Jeshua begot Joiakim; Joiakim begot Eliashib; Eliashhin begot Joiada; Joiada begot Jonathan; Jonathan begot Jaddua. (Neh 12:10-11 [1985 JPS Tanakh])
In a post I wrote in response to Dave Bartosiwicz, "How is the Book of Mormon, the Word of God, if it was ABRIDGED and Edited?" I presented some of the evidence that portions of the Bible represents abridgements as well as evidence that biblical narratives have been redacted by later editors. Here is a rather รก propos comment from a conservative Evangelical Protestant Old Testament scholar on such editing of the book of Nehemiah:
As pointed out in the exegesis, races of editing of the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah are clearly visible, particularly in the genealogical material; e.g., in Neh 12:10-11 the high-priestly lineage is taken down to Jaddua, who lived in the late fifth and early fourth centuries. The switch from the first person in the memoir of Ezra to the third person also points to later editing . . . [Neh 12] 10-11 Here we have a list of high priests from Jeshua to Jaddua, from 538 B.C. to well after 400 BC. Some want to regard Jaddua as a contemporary of Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.). One thing is certain, namely, that this list was compiled after the time of Nehemiah. Jeshua was the contemporary of Zerubbabel. We know nothing about Joiakim save that is said oo him in this list and in vv. 12 and 26. Elishib was a contemporary of Nehemiah (cf. Neh. 3:1, 20, 21). We know nothing of Joiada except the notice in 13:28 that one of his sons was a son-in-law of Sanballat. Jonathan is here quite probably a scribal error for Johannan (cf. v. 22). Josephus (Ant. Xi.) tells the story that Johanan murdered his brother Jesus, who was a favorite of the Persian governor Bagoas. Johanan is also mentioned in the Elephantine papyri (c. 410 B.C.). To equate this Johanan with the one mentioned in Ezra 10:6 is highly questionable. This list gives additional material to supplement the one in 1 Chr. 5:27-41. (F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah [New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982], 2, 251; comment in square bracket added; emphasis in original).
I have added this to the original response to Bartosiwicz. One wonders if he will reject the book of Nehemiah? If he were consistent and had intellectual integrity, he would (1) reject both the book of Nemiah (and other biblical texts) as well as the Book of Mormon or (2) retract his silly “arguments” against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.