Are there any early or ancient sources suggesting Mary was descended from David? I found an argument in Tertullian’s *Against Marcion, Book III* indicating that Christ’s descent from the “seed” (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8) and “bowels” (2 Sam. 7:12) of David could only be fulfilled through Mary. Moreover, because Joseph was descended from Jechoniah—whom God cursed so that none of his “seed” would prosper on David’s throne (Jer. 22:30)—Jesus could not be regarded as the “seed” of David through Joseph. I have also come across arguments suggesting Mary might have been of Aaron’s lineage. First, Elizabeth, who was married to a Levite, is explicitly mentioned as Mary’s close relative (Luke 1:36). Second, there is the promise of an “everlasting priesthood” from the seed of Phinehas (Num. 25:13). I’m somewhat confused by these claims and would appreciate any links or references to authoritative or early sources that discuss these points. Later Addition: I have also found that some early writers took a reading of Num. 36:6–7 that implied all inter-tribal marriage was to be prohibited. From what I have been able to track down, this was proposed by St. John of Damascus in *Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (De Fide Orth.), Book IV, ch. 14* and later cited by Aquinas in the *Summa Theologica III, question 31, article 3*

The first chapter of Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through his father Joseph back to King David through something like 18 generations. But as we know, Jesus was born through the agency of the Holy Spirit meaning that Joseph did *not* impregnate his mother, the Virgin Mary. How would Jesus have a bloodline back to King David? Was Mary a cousin (of some degree) to Joseph with similar bloodlines? If not, what doctrine would cause Jesus to be considered descended from King David? Or put another way, are there any sources that describe what bloodline Jesus actually had through Mary?

In St. Matthew's genealogical account of Jesus' ancestry, only four women are mentioned. Interestingly enough three out of the four are clearly non-Israelites: - Rahab was a Canaanite by birth. - Ruth was a Moabite by birth. - Bath-sheba was a Hittite by marriage. That being said, the status of the first woman mentioned (Tamar) seems unclear. We read in Genesis that > "Judah saw ... [a] Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he took her, and > went in unto her. And she conceived, and bore a son, and he called his > name Er." It is my understanding that from a Jewish perspective (based on an interpretation of Deuteronomy ch. 7, v. 3 -4), this would make Er and all the other sons of Judah by Shua, Canaanites, and not Israelites. Later, we read that Er would marry a woman named Tamar of whom we know nothing about: > "And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar." From what I have gathered, this would make Tamar a Canaanite by marriage. Please correct me here if I have made a mistake.

According to Luke's genealogy Jesus is the 76th great grandchild of Adam . But in the holy bible how many years elapse between the creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus? I have googled the question, but I do not believe the answers given by google to be accurate. All the answers point to a time period of around 4000 years which would bring us back to only 4000BC. However according to Wikipedia Adam was 930 years old when he died, Seth was 912, Enos was 905, Kenan was 910, Mahalalel was 895. Therefore we still have around 71 generations left to go and we are already beyond the 4000BC period.

[The biblical description](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans#Biblical_versions) of the origin of the Samaritans is that they were moved into Samaria as part of the forced population transfer by the Assyrians after their conquest of the Kingdom of Israel. The Samaritans themselves hold that they descend from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in ancient Samaria, and split theologically at the time of the biblical priest Eli and who remained after the Assyrian deportations. [Modern genetic studies](https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.20077) support the Samaritan narrative that they descend from indigenous Israelites: > Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel. What do the large Christian organisations such as the Catholic Church teach about the origins of the Samaritans?

We have in Matthew 1 the Genealogy of Jesus. Though Israel followed a patriarchal lineage, the names of five women find a place in the Genealogy. They are: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. Of course, Mary, being the Blessed Virgin Mother of Jesus, is an indispensable figure in the Genealogy. But, what is the relevance of the mentions of the other four women? Is the significance the result of a common attribute, or is it specific to each?

If the [Bible story of the great flood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative) is true, then unless the flood did not kill all human and animal life other than the occupants of the ark, is it Christian belief that all human cultures of the earth such as those in Mongolia, China, Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan and the West are also descendants of Noah and his sons? Making us *all* the chosen people of God? **How does the Christian faith reconcile this problem?** Or are we all descendants of the [Mitochondrial Eve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) as genetic science has determined?

Knowing how important genealogy research is to LDS leads me to wonder how far back any of us could trace our family tree. Have any LDS members been able to trace back to any biblical characters?

The Bible says that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus because Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. However, I have heard that Augustine may have suggested that the differences between the genealogies in Matthew's gospel and Luke's gospel led him to conclude that Joseph was adopted. [This question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74530/different-genealogy-in-matthew-and-luke) is helpful in explaining why the two accounts differ, but I am specifically looking for a reference to Augustine that suggests Joseph was adopted.

The Gospel of Matthew starts by stating the names of ancestors of Jesus Christ. Does that have any significance other than to establish that Jesus was a descendant of King David?

Matthew lists Rahab the prostitute of Jericho as one of Jesus' ancestors. I've sometimes wondered why. Yes, she risked her life to save the spies sent by Joshua to Jericho. But would that be enough for her to be included among the other women in Matthew's list along with such famous women as Mary, Ruth, Bathsheba and Tamar? All of these except Mary are mentioned in the OT as having clear ancestral ties to the Davidic lineage. So why did Matthew include her, while Luke did not? I discovered some rabbinical legends yesterday that may shed light on Matthew's decision: namely, Rahab became the wife of none other than Joshua and the mother of famous prophets including Jeremiah, Huldah and Ezekiel. The story can't be confirmed biblically and the rabbis disagree about Joshua's marrying her, but I think it is likely that her fame would be known to Matthew. Luke, on the other hand might not have known of it or might decide not to include it since his audience would not be aware of Rahab's story, let alone that of the other women mentioned by Matthew. > Eight prophets, who were also priests, descended from Rahab the > prostitute, and they are: Neriah; his son Baruch; Seraiah; Mahseiah; > Jeremiah; his father, Hilkiah; Jeremiah’s cousin Hanamel; and > Hanamel’s father, Shallum. Rabbi Yehuda said: So too, Huldah the > prophetess was a descendant of Rahab the prostitute… Rav Naḥman responded... Rahab converted and married Joshua, and therefore Huldah descended from both Joshua and Rahab. (Megillah 14b) Did Matthew know of the stories that underlie these reports in the Talmud? I also wonder if the story of Rahab's marriage to Joshua and her ancestry of important prophets was known to any of the Church Fathers, or if there are references to her history (other than her role in protecting the spies in Jericho) in other early Christian writings.

Luke 1:36 >And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. (New Revised Standard Version) According to [Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible](https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/luke/1.htm) : >For though Elisabeth was of the daughters of Aaron, or of the tribe of Levi by her father's side, yet might be of the tribe of Judah by her mother's side, and so akin to Mary. If that is true, then could the Jews of the first century, have called Mary "the daughter of Aaron", even if she was only akin to Elisabeth by the tribe of Judah by her mother's side?

This Q is a follow-up to one I recently asked in Hermeneutics – link - https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/80776/does-the-hebrew-of-deuteronomy-312-indicate-that-moses-date-of-death-was-exact/80821#80821 It appears from one answer given there that there is an interesting development of this idea, based on dates of death and birth of significant characters in the Hebrew scriptures, but as Hermeneutics is not for topics, but for examination of biblical texts, my Q there was confined to the text of Deuteronomy 31:2. > "And [Moses] said to them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this > day..." (A. Now, having obtained the answer to that ***(“No, the Hebrew of that text does not indicate that Moses’ date of death was exactly the same as his date of birth, 120 years later”)***, **I wish to explore the topic of how the view regarding "the integral age of the righteous" developed.**

I remember reading a while back about how the ages in the Old Testaments first genealogy (leading up to Noah) were not representative of the actual ages of the individuals, but rather that this practice of high age was meant to show their level of greatness or honor. However I am unable to find any such article or paper, though I have heard the claim repeated on some YouTube videos. Can anyone help me find a well-sourced article or paper that talks about this idea? Thanks.

Jacob had twelve sons, the firstborn of whom was Reuben. Yet, the birthright that should have passed on to Reuben did not due to Reuben's sin against his father (1 Chronicles 5:1-2). Naturally, one would assume that the next in line would be Simeon, the second-oldest. It did not pass to Simeon either. In fact, Jacob passes over all of his sons until he gets to Joseph. Now, he essentially passes on the birthright and blessing to Ephraim, the younger of Joseph's sons. I have a few questions regarding this. First, why does Jacob pass the birthright to Joseph's sons, and not Joseph himself? In fact, before doing so, why does Jacob essentially say that Joseph's sons are now considered to be his sons? What is the meaning of this? Second, what is the significance of choosing Ephraim, the younger, over Manasseh, the older? Finally, even though Ephraim has the birthright, the lineage of Jesus comes through Judah. Why then, does the birthright not pass to Judah? Why is there a disconnect between this birthright and the importance of Judah in Jesus' lineage?

There are some Christians who hold that genre is highly relevant in Biblical exegesis, and resolve the incompatibility of the, for examples, Genesis creation account, the start of humanity with Adam and Eve, or a global flood with Noah, with contemporary 'scientific' consensuses in fields like astrophysics, evolutionary biology, or geology and hydrology, by holding that Genesis 1-11, say, is essentially mythic, not something that impinges strongly on contemporary fields of history or science. Those same Christians sometimes, however, also hold that the Gospel accounts are *not* in the mythic genre, but rather a genre more like reportage - historical accounts based largely on first-person testimony. How do these sorts of Christians explain Luke 3's genealogy of the Christ, which goes all the way back not just to Abraham (post-Genesis 1-11) but to Adam, who is 'son of God'? Do they simply jettison inerrancy when it comes to the NT? Or are there other approaches for those who want to hold that the Bible is inerrant when considered in the relevant genre? (For example, if you found out there was no Middle Earth, it would be a mistake to say *The Lord of the Rings* contains errors because it describes Middle Earth.) Also see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15456/in-theistic-evolution-when-do-the-genealogies-in-genesis-become-real

I am considering the possibility that Luke 3 is in fact the genealogy of Joseph and not Mary. Here is why... 1. Luke mentions the circumcision and the naming of both Jesus and John on the 8th day in Luke 1:59 and Luke 2:21, which would have us think that there is a strong tradition when it comes to naming children and that it is going to be named after names already in the family. (Luke 1:59-61) "And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and **they called him** **Zacharias, after the name of his father.** {60} And his mother answered and said, Not so; but **he shall be called John. {61} And they said unto her,** **There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.**" 2. We know that some of the children of Joseph and Mary were these, (Matthew 13:55) "Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and **his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas**?" 3. Now let's look at the names in the genealogy in Luke 3. (Luke 3:23-31) "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being **(as was supposed) the son of Joseph**, which was the son of Heli, {24} Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of **Joseph**, {25} Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, {26} Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of **Joseph**, which was the son of **Juda**, {27} Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, {28} Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, {29} Which was the son of **Jose**, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, {30} Which was the son of **Simeon**, which was the son of **Juda**, which was the son of **Joseph**, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, {31} Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David," Now in this genealogy we have Joseph named multiple times and Jose, Simeon and Juda which are all names of Jesus's brothers. When we compare this to the Genealogy in Matt which shares no names with Jesus relatives, it is clear to me that Luke 3 is more likely the genealogy of Joseph. It also mentions in Luke 3 that Jesus was as supposed the son of Joseph, but then goes on to say Joseph was the son of Heli, which appears that the genealogy is about Joseph.

Matthew records forty two generations (three times fourteen) from Abraham to Christ, these being (from David onwards) the royal line, the route of the throne. Luke records about fifty generations, via Joseph, from Christ back to Abraham, being the natural line ; it being more circuitous and involving persons of shorter longevity than royalty so there are more of them. The line is via Joseph ; Mary's name is not mentioned. And Luke affirms that Jesus was only 'supposed' to be 'of Joseph'. Luke also records about twenty more names from Abraham back to Adam and thence to God. The italicised interpolation '*the son of*' (employed by the KJV in Luke 3) is incorrect, not being present in the Greek text, but the names are, indeed, a *genitive of origin*, one would suggest. Are these seventy, or so, 'generations' regarded by Reformed, Protestant, Trinitarians as an accurate genealogy from Christ back to Adam in 'beginning of creation'(1), and thence to God, or do such persons think otherwise ? > (1) ... but **from beginning of creation** male and female made them the God ... [Literal from Englishman's Greek New Testament (Stephanus Text) Mark 10:6] >απο **δε αρχης κτισεως** αρσεν και θηλυ εποιησεν αυτους ο θεος [Stephanus TR Mark 10:6]

As far as I know the Canaanite woman, she is a gentile, yes? Or is she from Ham's son's lineage Canaan etc? What makes a gentile? Is it only not being in one of the twelve tribes of Israel? Or something else?

I’m currently participating in The Bible in a Year Podcast (unsponsored but you should totally do it, very well made). We are currently in Numbers and Dueteronomy, and in the book of Numbers, there seems to be pages and pages of lists of families and their names, specifically in Numbers 26. What is the significance of having these here? What importance did they have to their Jewish ancestors?