Edition Hide
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

4.

Proinde nec virginis ipsius origo ex hac tribu fuisse monstratur, unde constat esse David – dico autem Iudam, de quo Iudaei reges – sed ex tribu Levi, unde sacerdotes; quod ipsum palam est, quia eadem patrem habuerit sacerdotem quendam nomine Ioachim, cuius tamen in hac generatione nulla usquam habita mentio est. Quomodo ergo ad hanc Daviticae cognationis prosapiem Maria pertinere dicetur, in qua eam nec patrem habere videas nec maritum? Ac per hoc nec ille David filius erit, quisquis ex eadem nascitur, nisi eius hanc genetricem sic admoveas Ioseph, ut eius aut filia probetur aut coniux.

Translation Hide
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

4.

Moreover, the Virgin herself appears to have belonged not to the tribe of Judah, to which the Jewish kings belonged, and which all agree was David's tribe, but to the priestly tribe of Levi. This appears from the fact that the Virgin's father Joachim was a priest; and his name does not occur in the genealogy. How, then, can Mary be brought within the pale of relationship to David, when she has neither father nor husband belonging to it? Consequently, Mary's son cannot possibly be the son of David, unless you can bring the mother into some connection with Joseph, so as to be either his wife or his daughter.