In the Bible is there a clear genealogical path between David and Mary?

Not Joseph, but the only human to have a part in bearing Jesus?In the Bible is there a clear genealogical path between David and Mary?
It doesn't even matter because it's supposed to come through the father, not the mother.In the Bible is there a clear genealogical path between David and Mary?
No. However, descent among the Jews was purely patriarchal except in cases of levirate marriage and men with daughters but no sons. Regardless of Mary's paternity, when Mary married Joseph she became a member of the house of David, and all of her children born after that marriage also were patrilinearly of the house of David. *Only* the male line was considered, which (of course) is why only the male line is mentioned.





Consider the hypothetical case of a Benjaminite woman who marries a Benjaminite man. That man dies and she, pregnant, marries a Simeonite. After that marriage she and her forthcoming child are both considered Simeonites. Why? Because her husband is a Simeonite. Indeed, because of this view Mosaic Law does not allow such a marriage if she had no children by her first husband! If she had no children by her first husband, her Simeonite husband would legally but improperly gain possession of territory reserved for Benjaminites.





This is, in fact, the reason behind the regulation of Levirate marriage. A widow with no children by her first husband *had* to marry someone from her first husband's tribe. Similarly, the daughter of a man with no sons *had* to marry someone from her father's tribe so that the possessions of one tribe would not fall into the hands of another.





Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com
It is funny watching people on here trying to reconcile the different genealogies. First the Hebrews always give the genealogy of the man not the woman because they did not understand biology back then and thought babies only came from man's seed. Had they understood that the woman also contributes half the chromosomes it would have meant Jesus also inherited Mary's Sin. Joseph's line has Jeconiah it making Jesus not elgible because of the curse placed on Jeconiah and all his generations to never sit on the thrown of King David.
I am sorry to tell you but Mary was a member of the daughters of Aaron. She was a Levite. From the tribes of the Priest. That is why no body stopped Jesus from teaching in the Synagogues and called him Rabbi. God the father makes him God. Joseph makes him King and Mary makes him Chief Priest
Here is an article on both sides, from Joseph and Mary.





Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?





The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.





Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.





Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19.





Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13) Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus vary here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly also by Luke.





But the fact should be kept in mind that such differences in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those already present in the genealogical registers then in use and fully accepted by the Jews and were not changes made by Matthew and Luke.





We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4)





If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.
Yes, there is.





Check out this site and it will answer all your questions about his line.