Mary’s Genealogy in Luke’s Gospel?

Luke’s Gospel records a genealogy, which seems to be that of Mary’s even though Joseph is listed by name:

“When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” Luke 3:23-38 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

The reason why Luke would mention Joseph and not Mary is because Israelite genealogies are centered around men, due to being patriarchal in nature.

And when the man had no male heirs, only daughters, then his line would continue through his son-in-law, as we find in the case of the following Judahite:

“The son of Appaim was Ishi. And the son of Ishi was Sheshan. And the son of Sheshan was Ahlai. The sons of Jada the brother of Shammai were Jether and Jonathan, and Jether died without sons. The sons of Jonathan were Peleth and Zaza. These were the sons of Jerahmeel. Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters. And Sheshan had an Egyptian slave whose name was Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant as a wife, and she bore him Attai. Attai became the father of Nathan, and Nathan became the father of Zabad,” 1 Chronicles 2:31-36 LSB

An Egyptian slave sires a male heir for his father-in-law Sheshan in order to continue the lineage of his Judahite grandfather. Since Christian tradition going back as far as the first century teaches that Mary was the only child of her parents, it only makes sense that Joseph would carry out a similar role for his father-in-law that Sheshan’s Egyptian slave Jarha did for him.

Now when we add the fact that Luke 1-2 focus primarily on Mary, not Joseph, then this makes the case of the genealogy being Mary’s all the more likely.

In fact, a Latin commentary on the Gospels written by an African bishop of Aquileia, Italy in the fourth century (350) AD, states that there were already many Christian expositors who believed that Luke’s genealogy was that of the holy and blessed Virgin:

M. long. I. And from the exile in Babylon up to Christ fourteen generations.⁴⁷ [135] Yet only thirteen are found.⁴⁸ The reason for this matter is explained and this problem of the generations resolved according to the principle of the rule. It is written in the Law that if anyone dies without children, his brother or nearest relative should take his wife and produce offspring in the name of the dead man.⁴⁹ Joseph, therefore, is the son of two men: one according to the flesh, meaning Jacob, and one according to the Law, meaning Heli.⁵⁰ When Heli had died, Jacob, being his nearest relative, therefore took his wife [140] and fathered Joseph. For this reason, Matthew, when listing the generations, calls him the son of Jacob, but Luke, writing his Gospel according to the Law and maintaining the principle of his rule, calls him the son of Heli. This is clearly in accordance with what had been instructed long before in the Law, that offspring should be produced in the name of a dead man who had passed away without children. The children were deemed to be in the name of the dead man, just as Joseph here is deemed to be the son of Heli. But the Law only represented the character of truth: [145] then, when the time had come, the former representation vanished, and truth stood fixed in its place. Therefore, to show more fully that no-one has been fathered in the name of a dead man except for the one for whom the real thing was prepared, Jacob fathered a son and did not name him Heli but Joseph. It now remains that we should consider all the apostles as if they were a single man. They were called brothers by the Lord: Now I shall not call you slaves but brothers,⁵¹ taking on the Church [150] after the Lord’s death, that is after his Passion. A child was indeed fathered by them in the name of a dead man, meaning Christ: this is the Christian people, which truly takes its name from the name of the dead man.

Matthew begins his Gospel as follows: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.⁵² The reason that he calls Christ the son of David is because in many places the same Christ [155] is called David, and because Mary and Joseph were from the same tribe as David, the tribe of Judah. But because King David was from the same tribe, for this reason Christ is also named the true and eternal king and is called David.⁵³ MANY INTERPRETERS want the genealogy Matthew lists to be deemed as that of Joseph AND THE GENEALOGY LUKE LISTS TO BE DEEMED AS THAT OF MARY so that, because the man is said to be the head of the woman,⁵⁴ her genealogy is also named from the male side. [160] But this does not match the rule and problem which has been most accurately resolved above, where the principle of the genealogies is demonstrated. As it was said above that Christ is the son of David, so is he son of David, of Abraham, of Adam, of God, because the genealogy starting from Adam reaches Abraham and from Abraham to King David. As it was said above, this shows that Christ is the true and eternal king, just as the prophets [165] said. But so that it can be understood more evidently why Judah, even though he was born in fourth place, received the benediction and not the first-born, the reason was this: since it is the custom in the Law for no-one else to receive the benediction except the one who is oldest and who has the rights of the first-born, Reuben the first-born did not receive it for the reason that he committed incest with his father’s concubine; Simeon and Levi for the reason that, when they took offence at the rape of their sister [170] Dinah carried out by Shechem, son of Hamor, they slaughtered with swords the men of the town who were still in pain from being circumcised, a deed which did not confer the benediction on them either.⁵⁵ The benediction is given to Judah, the fourth in line, because that is the total at which the Saviour, who alone has the full benediction, came after righteousness and law and prophecy. Just as Judah, who was fourth, received the benediction and was called a lion and the cub of a lion,⁵⁶ [175] so Christ was then called a lion on account of his strength, since he emerges as victor and conqueror of the devil and even of death itself.

47 Matthew 1:17.

48 Cf. Matthew 1:12–16.

49 Cf. Deuteronomy 25:5–6.

50 Cf. Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23.

51 John 15:15.

52 Matthew 1:1. In order to maintain the connections made by Fortunatianus, “generation” has been used for the Latin singular generatio in this biblical passage.

53 The latter half of this sentence could be translated in several ways, but line 164 confirms the interpretation adopted here.

54 Cf. Ephesians 5:23.

55 Cf. Genesis 49:3–12; 35:22; 34:1–31.

56 Cf. Genesis 49:9. (Fortunatianus of Aquileia, Commentary on the Gospels, English translation and introduction by H.A.G. Houghton in association with Lukas J. Dorfbauer [Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston, 2017], pp. 6-7; emphasis mine)

Despite Fortunatianus’ rejection of this view he, nonetheless, acknowledges that there already were many believers who held this opinion from before the time he wrote his commentary in the mid 4^th century AD.

St. Jerome seems to have believed this as well:

1.16. And Jacob begot Joseph. The emperor Julian¹⁴ cites this passage to us as an example of a discrepancy among the evangelists: Why did the evangelist Matthew say that Joseph was the son of Jacob, and Luke named him the son of Heli?¹⁵ He does not understand the usage of the Scriptures, that the one is his father according to nature, the other according to law. For we know the commandment given by God through Moses, that if a brother or close relative should die without children, another was to take his wife to raise up progeny for his brother or close relative.¹⁶ On this matter, both the chronologer Africanus¹⁷ and Eusebius of Caesarea have discussed the discrepancies in the Gospels more fully in their books.¹⁸...

1.18. Now the generation of Christ was in this way.¹⁹ An attentive reader might pose this question: Since Joseph is not the father of the Lord and Savior,²⁰ how does the sequence of the genealogy descending to Joseph pertain to the Lord?²¹ Our first response to this is that it is not the custom of Scripture to trace out the genealogies of women; secondly, Joseph and Mary came from the same tribe. This is why he was compelled by the law to take her, since she was a close relative.²² Also, the fact that they are counted together [in the census] in Bethlehem²³ clearly shows that they were descended from a single stock.

1.18. Since Mary his mother was betrothed. Why is he conceived not from a simple virgin but from one betrothed? First, so that the origin of Mary would be shown through the genealogy of Joseph; second, to prevent her from being stoned by the Jews as an adulteress; third, so that when she fled to Egypt she might have solace. The martyr Ignatius²⁴ added even a fourth reason why he was conceived from a betrothed woman, saying that it was in order that his birth would be concealed from the devil, so long as he thought that the babe was not born of a virgin but of a wife.²⁵ (Saint Jerome, Commentary on Matthew (Fathers of the Church Patristic Series)), translated by Thomas P. Scheck [The Catholic University of America Press,‎ 2014], Book One (1.1-10.42), pp. 61-62; emphasis mine)

Jerome is clear that Joseph’s lineage includes Mary since she is also a descendant of David. Now what genealogy could this possibly be referring to if not that of Luke’s, seeing that Luke’s entire narrative is centered on Mary’s experiences? This is in contrast to Matthew’s Gospel where the focus centers on the perspective of Joseph.

Jerome is also aware of Julius Africanus’ view, which is adopted by both Eusebius and Fortunatianus, that Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are recording Joseph’s biological and legal genealogies. This is a result of Levirate marriages occurring within Joseph’s family tree, wherein a man sires an offspring from his deceased brother’s widow. The purpose of these unions was to prevent the deceased’s lineage being permanently cut off from the commonwealth of Israel (cf. Deut. 25:5-10).

Further Reading

Mary's Genealogy in Matthew?