Mary related to Bathsheba?


I don’t know where I get the vague thought that Mary was related to Bathsheba. Is this so? Speculated? Not known?
Also, is there a simple direct lineage of Mary? Example would be:
Mary is the daughter of Anne
Anne is the daughter of Ishmeria
Ishmeria is the daughter of…
and so on…
Tracing all the way back to King David days.
I tried looking for it, but couldn’t find anything.
Thankyou for any help.:):slight_smile:


Our LORD is said to have been a descendant of Bathsheba, if so, only by Mary.



Or Joseph.


There are various early accounts of how Mary and Joseph were related, but all of them end up saying that they were some kind of cousins. Their whole branch of the House of David was descended through Solomon, Bathsheba and David’s son.

So yes, Jesus was genetically descended from Bathsheba through Mary, and by legal adoption through Joseph.

If you read Eusebius and some of the other historical sources, you can find out what happened to some of the other House of David cousins.


. . . not that * "vague’’* a thought actually.
The genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew mentions Bathsheba :

NAB Matt 1:6

"David became the father of Solomon, whose mother had been the wife of Uriah."

When the genealogy of Jesus as “Son of David” is considered, the reference is invariably linked to the throne of David ; as in, eligibility to Kingship.

A fine article by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum at entitled The Genealogy of the Messiah provides some cultural background to our Blessed Lord’s genealogy and further proposes a solution to the problem/obstacle to the kingship presented by the curse of Jeconiah.



The descendance that “counted” for the Jews was always through the male heir. So Jesus was considered a descendant of David and Judah because of Joseph, even though Joseph was not his (biological) father. (You can see that in both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus.)

(That is also why the Jews practiced the Levirate marriage: a brother was obligated to marry his bother’s widow to give him a male heir, if possible.)

Mary, however, may well have also been a descendant of David (and, likely, also of Bathsheba), because Jews tended to marry within their own clans.

(It is interesting to note that Jesus condescended to be be the descendant of some rather shady people: e.g., Manasseh, king of Judah.)


So, Bathsheba was first the wife of Uriah, and then the wife of David, with whom she gave birth to four sons, Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. (1 Chronicles 3:5)

Remember when the angel Gabriel visited Mary, his words included:

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

And Mary responds:

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

But she doesn’t say, “How will this be, since I’m not of the house of David?”

It’s important that Mary be of the house of David, but it’s also important that his adoptive father, Joseph, also be of the house of David as well: his ancestors have a more solid connection to the royal line. You’ll notice there are two different genealogies: one in Matthew 1, one in Luke 3.

Matthew was written with a Jewish audience in mind. It traces the genealogy from Abraham to David through Solomon, who was David’s legal successor, and ends with:

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Luke, though, was writing with a Greek audience in mind, and traces Jesus’ physical lineage to David through Nathan, who obviously didn’t succeed his father as king. This starts with:

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, who was of Heli…

where scholars tend to think that it means Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, rather than physically related to him, due to the original Greek phrasing. So that brings up the question of was-Mary’s-father-Heli-or-Joachim?, but I don’t know enough about Anglicized–ancient-Hebrew-names to go off on that tangent.

Anyhow, if you go back to your Jeremiah, you’ve got a big long angry passage:

24 “As surely as I live,” declares the LORD, “even if you, Jehoiachin[c] son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. 25 I will deliver you into the hands of those who want to kill you, those you fear—Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the Babylonians.[d] 26 I will hurl you and the mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you was born, and there you both will die. 27 You will never come back to the land you long to return to.”

28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot,
an object no one wants?
Why will he and his children be hurled out,
cast into a land they do not know?
29 O land, land, land,
hear the word of the LORD!
30 This is what the LORD says:
“Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,
for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah.”

So, God was able to keep his curse intact: Joseph was related to Jeconiah, but Jesus was never physically related to him. And yet, through Joseph, Jesus was able to connect himself to the major royal line of David. And at the same time, he was still technically of the House of David, since Mary fulfilled that qualification on her own by being David’s direct descendant, albeit through a less significant branch of the family.


Speaking from math and logic, after over 900 years, it would be most likely Mary was related to all of the people that lived in Jerusalem and all of Israel at the time of David.

Every generation doubles the number of progenitors–2-4-8-16-32…

She could have had as many as a billion different great-grand parentssssss…

I would think, mathematically, going backward, all people are related on the planet.


Supposedly, we all descend from Adam and Eve, and Eve is called our mother, as well as Mary.


To the OP’s point -

There is actually virtually nothing we know of Mary’s lineage and family relations; no where in the Bible are her parents named and ‘Elizabeth’ is described simply as a “kinswoman” - she would presumably not have been a fist cousin since that kinship would have been referred to ‘sister’ (as we are reminded Jesus’s brothers and sisters as referenced in the Bible really means “cousins”). So, in that vein, Elizabeth would have had to have been at least a second cousin.

Ann and Joachim are names that come from later traditional legends; there is no evidence they even ever existed.

Many genealogists regard the two varying genealogies (Matthew and Luke) as being both Joseph’s; one is his maternal line, the other his paternal. (only males are listed so on his maternal side, stops at his maternal grandfather).

Given that King David had numerous wives and concubines, he most likely had several thousands of descendants by the first century AD so it’s quite possible Mary was descended from Bathsheba, but we’ll never know for sure.


The Protoevangelium, while not infallible, does provide insight that is more or less universally recognized as acceptable.


…when looking into Scriptures I don’t recall any matrilineal graphs–but extra-Biblical (as with the traditions of the Fathers, not Sacred Tradition) there might be something out there. Check with Father Mitch Pacua, EWTN, he might have something.

Maran atha!



Hi, G!
…the conclusion may not be so matter of factly, since St. Matthew is quite aware that Jesus is not St. Joseph’s natural Son but presents the genealogy of Jesus through St. Joseph’s patrilineal graph.

Maran atha!



DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit