a more ancient version of the Hebrew, or he is quoting the LXX.
I would tend to believe the LXX is more accurate.

Since the Latin Vulgate was translated from earlier versions of the Hebrew than we have now, and Jerome omits Cainan – so either the Hebrew was corrupt by the end of the fourth century, (eg: long after the destruction of the temple in 70, and the dispersal and destruction of many manuscripts), or the LXX was corrupt before Luke wrote.

St. Augustine’s comment on the number of people is important (he incorrect on “Generations”, for Jesus didn’t generate any children in the list. So, there are 76 Acutal Generations – but 77 people.) 77 is the number of Cain’s son who killed a man. Cain, recall, was given the sign of 7 for killing a man – Cain was to be revenged 7x at the hand of God should one kill Cain. (eg:Completely).

The Sabbath number, then, has a negative connotation – as does 77x which is one of Cain’s son’s number, and hence the expression 7x77 times.
Genes 4:24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

That luke would construct a Genealogy of that number is significant;
Irenaeus, too, has chosen a number with significance – but one that may not apply. The name of the LXX is 70; 7=oath, 10=divine/God (ergo: 10 comandments, although there are not 10 sentences.) 10 comandments means divine commands or “God’s” commands. 70 is 7x10, or an Oath/Fullness of God. Hence 7x said to Cain, is an Oath to avenge him.

The number 72 is only found in Philo’s work concerning the translation of the Septuagint, 6 elders from the 12 tribes of Israel = 72. However, that number doesn’t make sense that I can see with respect to Irenaeus. The genealogy isn’t about wisdom of elders; nor is Irenaeus touting 72 scholars.

Augustine’s remark, however, is aligned with Luke’s purpose. The forgiveness of many sins.

Irenaeus may have, himself, decided to remove a few names from the list that he thinks are in-appropriate for one reason or another. eg: because he thinks these 5 people would disqualify Jesus from the throne of David according to his physical Genalogy from Mary.

His concern as he wrote it, however, is unfounded. David himself, being a son of Rahab the harlot, not to mention Boos, and Ruth, had a polluted inheritance – They (and their children) were unfit to appear in the assembly in the inner temple; eg: to the 10th generation, a moabitess’s children were unfit. David is less than that. They wouldn’t necessarily be banned from the assembly of the Gentiles (the outer temple), but they weren’t permitted to the inner assemblies by Law.

However, David’s ascendancy to the throne gave him carte blanch to appear in the temple and transport the ark. etc. In fact, Matthew goes out of his way to mention every possible sin that would disqualify David, Solomon, and others from the Throne on the basis of Law. Doing this automatically silenced any argument from the Jews that Jesus couldn’t have the throne if Mary had been doing a little adultery…

They would have to admit, the greatest kings of their entire family – were illegitimate. That’s something they would never admit

 

[patrick457]

In any event – the Hebrew codex, in Jerusalem, omits Kainan.
mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0111.htm

So, there is a discrepancy in the OT codecies; Luke appears to be quoting either a more ancient version of the Hebrew, or he is quoting the LXX.
I would tend to believe the LXX is more accurate.

Since the Latin Vulgate was translated from earlier versions of the Hebrew than we have now, and Jerome omits Cainan – so either the Hebrew was corrupt by the end of the fourth century, (eg: long after the destruction of the temple in 70, and the dispersal and destruction of many manuscripts), or the LXX was corrupt before Luke wrote.

Cainan is actually the ‘extra’ patriarch of the Septuagint who never appears in either the Hebrew or Samaritan texts. It’s actually partly Cainan’s fault that the identification of Melchizedek with Shem would never work in the LXX. That, and the fact that most of the patriarchs are presented to be a hundred years older when they bore children when compared with the Hebrew.

 

[tabycat]

I’m not sure about the number of generations, but I would say that Matthew and Luke are highlighting different things in their accounts and so their genealogies reflect different things. Matthew for instance is much more focused on demonic activity and Kingship than Luke. It makes sense then that Matthew traces the royal line of David through Solomon who, it was thought, was the greatest exorcist besides Christ himself. As for the number:shrug:, it was not uncommon for historians to skip over generations to avoid or highlight certain facts. Hope that helps.

:tiphat::angel1:

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Cainan is actually the ‘extra’ patriarch of the Septuagint who never appears in either the Hebrew or Samaritan texts. It’s actually partly Cainan’s fault that the identification of Melchizedek with Shem would never work in the LXX.

Hmmm? Who thinks they are the same? I’m not familiar with this particular line of thought.

That, and the fact that most of the patriarchs are presented to be a hundred years older when they bore children when compared with the Hebrew.

Oh, I don’t think that strange. They are using a decimal representation of years in the LXX (sept-uagint). There were 10 months in a year (Think, Deca-cember, Nona-vember, Octo-ber, Sept-ember, etc.) Some months were re-named in honor of Caesars, etc, but the hints are still there…

The LXX is just converting an unknown calendar and convention (to us) in order to translate it to the one used in their native land. 100 years when attached to other numbers is a representation of 10 physical years, and 0 months. Neither the decimal point, nor (I think) the number zero was invented at the time, so they merely multiplied by 10 (a divine number) which allowed one extra digit of precision.

This is not always the case, but by counting the months – they extended the honor of the person being mentioned. Notice, however, that when 100 is used by itself, all translations agree to it. I think 100 really meant close to – 100; but I’m unsure – as it is a divine number – and attributed to two of the most important Patriarchs – Shem and Abraham. Shem meaning the “Name”, and Abraham being the start of Israel.

If you divide the biblical number before the flood by 10, you will get a reasonable estimate of that person’s actual age. Note, in that the Hebrew version this estimate uniformly produces child bearing age which is too low. However, in the LXX there is an adjustment of 10.0 years for puberty. Generally speaking, the total number of years that a man lived is preserved from translation to translation.

Also, I think there are errors in the chart you have linked to.
Note in the quote I gave from the LXX that it says of Cainan’s death age:
τετρα-κοσια τρι-ακοντα; eg: 430 ?

which is different from what is said of Sela.
τρι-ακοσια τρι-ακοντα: 330 ?

Perhaps my eyes are bad, or I am overlooking something…

At some point after the Flood, the convention changed. And the larger inconsistency in translations indicates that perhaps the scribes didn’t understand the exact reason for discrepancies in numbering, or they were forgotten.

I think, perhaps, that the Babylonian captivity – where a competing flood story, and creation account were held – in that place diaspora Jews may have tried to reconcile calendars. Abraham was, after all, from that region when he was born; So the stories, then, are a bit of a family dispute and an attempt to reconcile their respective laws so as to not kill each other…

There might be some beneficial clues if we were to compare, for example, the Enuma Elish flood story to that in Genesis, and note the differences in numbering.

 

[omgriley]

My favorite geneology in the Bible is at the beginning of John’s Gospel.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1-2)

That’s it. Jesus is God, and God doesn’t have a geneology. He was in the beginning - that is his geneology.

-Tim-

Not sure if you’re being playful or not, but…
Christ has two natures, divine and human. His human nature had a beginning and does indeed have a genealogy, which can be traced back through Abraham to Adam.