Mary's Genetics

[thistle]

Thistle, the tone of your reply to my post suggests that you think I didn’t bother to read, much less understand, what you posted earlier. Please don’t stoop to insulting me when the fact is I simply disagree with your post, understanding quite well what you said!

The fact that Jewish tradition always looks to the male line is irrelevant when you are looking for “seed”, which is precisely what Luke does in his gospel. I did not make up my “take” on Luke’s gospel, as you can see for yourself in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject of Mary. I admit that the interpretation of Luke’s gospel as being a genealogy of Mary is not popular today, but I know of no place where the Church has infallibly proclaimed that both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies are exclusively of Joseph.

What are the advantages of viewing Luke’s genealogy as that of Mary?

1. This resolves the “Jacob vs. Heli” conflict. While Jacob is Joseph’s biological father, Heli is Joseph’s father-in-law, and Joseph is Heli’s son in accordance with Jewish usage (cf. 1 Sam. 24: 16).
2. This provides an explanation for how someone who must be of “the seed of David” (Rom 1:23) can sit on “the throne of David” (Lk 1: 32-3) even with the cursed ancestor Jeconiah.
3. This gives Scriptural support for the traditional name of Mary’s father (Joachim = Eliachim = Heli), by abbreviation after the simple substitution of one name of God (Yaweh) for another (Eli). (Thanks to the Catholic Encyclopedia for this!)
4. Although Scripture expressly states in other places (cf Lk 1: 27) that Mary was of the house of David, Luke’s genealogy provides important details that “flesh out the story,” if I may be permitted a small bon mot.

Thistle, if you don’t like my interpretation, then we’ll just have to disagree. We are not speaking of dogma here. Let’s agree to do so in a spirit of charity! Blessings, ~Br. Carlo~

Luke 1:27 states clearly Joseph is of the house of David, not Mary.

“To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary.”

 

[Br.Carlo]

Please refer to the following passage from the piece on Mary from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“If Mary were not of Davidic descent, her Son conceived by the Holy Ghost could not be said to be “of the seed of David”. Hence commentators tell us that in the text “in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God. . .to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David” (Luke 1:26-27); the last clause “of the house of David” does not refer to Joseph, but to the virgin who is the principal person in the narrative; thus we have a direct inspired testimony to Mary’s Davidic descent.”

 

[thistle]

Please refer to the following passage from the piece on Mary from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“If Mary were not of Davidic descent, her Son conceived by the Holy Ghost could not be said to be “of the seed of David”. Hence commentators tell us that in the text “in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God. . .to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David” (Luke 1:26-27); the last clause “of the house of David” does not refer to Joseph, but to the virgin who is the principal person in the narrative; thus we have a direct inspired testimony to Mary’s Davidic descent.”

I don’t speak Latin so I don’t know how good the translation to English is but the verse I quoted is from the D-R Bible and that verse in English CLEARLY states that Joseph is of the house of David and not Mary. I don’t see how anybody could construe that to mean anything else so yes I totally disagree with that interpretation because it makes no sense.
I think a 5-year old reading that verse in English knows what it means.

Also do not confuse what I am saying to mean I don’t believe Mary is of the house of David. I do believe she is of the house of David. I am just saying that Scripture does not mention that at all.

 

[teeboy]

Luke 1:27 states clearly Joseph is of the house of David, not Mary.

“To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary.”

That semicolon is not needed. It seems many objects exist but not enough prepositions.

 

[tm30]

I don’t speak Latin so I don’t know how good the translation to English is but the verse I quoted is from the D-R Bible and that verse in English CLEARLY states that Joseph is of the house of David and not Mary. I don’t see how anybody could construe that to mean anything else so yes I totally disagree with that interpretation because it makes no sense.
I think a 5-year old reading that verse in English knows what it means.

Also do not confuse what I am saying to mean I don’t believe Mary is of the house of David. I do believe she is of the house of David. I am just saying that Scripture does not mention that at all.

Where do you get the lineage of Mary? How do you know she descended from David?

It was not part of Jewish custom to have inter-tribal marriages, for the very reason of the inheritance structure. If there were nothing else unusual about the betrothal, the author would not be impelled to spell out that Mary is also of the line of David (i.e., Joseph being mentioned suffices for both.)

 

[teeboy]

All points are worthy of discussion.

I am still curious if Nathan is substituted to indicate flesh or more simply truth, as he was a prophet.

Hence we have the Law in Matt and prophet in Luke.

I forget the third element of the number seven in OT. Please inform.

 

[nordskoven]

[Mt 1:15]:
"and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" = “ex es egennethe” (from the Textus Receptus a very reliable consensus of the original text) = “out of whom was born” comes after Mary and the relative pronoun “es” = “of whom” is genitive, feminine singular referring to Mary not Joseph. Notice that the verb has changed from “egennesen” = “begat”, to “egennethe” =" was born", signifying a different concept: being born of the woman, Mary and not begotten of the man, Joseph]

**Thanks, Brother Carlo. This cut-and-paste fleshes out, so to speak, your “begat” comment. I’m sorry I can’t find the relevent essays in a website called the Y-Files. There were a couple on the lineage of Mary and the legal ramifications thereto. And as you noted, Joseph was of the lineage of Jeconiah, who was cursed to be “legally” childless, i.e., to never have any part in the future lineage of the House of David so that none of his kindred would ever ascend the Throne of David. Joseph is o-u-t. The Y-Files explained why the Blessed Virgin was in; as did Savinah Teubal–not directly as she is a non-Messianic Jew–but explained the inheritance through the female in her misnamed book, “Sarah the Priestess.” The office she was shooting for was EN, not priestess but her publisher made her use “priestess.” EN means woman/queen of “grace” and is significant in Mary’s fulfilling this role with Gabriel’s title, “Full of Grace.” **

 

[nordskoven]

Looks like the Y-Files essays were transferred to this site. Here’s the essay LINEAGE LOOPHOLE.

xwalk.ca/loophole.html