We know better

First of all, we may conclude that the final editor of these two genealogies saw nothing wrong with placing them side by side in the text. Often, the motivation for seeking putative sources has been the apparent contradictions of the two genealogies, though McNutt warns that frequently what strikes us as contradictory or confused “may nevertheless convey crucial cultural information.” In other words, we might simply be missing the relevance communicated by these two passages, placed together as they are. In some sense, then, relevance theory allows us to think of redundancies and contradictions as possible generic signals. With this in mind, recall from above that Wilson suggested slight variations in genealogies may not have been seen as contradictory by original author and audience. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 105

<idle musing>
But we know better than the original authors/editors, right? They obviously weren't using our definitions of history, so they must be wrong! Hubris!

We need to have a bit more of the spirit (maybe Spirit with a capital would be better?) of Isaiah 66:2: “These are the ones I look on with favor:
those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word."
</idle musing>