132 Jacyntho Lins Brandão explain, for example, the reason why, up to David, his genealogical line differs from the one provided by Matthew. The divergence between the two evangelists indicates that, with the most important point being to guarantee the connection between Jesus and David, different traditions emerged from the objective of proving this heritage, and it would not be unreasonable to suppose that, in order to do so, a writer would make use of various written genealogical lists. I will now consider the context in which the lists were produced. Firstly, it is important to observe that Matthew’s list, as well as the lists in the OT, is organized from the oldest to the most recent in descending order. In fact, Luke’s is the only one whose list is in ascending order. In order to construct his list of the forefathers of Jesus, he or his source would have had to make use of not only fortuitous lists written by the Christians connecting Joseph to David, of which we know only the ones reproduced by Luke himself and Matthew, but also the genealogical lists spread throughout several books of the OT, especially the list of I Chron 1-3, which also goes up to Adam, just as his own list does. Based on the line from Judah to David, the LXX, in I Chron 2, 3-15, provide the following passage: Υἱοὶ Ιουδα· Ηρ, Αυναν, Σηλων, τρεῖς· ἐγεννήθησαν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς Σαυας τῆς Χαναανίτιδος. καὶ ἦν Ηρ ὁ πρωτότοκος Ιουδα πονηρὸς ἐναντίον κυρίου, καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτόν. καὶ Θαμαρ ἡ νύμφη αὐτοῦ ἔτεκεν αὐτῷ τὸν Φαρες καὶ τὸν Ζαρα. πάντες υἱοὶ Ιουδα πέντε. υἱοὶ Φαρες· Αρσων καὶ Ιεμουηλ. καὶ υἱοὶ Ζαρα· Ζαμβρι καὶ Αιθαν καὶ Αιμαν καὶ Χαλχαλ καὶ ∆αρα, πάντες πέντε. καὶ υἱοὶ Χαρμι· Αχαρ ὁ ἐμποδοστάτης Ισραηλ, ὃς ἠθέτησεν εἰς τὸ ἀνάθεμα. καὶ υἱοὶ Αιθαν· Αζαρια. καὶ υἱοὶ Εσερων, οἳ ἐτέχθησαν αὐτῷ· ὁ Ιραμεηλ καὶ ὁ Ραμ καὶ ὁ Χαλεβ καὶ Αραμ. καὶ Αραμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Αμιναδαβ, καὶ Αμιναδαβ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ναασσων ἄρχοντα τοῦ οἴκου Ιουδα, καὶ Ναασσων ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σαλμων, καὶ Σαλμων ἐγέννησεν τὸν Βοος, καὶ Βοος ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ωβηδ, καὶ Ωβηδ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ιεσσαι, καὶ Ιεσσαι ἐγέννησεν τὸν πρωτότοκον αὐτοῦ Ελιαβ· Αμιναδαβ ὁ δεύτερος, Σαμαα ὁ τρίτος, Ναθαναηλ ὁ τέταρτος, Ραδδαι ὁ πέμπτος, Ασομ ὁ ἕκτος, ∆αυιδ ὁ ἕβδομος. Although I Chron may be Luke’s list source, it is evident that its author makes use of it only as a starting point, having a very well-deter- mined plan with the following characteristics: a) he wishes to make an ascending list from Jesus to Adam; b) it is not in his interest to mention collaterals, only the male ancestors in the direct line of Jesus; c) it is not in his interest to identify any person with anything other than his proper name, dismissing epithets present in other sources. These features make Luke’s genealogy different from all others, including Matthew’s. There is, therefore, no formal model similar to Luke’s list, which is the reason why