I covered both points his link made (before I saw his link, by the way).

Posted by blue on June 05, 1998 at 17:22:29:

In Reply to: Yes posted by Susan on June 05, 1998 at 13:42:04:

: I read them both and you have ignored Carlos'
: refutation of your sloppy apologetics.

How's that? The refutation cited by Carlos is based on two false premises:

1. The genealogy in Luke can't be that of Mary's because Joseph's name is given.

The verses I quoted in numbers, specifically Numbers 36:3, show that any inheritance of a woman is automatically transferred to her husband upon marriage. It would have been improper to use Mary's name in this instance. What was hers was now Joseph's. No prenup's in those days!

You have to realize that the Jews of the day new the Law well. They would not have questioned Luke's substitution.

2. Mary was a Levite.

Here I just gave a few suggestions, since there are at least two satisfactory answers. First, the Bible says Mary's COUSIN (not Mary) was a Levite. Any of the following may be true:

Her mother was a Levite who married Heli. Elisabeth would be the child of Mary's mother's sibling, obviously a Levite, while Mary would have been the daughter of Heli, descendent of David. The father's line would be hers, of course. (If you read Tolkien's trilogy, you may enjoy this type of thought.)

Optionally, the word translated "cousin" in the KJV is translated "relative" by all scholars since. Elisabeth may have been a more distant relative, or just related by marriage and not a blood relative.

The role of Jesus as both king and priest supports the first option, but that is just speculation.