What is pretty clear however, is that despite the average maternal age of first birth being 26-29 for most modern countries, our children aren't starting off any older. Even a small accumulation of age from generation to generation (2%) would mean that we start off with a cellular age of 20 from ancestors 2000 years ago.
You are clearly correct. To some extent this discussion brings one back to the basic question of what aging is. It seems likely that concentrating excessively on understanding putative aging of the cell (germ or somatic) is the easier thing to do but may also set us up for failure. It seems likely that much of what we think of as aging lies in accumlation of defects in the collective behavior of cells that individually may have nothing wrong with them, and also involves to a great extent accumulating defects in extracellular structures (e.g. matrices) that may house perfectly healthy cells.
By definition, germ cells cannot suffer from these kinds of aging.