1. An account or history of the descent of a person or family from an ancestor; enumeration of ancestors and their children in the natural order of succession.
Word of the Day: Catachrestical
1. An account or history of the descent of a person or family from an ancestor; enumeration of ancestors and their children in the natural order of succession; a pedigree.
Genealogy
Encyclopedia Britannica
GENEALOGY. Biblical. — The word “genealogy” (γενεαλογία), which occurs twice in the New Testament (1 Tim. i. 4; Tit. iii. 9; compare also Heb. vii. 3, 6) in the ordinary concrete sense of “pedigree” or “list of ancestors,” is of somewhat frequent occurrence in the authorized version of the Old Testament scriptures, but only in Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, where the words b*∏l and which are peculiar to that work, are invariably rendered “genealogy” and “to reckon by genealogy.” This translation, however, is of somewhat doubtful accuracy; for, whatever the original meaning of the root β ’ ∏) may have been, there seems to be no room for doubt that the noun and the verb connected with it were used in later Hebrew simply to denote respectively the roll and the act of registration; and that the “book” alluded to in Neh. vii. 5 (in A. V. “register of the genealogy”) was genealogical only in so far as the individuals registered in it were classified according to their “houses,” “families,” and “tribes.” While a catalogue of this sort was admirably fitted to be a permanent record of tribal relations in Israel, as these subsisted at the time of its compilation, there is not any reason to suppose that it made any attempt to trace them through previous generations. The scripture genealogies, properly so called, are rather to be sought for in these ∏∏√i∏ (A. V. “generations;” Gen. ii. 4; v. 1; vi. 9; x. 1, &c.; Éx. vi. 16, 19, &c.; Num. iii. 1) so frequently met with in some other canonical books, and so specially characteristic of the first book of the Pentateuch as apparently to have suggested to the Alexandrian translators its distinctive name of γ⅛eσcs. These begin with the antediluvian period, and indeed ...with “the generations (or genealogy) of the heavens and of the earth.” The descendants of Adam are traced through the lines of Cain and of Seth respectively to the seventh and to the ninth generation. In the two lists the frequent similarity of the names has not escaped observation; nor has the symmetry of the numbers (in one case, a series of seven, the seventh branching into three; in the other a series of ten, in which the seventh is peculiarly prominent, while the tenth branches into three). The very ancient tradition which they embody is not at present so generally believed to convey actual personal history as once it was, but by those who view them as more or less ideal in their character their significance has been very variously estimated,—some seeing in them the survival of ancient myths, perhaps solar in their character; others interpreting them as representing successive dynasties, or immigrations, or stages of culture within a given area in prehistoric times; while such interpreters as Philo allegorize them in a purely spiritual sense. The same differences of view find expression when the genealogies of the immediately post-diluvian period come to be considered. In Gen. xi. a series of nine generations (or, according to the LXX., ten) from Shem to Abraham is given; the symmetrical number again attracts notice, and in the list some names at least can be identified as having belonged to special nationalities; Arphaxad, for example, is probably equivalent to the Arrhapachitis of Ptolemy (vi. 1). That this “genealogy” was in intention ethnographical rather than personal finds confirmation from the expansion which it receives in the very interesting sketch of a genealogia universalis in Gen. x., where the sons of Shem, besides Arphaxad, are said to have been Elam, Asshur, Lud, and Aram, while from Aram were descended Uz, Hui, Gether, and Mash or Meshech (compare 1 Chron. i. 17); and again, among the sons of Joktan, the (younger) brother of Peleg, are found Hazarmaveth, Sheba, Ophir, and Havilah. Throughout Gen. x., indeed, a thorough consciousness of a purely ethnographical purpose is manifest, and in many instances the device of using personal names to convey ethnological statements is entirely dropped (Gen. X. 13, 14, 16-18). Historians and critics are not yet entirely at one as to the view which ought to be taken of the genealogies which begin with Abraham. As is well known, these follow the line of Isaac, but give also the collateral lines of Ishmael and of the children of Keturah, and again trace the descendants not only of Jacob but also of Esau; and so much at least is unanimously held that, even if strictly historical so far as the children of Israel are concerned, they cannot be supposed to be complete for the centuries of the sojourn in Egypt. There seems no reason to doubt, however, that the distribution into tribes (mtsp or 0'φΠE>) families (∏i∏Ξ(^D) and houses (∏⅛⅛∙"JΙ'3) lay at the basis of the organization of the Israelites from the earliest period of their independent national life, so that at any given time each man would be able to tell what house he belonged to, what other houses belonged to the same family, and what other families belonged to the same tribe with himself. There are indications of repeated censuses, in which the people were systematically enrolled for fiscal and military purposes; but, on the other hand, it must be said, that there seems to be no adequate evidence that the Q'ΙP⅛5ζ or “officers,” so frequently mentioned in the Pentateuch, had functions at all corresponding to those of a heralds’ college, if indeed it can be regarded as made out that, they were scribes at all. The statements which are continually made as to the unbroken continuity and exhaustive fulnes3 of the genealogical records of the twelve tribes of Israel are not borne out by any sober reading of the facts of history, as these have come down to us; and, even in the case of the Aaronic and Davidic families, there are some circumstances that warn against too absolute confidence in the strict literality of the lists which have reached our hands. It is certain, indeed, that from the beginning of the post-exile period (Ezr. ii. 62, Neh. vii. 64) great importance was attached to purity of lineal descent in the case of priests; and even in the time of Josephus (Cont. Ap. i i. 7) members of the priestly caste were in the habit of proving their legitimacy by means of public documents, which he refers to as ^ηgοσlαι δeλτot, But a comparison of the pedigree (whether official or personal) of Jehosadak (1 Chr. vi. 3-15; cf. Ezra vii. 1) with the enumeration of Aaron’s successors in the high priesthood, as given by Josephus and repeated in the Seder Olam, suggests that, for the period preceding the captivity at least, the materials for a complete list must have been somewhat defective. That in the case of the house of David, in like manner, some real uncertainty existed would seem to be a legitimate inference, not only from the Chronicler’s obscurity, but also from the not easily reconcilable discrepancy between the genealogies given in Mat. i. and in Luke iii. And this is not inconsistent with the fact, of which there are many indications in the New Testament (and even, though more faintly, in the Mishna), that among the Jews the consciousness of tribal distinctions disappeared very slowly. When Anna is represented as belonging to the tribe of Asher and Elizabeth as a daughter of Aaron, Paul as a Benjamite and Barnabas as a Levite; or when, as is vouched for by a not very late tradition, the “desposyni” in the time of Domitian claimed to have the royal blood of David in their veins, it would obviously be just as rash to infer (as Jerome seems to have done) that every successive link in the long series of their genealogies was accurately known to the persons themselves, or recognized by their contemporaries, as it would be unscientific altogether to ignore the presumption arising out of the very fact that tribal distinctions were asserted. With reference even to the most undisputed of the Biblical genealogies, it is important to remember, in the first place, that in them phrases implying sonship are not to be interpreted so strictly as they would be with us; and, secondly, that, in order to aid the memory by means of successions of symmetrical numbers, it was quite usual to manipulate a long list by dropping or even by introducing names at discretion.
Classical.— A passing reference only is needed to the intricate genealogies of gods and sons of gods which form so conspicuous a feature in classical literature. In every one of the numerous states into which ancient Greece was divided there were aristocratic families who were accustomed to claim descent, through eponymous heroes, from the primitive deities. Many of these families were, as families, undoubtedly of great antiquity even at the beginning of the historical period; and in several instances they continued to maintain a conspicuous and separate existence for centuries. The element of family pride is prominent in the poetry of the Megarian Theognis; and in an inscription belonging to the 2d century b.c. we find a member of the Spartan family of Gytheates represented as the thirty-ninth in direct descent from the Dioscuri and the forty-first from Hercules. Even in Athens, long after the constitution had become thoroughly democratic, some of the clans continued to be known as ∈i½rατpιδαι; and Alcibiades, for example, as a member of the phratria of the Eurysacidae, traced his origin through many generations to Eurysaces, who was represented as having been the first of theAeacidae to settle in Attica. It is very doubtful, however, whether such pedigrees as this were very seriously put forward by those who claimed them; and it is certain that, almost along the whole line, they were unsupported by evidence. We have the authority of Pollux (viii. 111) for stating that the Athenian γεuεa, of which there were thirty in each φpaτpla, were orgauized without any exclusive regard being had to blood-relationship; they were constantly receiving accessions from without; and the public written registers of births, adoptions, and the like do not appear to have been preserved with such care as would have made it possible to verify a pedigree for any considerable portion even of the strictly historical period (see Schoemann, Griechische Alterthümer, i. 137, 338).
The great antiquity of the early Roman (patrician) gentes is indisputable; and the rigid exclusiveness with which each preserved its hereditates gentilitiae or sacra gentilitia is sufficiently illustrated by the fact that towards the close of the republic there were not more than fifty patrician families (Dionys., i. 85). Yet eveiι in these it is obvious that, owing to the frequency of resort to the well-recognized practice of adoption, while there was every guarantee for the historical identity of the family, there was none (documents apart) for the personal genealogy of the individual. There is no evidence that sufficient records of pedigree were kept during the earlier centuries of the Roman commonwealth. In later times, it is true, even plebeian families began to establish a prescriptive right (known as the jus imaginum) to preserve in their halls the busts of tho≡e of their members who had attained to curule office, and to exhibit these in public on appropriate occasions. Under these imagines majorum it became usual to inscribe on the wall their respective tituli, the relationship of each to each being indicated by means of connecting lines; and thus arose the stemmata gentilitia, which at a later time began to be copied into family records. In the case of plebeian families (whose stemmata in no case went farther back than 366 B.C.), these written genealogies were probably trustworthy enough; but in the case of patricians who went back to Aeneas, so much cannot, it is obvious, be said; and from a comparatively early period it was clearly recognized that such records lent themselves too readily to the devices of the falsifier and the forger to deserve much confidence or reverence (Pliny, H. N., xxxv. 2; Juv. viii. 1). The many and great social changes which marked the closing centuries of the Western empire almost invariably militated with great strength against the maintenance of an aristocracy of birth; and from the time of Constantine the dignity of patrician ceased to be hereditary. Modern.— The passion for genealogizing, which has been and is a marked characteristic of all the aristocracies of modern Europe, can be directly traced to the influence of feudalism and the principles of hereditary privilege which that system, in its later phases at least, so peculiarly encouraged. Along with the sharp separation of those families which alone were regarded as capable of holding real property or filling the higher offices of state, or indeed of engaging in any of what were reckoned as the more ennobling pursuits of life, arose the necessity for being able to determine with accuracy who were and who were not the persons entitled by birth to take a place within the privileged caste. When, for example, the practice arose of holding tournaments, in which no one was allowed to take part who could not give evidence of gentle descent, the necessity for the professional genealogist became at once apparent. It was not, however, until about the end of the 15th century that the vanguard of the great army of writers upon this fertile subject began to appear. It was perhaps natural that, finding as they did the gulf of separation between noble and base to be so great as it was, they should have leapt to the conclusion that it had existed from the first; at all events their knowledge and their ignorance combined to support them in their conjecture. As they forced their way up the stream of time, indeed, they were met at a comparatively early stage by a great barrier—consisting less in the paucity and inaccessibility of authentic documents than in what one might almost call the fatal fact of the absence of family names. Prior to the middle of the 11th century these were entirely unknown; the documents speak merely of Eberhardus, Fridericus, Ernestus, and the like, with at most the addition of the title. About 1050 began the custom of using surnames, but it made way so very slowly that, even at the close of the 12th century, it had not diffused itself beyond the ranks of the higher nobility, and throughout the 13th the old habit of self-designation by the Christian name merely was still exemplified in a vast number of instances. The difficulty, however, in an age when the laws of evidence were so imperfectly understood, did not count for much with the courtly genealogists of the 15th and following centuries. The insuperable obstacle which barred their advance along the path of sober research only furnished them with a pretext for all the sooner making their escape into the region of imagination and conjecture, where no impediments occurred in tracing the ascending series until the name of the first created person was reached. The appended bibliography will help to make clear the degrees by which genealogists have gradually been brought to confine themselves to the limits of the verifiable. At present, if we understand by a genealogy a tabulated and, as far as possible, an exhaustive statement of all the ramifications of a series of human generations, and by genealogical science that branch of history which aims at securing fulness and accuracy in the accounts men give of the antecedents of families which have attained to distinction, the modern genealogist cannot but be conscious that he occupies a comparatively narrow field, and one from which the larger interests of mankind are daily further receding. In the more ancient meaning of the word genealogy indeed, when it is used to denote that grander task of the historian which consjsts in tracing the origin, not of privileged families or castes merely, but of races and groups of races, and even of the species itself, the subject is one that has an ever widening and deepening significance; but in this sense it does not call for treatment apart from the biological sciences.
Among the earliest of the genealogists of modern times may be mentioned Benvenuto de San Georgio tfiοηtisfcrrati Marchiοηum et Principum rcgiae propaginis successionumque series, 1515), Philibert Pingonius (Arbor gentilitia Sabaudioe Saxoniccque Domus, 1521), Gebwiler (Epitome regii ac vetustissimi ortiis Caroli V. et Ferdinandi I. omniumque Archiducum Austriae et Comitum Habs-burgensium, 1527), Meyer (Flandricarum rerum tomi X. de origine, antiquitate, nobilitate, ac genealogia Comitum Flandrioe, 1531), and Du Boulay (Généalogies des tres illustres et tres puissants Princes les Ducs de Lorraine, 1547). Georg Rüxner’s Anfang, Ursprung, und Herkommen des Thurniers in Teutscher Nation (1532) was also genealogical in its character. Later in the same century several works of a much wider scope than any of the preceding appeared, the list being headed by Reineccius or Reineck of Helmstadt, whose voluminous compilations include a Syntagma de familiis quae in monarchiis tribus prioribus rerum potitoe sunt (4 vols, fol., 1574-80), and an Historia Julia seu Syntagma heroicum (3 vols. fol., 1594-97); this writer was followed by Henninges (Genealogiae Saxonicce, 1587, and Theatrum genealogicum ostentans omnes omnium aetatum familias Monarcharum, Regum, Ducum, Marchionum, Principum, Comitum, atque illustrium Heroum et Heroinarum ; item Philosophorum, Oratorum, Historicorum quotquot a condito mundo usque ad hcec nostra tempora vixerunt, 1598), Reusner (Opus genealogicum catholicum de praecipuis familiis Imperatorum, Regum, Principum, Comitum, &c., 1589-92, and Stemma IVittichindeum, 1592), Eytzing or Aitsingerus (Paralipomena quibus Bavarica, Turcica, Anglica, Belgica, et Bohemica imperatorum, regum, ducum, marchionum, comitum, aliorumque Europae procerum atque heroum stemmata continentur, 1592), and others. In 1580 François de Rosières published at Paris the Stemmata Lotharingiae ac Barri ducum, in which he professed to have proved the direct descent of the princes of Lorraine from Charlemagne; for having in this instance indulged in inconvenient as well as unscrupulous falsehood, he was arrested by the parliament of Paris, and thrown into the Bastille, from which he was not released till 1583, the book meanwhile having been suppressed. The 17th century was extraordinarily prolific in genealogical literature; in England it produced, amongst many similar works, Milles ’ s Catalogue of Honor (1610) and Dugdale’s Baronage (1675-76); of Continental writers the following are probably the most worthy of notice :—Emmius (Genealogia Universalis, 1620), Andre Duchesne (whose waitings include an Histoire Généalogique de la Maison de Montmorency et de Laval, 1624, and an Histoire Généalogique de la Maison de Vergi, 1625), Pierre d’ Hozier (Généalogie de la Maison de la Rochefoucauld, 1654), Ritters-husius (Genealogiae Imperatorum, Regum, Ducum, Comitum, aliorumque Procerum ab anno MCCCC, 1658, and Brevis Exegesis Historica genealogiarum praecipuorum orbis Christiani procerum, 1674, continued by Imhoff in the Spicilegium Rittershusianum, 1683), Spener (Theatrum nobilitatis Europoeae, 1668, and Insignium Theoria, 1690), Lohmeier (Historische Stammtafeln der kaiserlichen, königlichen, und fürstlichen Geschlechten, 16S0), Anselme de Sainte Marie (Histoire Généalogique de la Maison de France, 1694); but these, along with those of Bucelin, Dangeau, François Duchesne, Le Laboureur, Menestrier, Morgan, are only a few of the names which during the 17th century became associated more or less worthily with this branch of research. The pedigree of the Urquharts of Cromartie given by Sir T. Urquhart in his Promptuary of Time (1652) may perhaps be called an extreme specimen of the uncritical methods that characterized too much of the work of the genealogists of the period. Full bibliographies down to this date are given by J. F. Reimmann, Historia litteraria de fatis studii genealogici apud Hebraeos, Graecos, Romanos, et Germanos, in qua scriptores harum gentium potissimi enumerantur et totus Genealogiae cursus ab orbe condito ad nostra usque tempora deducitur (1702), and Historia; litterariae exotericae et acroamaticce particula, s. de libris genealogiris vulgatioribus et rarioribus commentatio; accedit disquisitio historica de necessitate Scepticisms in studio genealogico (1710); also by Joh. Hübner, Bibliotheca gcncalogica; ein Verzeichniss aller alten u. neuen genealogischen Bücher von allen Nationen in der Welt (1729). To the 18th century belong the Peerage (1709) and Baronetage (1720) of Collins, the Genealogische Tabellen (1725-1733) of Hübner, which in part were further elucidated by Lenzen (Historisch-genealogische Untersuchungen und Erläuterungen der ersten 34 HÜbnerischen Tabellen, 1756), the works of J. L. L. Gebhardi, especially his continuation of Lohmeier and Der Mohammedanischen und Heidnischen hohen Häuser historische und genealogische Erläuterung (1731), and those of Gatterer (Handbuch der Genealogie und Heraldik, 1761, and Abriss der Genealogie, 1788), the latter being the first and still a useful manual upon the theory of genealogy. Of works belonging to the present century, one of the earliest λvas the Atlas historique, généalogique, chronologique, et géographique (1803-4) of Le Sage; and one of the greatest, bearing upon the general subject, was the famous Benedictine. 27 √4ri de vérifier les dates (1820-38). During recent years the stricter principles of criticism which have become characteristics of all modern historical inv⅛gtigation have made themselves felt in a very marked manner in the field of genealogical research. A wise scepticism has been increasingly shown with regard to all assertions which had not the support of adequate “diplomatic” evidence; and with...
9th ed. Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 10, p. 142 — signed J. S. BL.
[4,268 words — estimated reading time: 25 minutes]
[4,268 words — estimated reading time: 25 minutes]
Genealogy
Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary
γενεαλογία, signifies a list of a person’s ancestors. The common Hebrew expression for it is _Sepher-Toledoth_, “the Book of Generations.” No nation was ever more careful to preserve their genealogies than the Jews. The sacred writings contain genealogies extended three thousand five hundred years backward. The genealogy of our Saviour is deduced by the evangelists from Adam to Joseph and Mary, through a space of four thousand years and upward. The Jewish priests were obliged to produce an exact genealogy of their families, before they were admitted to exercise their function. Wherever placed, the Jews were particularly careful not to marry below themselves; and to prevent this, they kept tables of genealogy in their several families, the originals of which were lodged at Jerusalem, to be occasionally consulted. These authentic monuments, during all their wars and persecutions, were taken great care of, and from time to time renewed. But, since the last destruction of their city, and the dispersion of the people, their ancient genealogies are lost. But to this the Jews reply, that either Elias, or some other inspired priest or prophet, shall come, and restore their genealogical tables before the Messiah’s appearance; a tradition, which they ground on a passage in Nehemiah vii, 64, 65, to this effect: the genealogical register of the families of certain priests being lost, they were not able to make out their lineal descent from Aaron; and therefore, “as polluted, were put from the priesthood;” the “Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim.” From hence the Jews conclude, that such a priest will stand up, and restore and complete the genealogies of their ...families: though others suppose these words to import, that they should never exercise their priesthood any more; and that, “till there shall stand up a priest with Urim and Thummim,” amounts to the same as the Roman proverb, _ad Græcas calendas_, [never,] since the Urim and Thummim were now absolutely and for ever lost.
Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary
[341 words — estimated reading time: 2 minutes]
[341 words — estimated reading time: 2 minutes]
Continuity Roget’s Thesaurus §69
N. continuity, consecution, consecutiveness, succession, round, suite, progression, series, train chain, catenation, concatenation, scale, gradation, course, ceaselessness, constant flow, unbroken extent, procession, column, retinue, cortege, cavalcade, rank and file, line of battle, array, pedigree, genealogy, lineage, race, ancestry, descent, family, house, line, line of ancestors, strain, rank, file, line, row, range, tier, string, thread, team, suit, colonnade
V. follow in a series, form a series, fall in, arrange in a series, collate, string together, file, thread, graduate, organize, sort, tabulate
Adj. continuous, continued, consecutive, progressive, gradual, serial, successive, immediate, unbroken, entire, linear, in a line, in a row, uninterrupted, unintermitting, unremitting, unrelenting (perseverence) 604a, perennial, evergreen, constant
Adv. continuously, seriatim, in a line, in succession, in turn, running, gradually, step by step, gradatim, at a stretch, in file, in column, in single file, in indian file
Paternity Roget’s Thesaurus §166
N. paternity, parentage, consanguinity, parent, father, sire, dad, papa, paterfamilias, abba, genitor, progenitor, procreator, ancestor, grandsire, grandfather, great- grandfather, fathership, fatherhood, mabap, house, stem, trunk, tree, stock, stirps, pedigree, lineage, line, family, tribe, sept, race, clan, genealogy, descent, extraction, birth, ancestry, forefathers, forbears, patriarchs, motherhood, maternity, mother, dam, mamma, materfamilias, grandmother
Phr. avi numerantur avorum, "happy he with such a mother", hombre bueno no le busquen abolengo, philosophia stemma non inspicit
King James Bible KJV Bible
Berean Standard Bible BSB Bible
14 KJV and 10 BSB verses contain “Genealogy”
And all their villages that were round about the same cities, unto Baal. These were their habitations, and their genealogy.
and all their surrounding villages as far as Baal. These were their settlements, and they kept a genealogical record:
Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.
These were the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel. Though he was the firstborn, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph son of Israel, because Reuben defiled his father’s bed. So he is not reckoned according to birthright.
And his brethren by their families, when the genealogy of their generations was reckoned, were the chief, Jeiel, and Zechariah,
Beerah was a leader of the Reubenites. His relatives by their clans are recorded in their genealogy:
And with them, by their generations, after the house of their fathers, were bands of soldiers for war, six and thirty thousand men: for they had many wives and sons.
And the number of them, after their genealogy by their generations, heads of the house of the fathers, mighty men of valour, was twenty thousand and two hundred.
All these were the children of Asher, heads of their father’s house, choice and mighty men of valour, chief of the princes. And the number throughout the genealogy of them that were apt to the war and to battle was twenty and six thousand men.
All these were the descendants of Asher—heads of their families, choice and mighty men of valor, and chiefs among the leaders. The number of men fit for battle, recorded in their genealogies, was 26,000.
And their brethren, according to their generations, nine hundred and fifty and six. All these men were chief of the fathers in the house of their fathers.
and 956 of their relatives according to their genealogy. All these men were heads of their families.
All these which were chosen to be porters in the gates were two hundred and twelve. These were reckoned by their genealogy in their villages, whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set office.
The number of those chosen to be gatekeepers at the thresholds was 212. They were registered by genealogy in their villages. David and Samuel the seer had appointed them to their positions of trust.
Beside their genealogy of males, from three years old and upward, even unto every one that entereth into the house of the LORD, his daily portion for their service in their charges according to their courses;
In addition, they distributed portions to the males registered by genealogy who were three years of age or older—to all who would enter the house of the LORD for their daily duties for service in the responsibilities of their divisions—
Both to the genealogy of the priests by the house of their fathers, and the Levites from twenty years old and upward, in their charges by their courses;
and to the priests enrolled according to their families in the genealogy, as well as to the Levites twenty years of age or older, according to their duties and divisions.
And to the genealogy of all their little ones, their wives, and their sons, and their daughters, through all the congregation: for in their set office they sanctified themselves in holiness:
The genealogy included all the little ones, wives, sons, and daughters in the whole assembly. For they had faithfully consecrated themselves as holy.
These are now the chief of their fathers, and this is the genealogy of them that went up with me from Babylon, in the reign of Artaxerxes the king.
These are the family heads and genealogical records of those who returned with me from Babylon during the reign of King Artaxerxes:
And my God put into mine heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy. And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein,
Then my God put it into my heart to assemble the nobles, the officials, and the people to be enrolled by genealogy. I found the genealogical register of those who had first returned, and I found the following written in it:
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: