He was the sixth from Adam.
Cited passages
Adam lived one hundred thirty years, and became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he became the father of other sons and daughters. All the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, then he died. Seth lived one hundred five years, then became the father of Enosh. Seth lived after he became the father of Enosh eight hundred seven years, and became the father of other sons and daughters. All of the days of Seth were nine hundred twelve years, then he died. Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan. Enosh lived after he became the father of Kenan eight hundred fifteen years, and became the father of other sons and daughters. All of the days of Enosh were nine hundred five years, then he died. Kenan lived seventy years, then became the father of Mahalalel. Kenan lived after he became the father of Mahalalel eight hundred forty years, and became the father of other sons and daughters and all of the days of Kenan were nine hundred ten years, then he died.
Showing the first 12 verses of this passage. Read the full passage in context
Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared,
the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Examining the tension
What follows is one scholar’s way of reading this disagreement — a critical-historical view that often concludes the texts genuinely disagree. It draws on the peer-reviewed sources listed below and stands as one position among the answers above, presented for transparency, not as GEBible’s position.
How critical scholarship weighs this: Usually considered reconciled
This summarizes where critical scholarship tends to land on this tension — a report on the field’s center of gravity, not GEBible’s own ruling.
The alleged contradiction is whether Enoch was the sixth or the seventh generation from Adam. Genesis 5:3-18 traces Adam → Seth → Enosh → Cainan (Kenan) → Mahalalel → Jared → Enoch. Counted inclusively, with Adam as position one, Enoch stands at position seven; counted as generations after Adam, he is the sixth. Jude 14 calls him 'Enoch, the seventh from Adam.' The 1 Chronicles 1:1-2 and Luke 3:37-38 parallels merely list the names in order; neither assigns Enoch a numeral. The 'sixth from Adam' framing is therefore the questioner's inference (reckoning generations after Adam), not an assertion any biblical text makes.
The resolution is a matter of counting convention, and it favors Jude straightforwardly. Inclusive counting — where the starting point is itself counted as 'one' — is the normal ancient idiom (the same convention that makes the resurrection 'on the third day' rather than 'after two days'). On inclusive reckoning the seven names of Genesis 5 yield Enoch as the seventh, exactly as Jude says. There is no arithmetical conflict; the two figures simply reflect inclusive versus exclusive counting of one and the same list. The genealogies in Chronicles and Luke neither support nor undercut Jude — they supply the identical sequence of names and decline to number it.
More importantly, 'seventh from Adam' is not Jude doing arithmetic on Genesis at all; it is a fixed epithet drawn from the Enochic literature. A point of precision matters here, since the SAB's parenthetical note and the inherited summary have repeated an error: Jude 14-15 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 — 'Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all' — nearly verbatim. It does NOT quote 1 Enoch 60:8. Rather, the designation 'seventh from Adam' is a separate, traditional title for Enoch that circulated across the Enochic corpus. It is reflected in the Parables/Similitudes at 1 Enoch 60:8, which refers to Enoch as taken up, 'the seventh from Adam,' and the cognate generational formulation appears in the Apocalypse of Weeks at 1 Enoch 93:3, where Enoch declares he was 'born the seventh in the first week.' The precise textual locus of the fixed epithet is debated and is best cited cautiously rather than pinned decisively to a single verse; what is secure is that 'seventh' is a stock Enochic honorific carrying sabbatical significance, not a number Jude computed from Genesis. Jude has woven together the prophetic quotation from 1 Enoch 1:9 and the traditional honorific 'seventh from Adam' that circulated independently in the Enochic tradition. Conflating the quoted text (1 Enoch 1:9) with the epithet — as the SAB note does in citing '1 Enoch 60:8' as the source of Jude's quotation — is precisely the slip that should not be carried forward.
Richard Bauckham's Word Biblical Commentary on Jude and James VanderKam's studies of the Enochic corpus note that the number seven is significant rather than incidental: the seventh generation marks a position of sabbatical completion and special sanctity in apocalyptic thought, fitting for the figure who 'walked with God' and was translated to heaven (Gen 5:24). George Nickelsburg's Hermeneia commentary on 1 Enoch likewise treats 'seventh from Adam' as a traditional title underscoring Enoch's privileged, sabbatical status, and identifies Jude's quotation as drawn from 1 Enoch 1:9. The Jubilees tradition also celebrates Enoch as a primordial scribe and witness, but it does not employ the exact 'seventh from Adam' phrase, so appeals to Jubilees for that specific epithet should be checked against the standard editions rather than assumed. In any case, Jude is invoking an established tradition, and his number harmonizes with the Genesis list under the standard inclusive convention.
Given all this, the contradiction as posed is weak: it dissolves into a difference of counting convention and a traditional epithet, with neither Luke nor Chronicles actually asserting a competing number. The genuinely substantive issue lurking in the entry is the one the SAB itself flags parenthetically — that Jude treats 1 Enoch, a book outside the Hebrew and Protestant canons, as authoritative prophecy ('Enoch... prophesied,' Jude 14), quoting it as Scripture. That raises real questions about canon and about the New Testament's use of pseudepigrapha, and it would make a far sharper entry than the counting puzzle.
Where the critical reading lands: harmonized — the 'discrepancy' is an inclusive-versus-exclusive counting artifact, and 'seventh from Adam' is a traditional Enochic epithet (reflected in the Enochic corpus, e.g. 1 Enoch 60:8 and the cognate 'seventh in the first week' at 93:3) fully consistent with the Genesis genealogy; the stronger contradiction here is canonical, not numerical.
Sources for this reading