The Tabernacle of David

In December of 2023 I made the most refined version of my Zion/The City of David is Bethlehem not Jerusalem argument, more refined mainly in that I resisted the urge to trail off the main topic at hand into more specific geographical speculations.

So I do here want to speculate on where in Bethlehem the Tabernacle of David that for a time housed The Ark of The Covenant was located.  But first I need to talk about some of Bethlehem’s History.

When Emperor Hadrian banned Jews from living in Jerusalem he also banned them from living anywhere Jerusalem was visible from.  Jerusalem is visible from Bethlehem. That’s why it’s easy for some more fringe skeptics to try and argue Bethlehem as we know it didn’t even exist before the 130s, there was this massive discontinuity in the population. 

Hadrian also impacted the history of Bethlehem in another way, he built a Temple on the site where the Church of The Nativity now stands.  Fourth Century sources identify it as a Temple to Adonis or Tammuz, it was probably actually originally part of the Cult of Antinous which was probably from the start Synchronized with those kinds of cults.  I doubt that Church is actually the location of the Nativity (the Cave fixation is Anti-Biblical), but even if it was, Jerome is wrong to claim that’s why Hadrian built a Temple there.  

I doubt Pre-Hadrian Bethlehem ever even had a local Christian population to identify and venerate that location.  The New Testament never refers to missions to Bethlehem focusing instead on the Church’s spread Northwards and Westwards from Jerusalem, nor does Eusebius. There aren’t even any later traditions I can find about there being an Apostle in Bethlehem in the first Century. All Ante-Nicene references to Bethlehem are from a distance, from Justin and Origen.  Christian Bethlehem as we now know it really does begin in the 4th Century.

But even if there had been the Religion whose local legacy Hadrian wanted to blot out was Judaism.  In his turning of Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina the main Temple Complex was built over the former Temple of Herod.  I’m working on another Post about why the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus had to be East of Jerusalem not West or North.

If the original local Jewish population of Bethlehem who Hadrian had just deported remembered that they were the true City of David, then maybe they also remembered where The Tabernacle of David had been?

The Church of The Nativity is most well known to those who’ve never visited it for its underground Caves one of which being where they claim the Manger was. But the Church proper is above those Caves on a Hill with a similar lay out to other Byzantine Churches that can be compared to the design of The Tabernacle and Temple of The Hebrew Bible.

I have also sometimes wondered if one of those Caves could have been the Cave of Adullam.

I believe Jesus was born in a House Joseph owned, so if St Joseph’s Church in Bethlehem is the site of St Joseph’s House like it claims to be, then that is where the Nativity happened.

Now I know some people might eventually say “what if the Church of The Nativity is both?  Maybe Jesus was born where The Tabernacle of David was” and that would be neat.  But The Church of The Nativity is too heavily tied to the false Cave tradition.

The Cave tradition is Anti-Biblical but it also can’t be blamed on Constantine and Helena, it is Pre-Nicene, it’s in Justin Martyr, Origen and the Protoevangelium of James.  But none of them Predate Hadrian’s remaking of this entire region.  I think the Cave tradition came from a desire to presume Hadrian was desecrating the place of The Nativity.

I believe Jesus was born in a House Joseph owned and lived in.  And if the site of David’s Tabernacle was still locally known up until Hadrian it’s unlikely any residential House was there, at best Joseph could have been living in a Davidic Family estate adjacent to it.  So a theory that the Church of The Nativity’s above ground Altar could correlate to where Jesus was born instead of the Cave would be mutually exclusive with that being the Tabernacle of David. 

If I were to consider a second option for the Location of David’s Tabernacle, it would begin by asking if the location of the former Kathisma Church would have been considered part of Bethlehem territory rather than Jerusalem in Antiquity?

The Kathisma or “Church of Mary’s Seat” was an Octagonal Byzantine Church on the road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem that tradition said marked a place where Mary rested on the way to Bethlehem.  Christians of Late Antiquity symbolically associated Mark with the Ark of the Covenant, so for example at Abu Gosh which was Kirath-Jearim in The Bible a Church dedicated to The Virgin Mark marks where the locals believe The Ark of The Covenant was kept when it was there.

So a Church of Mary’s Seat built around a Rock that The Ark once rested on is very plausible.

Who was Muhammad’s Daddy?

I have been and will continue to explore different historical critical theories about the origins of Islam, some that may seem mutually exclusive with each other.  But I do believe a singular person is responsible for the final form of the Quran.

I’ve talked before about how my main theological issue with Islam is the rejection of God as Father in any sense, and that does come directly from the Quran. 

And it’s also the biggest problem with trying to come up with a purely Materialistic origin story for Islam.  It’s not something that makes sense as a natural development out of any sect of any prior Abrahamic Religion.  Nor can it be explained by Paganism or anything about Arabic culture.  It only makes sense as being a product of a person with severe Daddy Issues. 

This is in my opinion also the key to how to solve the issue of the Quran and later Islamic Sources claiming the Jews claimed an Uzair (commonly mistranslated Ezra) to be the Son of God.  I think Sallam ibn Mishkam really condemned Muhammad for rejecting that Israel is God's Son as stated in Exodus 4:22-23 and Hosea 11:1. The Etymology of Uzair I can't be sure of but it could be Usayr ibn Zarim the leader of the Banu Nadir which was Sallam's clan and Muhammad chose to word his response like they were saying this of Usayr specifically.

I’m not sure it’s best explained by the Daddy issues one would expect from Muhammad’s traditional Biography.  Usually Orphans turn to religion because they're looking for God to be the Father they didn’t have.  

The fact that Surah 5:18 uses the fact that God punishes people for their Sins as proof he’s not their Father is one of the most baffling thoughts in the Quran.  Orphans are not typically ignorant of the fact that parents are supposed to discipline their children.

No it suggests to me the mindset of someone whose father was very Neglectful and/or Spoiled them.  Which fits seeing him as someone raised in a Wealthy of Royal family, that’s often how things play out there. Muhammad’s family in the Traditional Narrative was more important than many presume it was, his Grandfather and Uncle were each heads of the Quraysh Tribe.

Or it could be the product of having a highly Abusive Father who punished him way too severely for even small things and so can’t separate parental discipline from abuse.

The author of the Quran definitely got most of their ideas from earlier sources.  But the filtering of it all through this Complex is what made it something irreconcilable with all prior religious traditions.

The Nestorian influence manifests mainly in the emphasis on Mary as the Mother of The Messiah and not God, Christokos rather than Theotokos.  But this rejection of God as a father at all makes it incompatible with normal Nestorianism.

Heteroousian Arian Influence probably explains the emphasis on Shirk as the worst Sin.  But the Quran also says Allah does not Beget and Arian Creeds always stressed Jesus was Begotten of God to argue He had a beginning.

The Virgin Birth affirming Ebionites may have been the source of the Ingel Muhammad was familiar with.  But they reject the Resurrection as well as Jesus' pre-existence.

Anyone who thinks Islam also rejects the Preexistence of Jesus is ignorant of the fact that Islam is Origenist, it teaches everyone had a Preexistence.

These sources could never go together when taken as a whole, any two were pretty mutually exclusive. But the Author of the Quran was selectively borrowing from everything they could to create their Anti Divine Fatherhood theology.

Sabians of the Quran were Ancient Arab Baptists

My past speculations about who the Sabians of The Quran were I have abandoned and come to a new conclusion. 

The problem with thinking it’s in any way derived from how Sabeans of Yemen were referred to is that the Quran does refer to them explicitly in Surah 27 and Surah 34.  So they are distinct. The "I" coming right after after the B is what really makes it distinct.

Daniel Chwolsohn in 1856 suggested it’s derived from an Aramaic word meaning “To Dip” or “To Baptize”.  This fits well with other theories I support about some of the Quran being at least indirectly of Aramaic origin.  Another proposed Etymology is that it comes from the Arabic word Sabi meaning “to turn to” and thus means “Converts”.  Perhaps both are true, perhaps it’s a pun combining them to refer to people for whom Baptism and Conversion are the same, for observers of Believers Baptism.

Others interpreting the meaning of the word in that Baptism context argue it refers to the Mandeans.  The Mandeans rejected Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus and thus did not revere any of the Books necessary to qualify as “People of The Book”, nor are they Monotheist by even the loosest sense.  Also they only existed in Iraq back then and in fact didn’t come into contact with Muslims till after they Conquered parts of Iraq in 633-640. It seems they only started calling themselves Sabians in order to co-opt this Quranic term and appropriate “People of the Book” status.

To repeat myself, I am not a Landmark baptist in the doctrinal sense of thinking that an unbroken chain of Believers Baptism back to the Apostles matters.  But I do believe there have always been Christians who came to the correct conclusions on Believers Baptism and other distinctly Baptists views like Congregational Polity and Freedom of Conscience.

The World Translated “Christians” in English Translations of the Quran is Nasara or Nasrani. Nazarenes is a term used for Christians in Acts 24:5, by the late 4th Century Epiphanais of Salamis and Jerome were using it specifically for Jewish Christians who still kept Torah in Aleppo and Bashan. These Narzarnes do teach Jesus was the Son of God and do consider Canonical the entire New Testament and consider Paul a valid Apostle unlike the Ebionites they are sometimes confused with.  But I do think Ebionites may have also called themselves Nazarenes.  Liturgically Aramaic Christians sometimes use a variation of Nazarenes instead of Christians even while being Gentiles with no Torah observance at all.  

The term Mishrikun often translated as “Idolaters’ or “Pagans” actually means “Aosciators”.  I can’t entirely agree with those who argue Paganism was already dead in Arabia well before Muhammad was born, but Christianity or Judaims had become the majority and dominant religion all over the Peninsula.  Shirk “Associating a Human with Allah” is something the Quran considers the Jews, Nasara and probably Sabians all guilty of in their own way.  But it’s possible each are smaller groups not as bad as the unqualified Musrikun which I think mainly referred to the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite Christians who held the actual political power in Western Arabia.  The Ghassanids and Banu Kalb were both Miaphysites and the Kingdom of Kinda were likely either Miaphysite or Chalcedonian as Byzantine Foederati.

The idea that the Sabians are particularly tied to the Psalms came from later Islamic speculations.  While the Psalms of David are the only Book besides the Torah and Gospel specifically mentioned in the Quran no verse says there were a people of the Palms specifically. 

It might be that the Sabians aren’t linked to a specific Book because they are the ones who have a high enough view of Scripture to revere them all equally.  While the Jewish-Christian Nazarenes prioritize The Gospel of Matthew and the Jews the Torah.Mean while the High Church Mushrikun placed their ecclesiastical tradition above Scripture entirely which might be why they’re kind of excluded from being People of The Book.  Another trait the Sabians would today share almost only with Credo-Baptist Denominations. 

There were probably not a lot of them hence being mentioned only three times. But there were enough to be worthy of note.

Proving Muhammad existed using 7th Century Jewish Apocalypses

Below is Copy/Pasted from the Wikipedia Page for Sallam ibn Mishkam as it read on March 12 2025 in the Debate with Muhammad Section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallam_ibn_Mishkam

When Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622, he was eager to convince the local Jewish tribes that he was a prophet like the ones in their own Scriptures. Two Muslim converts, Muadh ibn Jabal and Bishr ibn al-Baraa, urged Sallam to become a Muslim: “When we were pagans, you used to pray for the Prophet’s help to defeat us and warn us that he was coming, and you described him to us.” Sallam was unimpressed by Muhammad’s claims. He replied that Muhammad “has brought us nothing we recognize and he is not the one about whom we used to tell you.”[1]: 257 

Sallam was among the rabbis who debated with Muhammad. On one occasion, he asked: “Is it true that [the Qur’an] is the truth from God? For our part, we cannot see that it is arranged as the Torah is.” Muhammad protested that the Qur’an could be found in the Torah and that neither man nor jinn could have forged it; and the Jews challenged him: “Bring down to us from Heaven a book that will clearly demonstrate its identity [by its similarity to the Torah], otherwise we will produce one like [the Qur’an].”[1]: 269–270  When no answers to their serious questions were forthcoming, the Jews began to tease Muhammad with facetious questions such as “How did God begin?” and easy ones to which he gave a non-traditional answer, such as “How many plagues did God send on Egypt?” Sallam apparently had a great talent for asking annoying questions and creating confusion “so as to confound the truth with falsehood.”[1]: 239–270 

In late 623 or early 624 the Jews made a formal statement of their joint unbelief in Muhammad’s mission. Sallam and three friends asked: “Do you follow the religion of Abraham and believe in the Torah and testify that it is the truth from God?” Muhammad replied: “Certainly,” but added that the Jews had “added to the Scriptures, and broken its Covenant, and hidden what you were ordered to publish. I dissociate myself from your additions.” Sallam and his friends replied: “We hold by this Torah and we live according to its guidance and the truth. We do not believe in you and we will not follow you.”[1]: 268 

Next I shall Quote two Jeiwhs Apocalypses Scholars believe were written in the 620s.  Both are organized as a set of Ten Signs and in both the section I shall Copy/Paste comes from the Seventh Sign.  But I want to clarify that these Apocalypses are very poetically playing fast and loose with the contemporary events they’re trying to connect to Bible Prophecy.  In all likelihood nothing else about Armilus is based on Muhamad and nothing else about Nehemiah Ben Hushiel is based on Sallam ibn Mishkam, just the specific exchange in question.

First is ’Otot ha-Mašiah (Signs of the Messiah)

https://pages.charlotte.edu/john-reeves/research-projects/trajectories-in-near-eastern-apocalyptic/otot-ha-masiah-2/

He will come to the wicked Edomites and say to them: ‘I am the Messiah! I am your god!’ They will immediately believe him and elevate him over themselves as ruler, and all the descendants of Esau will join forces with him and come to him. He will march forth and subdue all the regions. He will say to the descendants of Esau: ‘Bring before me my revelation which I gave to you!’ They will bring him their ‘frivolity,’ and he will respond to them: ‘This is indeed what I gave to you!’ He will address the nations of the world (saying) ‘Believe in me, for I am your Messiah!’ They will immediately put their trust in him.

At that time he will send for Nehemiah b. Hushiel and for all Israel, saying to them: ‘Bring to me your Torah and bear witness to me that I am God!’ Suddenly they will grow fearful and be perplexed. But at that time Nehemiah b. Hushiel will arise with thirty thousand warriors from among the forces of the tribe of Ephraim, and they will bring a Torah scroll and read aloud before him: ‘I am the Lord your God! You shall have no other gods before Me!’ (Exod 20:2-3). He (Armilos) will say to them: ‘There is nothing like this at all in your Torah! Come and bear witness to me that I am God just as all the gentile nations have done!’ Immediately Nehemiah will rise up to oppose him. 

Second is Ten Signs.

https://pages.charlotte.edu/john-reeves/research-projects/trajectories-in-near-eastern-apocalyptic/ten-signs/

He will gather all the nations, and then say to the descendants of Esau: ‘Bring to me the Torah which I gave you ….’ All Israel will suddenly be confused, but Nehemiah b. Hushiel will arise, he and thirty warriors with weapons (concealed) beneath their garments, and they will take a Torah scroll and bring it to him (i.e., to Armilos). They will read out before him: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me!’ (Exod 20:3). He will say to them: ‘This is not (my Torah) at all!’ Nehemiah will say to him: ‘You are no deity, only Satan!’ 

This isn’t a similarity that can be caused by one source plagiarizing the other, both are biased memories recalling the same even from different perspectives.  In Both are the Jews who are skeptical of this new Prophet and in both the Prophet rejects in the Torah when he doesn’t find what he’s looking for in it.  

The Islamic Sources are, I believe, a more accurate account of what really happened in terms of using the real names of the players involved and probably more accurately representing what doctrine Muhammad was claiming to be.  

The Jewish sources are more accurate in their depiction of Jewish Doctrinal Belief but also less concerned with actually verbatim recording what happened and have a desire to conflate Muhammad with Christianity and Rome and exaggerating the nature of the Prophet’s claims to make the scale more epic.  

I have argued that Muhammad was an ally of Rome at this time.

The Sefer Zerubabel written slightly later will not identify Armilus with Rome or Edom but instead make him a Quedarite and depict him as making a Stone a place of Pilgrimage.

Muhammad was a Roman Client

I believe Muhammad did exist and the basic bullet points of his life were mostly what the traditional narrative says.  My controversial disagreement is simply on where the events took place, but even that isn't really relevant to my main point here, all of the Arabian Peninsula was wrapped up in the congoing conflicts between Rome and Persia for over a Century already.

I believe the 602-628 Byzantine-Sassanid War and the Jewish Revolt against Heraclius are way more important to understanding the historical context of Islam’s Origins than is generally understood.  However others researching this topic along those lines do so trying to argue the Proto-Muslims were always Anti-Roman even though Surah 30 titled Ar-Rum "The Romans" clearly establishes Muhammad and his community as people who wanted Rome to win.

That's why I don't think it's a coincidence that 622 is the year of both Heraclius beginning his Campaign agaisnt Persia and Muhammad taking over Medina.  The Second of Pledge at Al-Aqabah that same year was specifically Muhammad making an alliance with the Gentile Arab Tribes of Medina, which then quickly led to conflict with the Jews of Medina and later Khaybar who I am certain were allied with the Sassanids like the Jewish Rebels in Judea were.

In the Fourth Century the chief Arab Foederati "Confederates" of the Roman Empire were the Tanukhids, then it was the Salihids in the Fifth Century and Ghassanids in the Sixth Century. None of these were the only Tribe in said Confederation, they were just the one Rome placed at the head of it. The Ghassanids lost this status with the demise of Al-Nu'man VI ibn al-Mundhir in 583.  Surah 33 is titled Al-Ahzad "The Confederates".  I think Mahammad became the new Phylarch of Rome's Arab Foederati and that we've simply lost the Primary sources on the Roman side that document that.

Also there is the tradition of Muhammad's letters to world leader sent out in 628.  Heraclius is usually presented as not converting but responding very amicably.  So another witness that they were on good terms. 

The story of Farwa ibn Amr al-Judami being Crucified for Converting to Islam is not historical, plenty of scholars consider it a a later made up legend.  Christian Rome actually banned Crucifixion as a form Execution, so it's absurd on it's face.

The proposed near conflict between Muhammad and Rome at Tabuk in 629 didn’t happen, no Byzantine source mentions it.  If this is indeed the context of Sura 9, the aggressors it refers to could just as easily be the Persians or their vassals.  In fact most translations make it sound like they are Polytheists/Pagans not People of The Book.

The Battle of Mutah meanwhile was really just with the Gassanids who had ceased being Roman allies for over 20 years  earlier and if anything I think they were more sympathetic to Persia at this time. Baqla was also territory that was in practice actually Ghassanid.  The claim Rome was involved is entirely because of events Sebeos chapter 30 clearly places in 634 being conflated with it.  Sebeos is clearly mistakenly using the name Muhammad for Umar.  And no Arabic source for the Battle of Mutha presented it as a Arab-Jewish alliance.

We see during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr that the Arabs' first expansions beyond Arabia was against the Persians in 633.  So the tradition that one of Muhammad's last acts was ordering an Invasion of Roman Territory doesn't hold up under scrutiny.  Every other campaign Abu Bakr launched in 632 was against other Arabs, there is no good reason to believe Baqla was any different.

Engagement at Tabuk, Mutah and Balqa are considered invasions of Roman territory because they were nominally with Roman Provinces.  But this part of the Empire the Romans been letting their Arab Foederati rather then regular Roman troops manage for centuries already. 

They certainly doesn't contradict my belief that Muhammad never intended his Arab movement to expand West of the Jordan.

Conflict between Rome under Heraclius and the Muhammad following Arabs did not begin till 634, when Muhammad had been dead for two years even in the official timeline and within The Roman Empire who did and didn't support Heraclius was changing because of the Monoenergist/Monothelite controversies. 

I realize some may confuse this with Alberto Rivera's conspiracy theory, so let me clarify.  Rivera was a fraud exposed as having never been a Jesuit like he claimed.  In the 7th Century The Bishops of Rome were struggling to even keep Italy under their control thanks to the Lombards they had no time to interfere in the east, even their contributing to empire wide religious disputes were just expressing their opinions in letters. Muhammad was in my view a political ally of Rome during this war but the doctrine he was teaching was still not compatible with Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, and to whatever extent it was it was almost certainly closer to Eastern Orthodoxy then Catholicism.

I am considering one disagreement with the traditional timeline of Muhammad, I think he may have died in 628 or the first half of 629 but then the later Muslim chroniclers wanted to weaken his death's connection to when he was poisoned by Zaynab bint Al-Harith. Certainly early Chronicles older then any written Arab source say he only reigned 7 years from establishing himself in Medina.  But that's a big maybe right now.

Matthew 19 does not permit Divorce in the case of Adultery.

As someone who’s Politically a Leftist while being Theologically Conservative I want to clarify this discussion of what The Bible says about Divorce should have no impact on Civil Laws, Civil Marriage as a Legal Contract should have no restriction on how to enter it or leave it (besides Consent and being old enough obviously but those are restrictions only to entering it), forcing people to stay in unhappy marriages is not the way to inspire Christian Morality.

Matthew 19 is the core of why Christian Morality is traditionally Anti-Divorce and yet even the most Conservative commentators are forced to concede Adultery as a valid excuse for Divorce here because of their other Conservative agendas in how to treat a certain word.

Matthew 19:9 in the King James Version uses the word “fornication” for what the only allowable reason for Divorce is.  I’ve proven before on this Blog how that word and the Greek word Pronea are words for specifically Prostitution.  But because casual usage watered down that word to mean any perceived Sexual sin or any sex “outside of marriage” that part of the verse is often quoted as if it used the word Adultery even by people saying they are going off the KJV. 

The problem with thinking that reading is valid is the way even Jesus’s own Disciples reacts to it in verse 10.  Their reaction only makes sense if this is some utterly unprecedented restriction even though Adultery as a good enough reason for divorce is about the most precedented allowance imaginable.

According to the Talmud the Pharisees had an internal disagreement about Divorce at this time, Hillel’s school was more permissive while Shammai allowed it only for Adultery. Jesus seeming more like Shammai here is the exception to the general trend, on everything else Jesus sounds a lot more like Hillel.  But His break from Hillel here is based on very Hillelian principals, Mercy and Forgiveness.

Yes words for Prostitution are often used euphemistically to call someone a Whore for being Sexually Active at all.  But that doesn't change what the word means, the word should be Translated as what it means and let the reader interpret how literally it’s being used. And Euphemistic references to Prostitution sometimes go the other way, they are sometimes about the concept of “selling out” and not actually Sexual at all.  The core Greek Root behind Pronea means “to sell off” the sexual part is not in the actual Etymology.

Adultery is explicitly mentioned in this passage but not as a reason for Divorce, rather as a consequence of it.  This is the only passage in all of Scripture that defines Adultery as a Crime a Husband can commit against his Wife, in The Torah Adultery is always defined only as a Wife sleeping with someone other than her Husband.  Why is explained earlier in Matthew 5:32 where it’s clarified that a Husband causes his Wife to Commit Adultery when he divorces her, because women in that society usually needed a husband to survive.

A Transgender Marriage in the Genealogy of Jesus!

What if I told you there was a Marriage between a Trans Male and a Trans Woman in Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus?

The key verse is Matthew 1:5.  

First the name rendered in the KJV as Rachab to identify the spouse with whom Salmon begat Boaz, the Strong’s Concordance number for this name is G4477.  Modern commentators almost always default to assuming this is Rahab of the Book of Joshua.  

Problem is Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 unambiguously refer to that Rahab and how it’s transliterated into Greek is completely different, it’s simply Raab (but the KJV adds the H back in the middle even though it usually doesn’t “correct” the Greek spellings like that) it’s Strong’s Number is G4460.

Also Jewish Traditions consistently tell a different story about who Rahab later married, Megilah 14b13 says she married Joshua (Wikipedia as I write this claims the Talmud agrees Rahab married Salmon and cites this but their own link https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.14b?lang=bi makes no reference to Salmon or Boaz).  Now as a Low Church Protestant I would agree that if The New Testament and Jewish Traditions disagree we should believe The New Testament.  But an apparent disagreement exists only because of a disputable transliteration.  Genealogies like these are supposed to be based on prior records even if only oral ones, if Rahab married Salmon there would exist some Jewish memory of that, but there isn’t. 

The website BlueLetterBible.Org confirms that Raab is how Rahab’s name is rendered in the Greek Manuscripts of The Hebrew Bible we commonly call the Septuagint.  However it does not consider Rachab to be present in the Septuagint at all.  But there is one name in the Septuagint whose similarity to Rachab is striking, certainly far more similar than any form of Rahab.

To break it down, the Greek spelling of Rachab in Matthew 1:5 is Rho-Alpha-Chi-Alpha-Beta.  In the Septuagint version of 1 Chronicles 2:55 the name we read in the KJV as Rechab is spelled Rho-Eta-Chi-Alpha-Beta.  The only difference is the second letter which is a vowel, Hebrew of course has no Vowels and the way the Masoretic Texts indicates Vowel pronunciations was developed well after the time of The New Testament.  This isn’t the only time Matthew disagrees with the Septuagint on what the first Vowel of a name should be, the way we commonly render the name of Solomon is based on how The New Testament Greek Texts render it, but the Septuagint actually prefers Salomon.  There is also precedent for specifically the interchangeability of Alpha and Eta in Hebrew to Greek Transliteration.  In Revelation how Hallelujah is spelled has an Alpha as the vowel after the Yot in Yah, but how Theophoric names that start with Yah are rendered in Greek usually has an Eta instead.  

1 Chronicles 2:55 is in the context of the Genealogy connecting Judah to David, in fact a variant of Salmon’s name and Bethlehem are in the prior verse, but how they are relevant to it isn’t clear.

There is really only one reason scholars usually don’t consider this Rechab to be a candidate for who Matthew’s Rachab is, and that’s how Rechab is technically a Masculine name and so every occurrence of that name in The Hebrew Bible is usually assumed to be to a Male individual. Technically however Rachab is just as Masculine in form. 

The name of Salmon, the generation between Nahshon and Boaz, is rendered three different ways in the Masoretic Text of The Hebrew Bible.  In Ruth 4:20 when he is begotten his name is Salmah (though the KJV renders it Salmon) a name that ends with a Heh making it whether the Strong’s admits it or not Grammatically Feminine. But then verse 21 when he begats Boas his name is rendered Salmon which is grammatically Masculine.  In The Hebrew Ruth 4:21 is the only appearance of the name Salmon, (Psalm 68:14’s Salmon begins with a different letter and should be Zalmon).  1 Chronicles 2 uses the name Salma which feels almost like it’s supposed to be a compromise between the two forms in Ruth.

Matthew and Luke both when listing this generation in their Genealogies for Jesus use Salmon, confirming that for Christians the most proper name for this person is the one used in Ruth 4:21.

So being given a Girl’s name at Birth but going by a Male name later with that male name ultimately being confirmed to be their True Name. What does that sound like to you?  It sounds to me like someone who was Assigned Female at Birth but was truly an Ish rather than Ishshah.

So I’m confident that Salmon was Trans Masculine and that Rechab was the provider of the Seed that convinced Salmon’s children. That Rechab was Trans Feminine I’m less certain of. Matthew referring to them in a way he elsewhere only refers to mothers is compelling.  But he doesn’t use a word for Wife or Mother or Pregnancy, as far as the words used go Rachab is defined only as in some way a partner in the Begetting of Boaz.