A Transgender Marriage in the Genealogy of David and Jesus!

What if I told you there was a Trans Male 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 and it was still well known enough in the first century for Matthew to mention it, there would exist some Jewish memory of that, but there isn’t one. 

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 Text 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 form of Salmon’s name and Bethlehem are in the prior verse, but how they are related to each other 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 grammatically 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 2:11 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 an 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.

The stereotypical assumption is that a Trans Male would not be interest in getting pregnant and baring a child, but there are bound to be some who are into the idea that they can be Mpreg for real. 

I don't think Nero Persecuted Christians

Few Extra-Biblical traditions of Early Church History seem as unquestionable.  Nero's supposed Persecution of Christians is treated as the next chapter of Church History right after the narrative of Acts ends.  Hollywood movies depicting it are called Biblical Epics, and I will continue to enjoy those movies in-spite of how fictional I now view them to be, but there were also certain things I always felt they got wrong.

The thing is, the closer to Biblical History a tradition is, the more likely it is evidence in The Bible itself could work against it.  I already did a post arguing that Peter never went to Rome, which included my deconstructing the assumption that the Ascension of Isaiah was talking about Nero at all.  (And now I have this follow up post.)  I even already there questioned the assumption that Paul was Martyred in Rome, though he certainly did go there.

Here is a fact that is somewhat little known, the trail before Caesar (we know Nero was Caesar at the time because it's after Felix's time as Governor of Judea ended) Paul was awaiting when the narrative of Acts ended, is kind of recorded in Scripture elsewhere.  2 Timothy 4 verses 16-18, often considered the last of Paul's Epistles to be written.

At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.  Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.  And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The implication of these verses is clearly that Paul was acquitted.

Now plenty of scholars are aware of this.  But some insist Paul returned to Rome a second time later and was killed then, by the very same Emperor who had acquitted him before.  Sometimes specifically saying 2 Timothy 1:16-17 refers to this second imprisonment, but to me the context of the letter clearly makes that the same imprisonment he records the resolution of quoted above.

Now some have interpreted the above verses as being about Paul's escapes recorded in Acts. But the way he says "out of the mouth of the Lion" makes me think he's referring to The Seat of Caesar, to the Beast that yes I do still view as being in a sense the Roman Government.  I've also seen it argued that what Paul said elsewhere in that chapter is implying he's about to die.  Well he could have been dying of old age, but I don't necessarily think that verse is implying immanent death.

The only authentic Epistle of Clement of Rome says in chapter 5 that Paul went to the "Extremity of The West" (or "limits of the west" in Bart Ehrman's translation).  Many strangely quote this passage as backing up Paul being martyred in Rome when in my view it does not, it seems on it's own without bringing our assumptions into it, to be saying the "Extremity of the West" is where Paul met his fate.

Now "extremity of the west" is an expression used in Secular Pagan Roman writings to refer to Spain, so this can be read as just confirming Paul fulfilled his stated desire to go to Spain from Romans 15:24&28.  

Maybe if Paul was martyred by a Roman Emperor it was a later one.  The second Emperor tradition says persecuted Christians was Domitian.  And sometimes people use against the Domitian persecution the same argument I'll bring up later against Neronian persecution, that Christians and Jews weren't distinguished in Roman law yet.  However that ignores that Suetonius records Jews being persecuted under Domitian, and unlike many other things Suetonius talks about this he was an eye witness to.

An overarching theme of the Book of Acts is that the Roman Governmental authorities under Claudius and Nero are the good guys during this era, Christian Persecution came from local mobs, which in Judea were often riled up by the Sadducees, but were Pagans in Pagan cities.  Tradition has chosen to vilify a Caesar that Paul was confident would rule in his favor.  

Also while Nero still ruled the Christians hiding in Pella were protected by Nero's ally Agrippa II according to Remigius, Bishop of Reims (437 – 533 AD) [Thomas Aquinas (1841). Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels; Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Matthew. (J. H. Newman, Ed.) (Vol. 1, p. 799-816)].  Epiphanius of Salamis agrees with Perea also being part of where the Early Christians fled.

Under the Flavians, as well as the following emperors, it served the new Dynasty to vilify Nero for the same reason it served the Tudors and Stuarts to vilify Richard III during the time of Shakespeare.  And meanwhile during this same era and later many "Early Church Fathers" were trying to appeal to these same Roman Emperors (or their successors) and the people who supported them, often addressing their Apologies to them directly.  So at some point I think Christians like Tertullian wanted to pin the blame on Nero for the illicit legal status they had, and then Suetonius and (a redactor of )Tacitus listed persecuting Christians among the things they attributed to Nero because Christians were saying it, it was just another story going around.

Though maybe part of the desire of later Christians to see Nero as their Enemy came from how much they inherited from certain Stoics.  In the first century AD Musonius Rufus sounds like a modern American Evangelical on Sexual Morality more so then any New Testament author.  He was part of the Stoic opposition to Nero but later the only Philosopher Vespasian allowed to stay in Rome.  And Stoic criticism of Nero was continued by Epicetus.

The villainous reputation of Nero largely comes from Roman Historians of the Senatorial Class (chiefly Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio), who loved to slander the Julio-Claudians as depraved because of their semi-Plebian origins, but loved Vespasian-Titus and the "Five Good Emperors" because they came from their class and so were good to them.  Thing is the common people of the Empire were oppressed by heavy Taxes under those Senatorial Emperors.

There is plenty of evidence however that the common people were happy under Nero.  Even the Christian source John Chrysostom acknowledged that.  Plutarch in his allusions to Nero is also more favorable, as well as Lucan.  The biography of Appolonius of Tyana also records how Nero was loved by the Greeks in the Eastern Provinces.  And the Talmud has a favorable memory of Nero also.  In fact one reason many later Christians started thinking the Antichrist would be Nero resurrected somehow was because before then those who liked Nero had started believing he would come back to save them from Flavian oppression, he became Greco-Rome's King Arthur.

One purely modern detail of the traditions about Nero's persecution is the tying it into the bad reputation of Poppaea Sabina his second wife, it seems the Hollywood versions feel they need a Jezebel/Delilah figure.  Poppaea was depicted as a scheming Femme Fatale by those senatorial sources.  But Josephus who actually knew her personally paints a very different picture in his autobiography.  Josephus depicts her as practically a Proselyte and mentions among her Jewish friends an actor Nero was a fan of.

Now some have suggested Poppaea's Jewish associations are why her influence would have been against Paul.  But that would be the case only if the Jews who had her ear were Sadducees.  But based on Josephus being a Pharisee, and that I think his shipwreck was the same as Paul's, I doubt that. Plus Gentile Proselytes might have been inclined to like Paul's message even if they didn't fully become believers in Jesus and The Gospel.

Some histories are confused by how Josephus could possibly be talking about the same woman the other sources are, even if one or both is exaggerated to suit their bias.  I say just look at Anne Boleyn, to the Catholics of Tudor England she was explicitly compared to Jezebel, but Protestants sometimes paint her as a saint in for example the film Anne of the Thousand Days.

Acte was a mistress of Nero, archaeology has shown there were Christians in her household as either slaves or freedmen, leading some to speculate she herself may have been one.  Modern fictionalizations often place her in conflict with Poppaea, wanting to make her the Betty to Poppaea's Veronica.  But they were actually on the same side when trying to influence Nero, both being pro-Seneca and anti-Agrippina.  So for all we know they could have had a threesome.

Also the Gallio in Acts 18 was Seneca's brother, so that's further evidence Senaca's influence would have been against persecuting Christians or convicting Paul.

Some secular scholars have already questioned the historicity of the Neronian persecution.  But in a way they're not going as far as I am here, as they do think something happened, but distinguish it from a systemic persecution.

One of the arguments they do bring up is the lack of legal distinction between Jews and Christians before the time of Trajan. The early second century correspondence between Pliny and Trajan clearly show there was no prior policy on what to do about Christians, surely the Neronian persecution and accusation they tried to burn Rome would have been relevant to bring up here?  And the Roman persecution they did face before was a product of persecutions the Jews suffered under Domitian.  But since the evidence from the Talmud and Josephus show The Jews in Rome had it good under Nero, there is no reason to think Nero killed any Christians.

And these Secular critics have also pointed out that Tacitus account must be derivative of something he heard from Christians and not Roman legal records since he got the kind of Governor Pilate was wrong (he said Procurator when Pilate was a Prefectus).  And Suetonius was certainly willing to record things based on pure rumor.  His account of the death of Caligula and Claudius becoming emperor is clearly based on Josephus's account (he mentioned Josephus so was aware of him) but the differences are all the tabloid style scandals he spices it up with.

This effects Preterism because Nero is the only of the first century Emperors where any plausible way to make their name's Gemetria equal 666 exists, and even that is tortured since it uses Aramaic not Greek (read 666 cannot be Nero).  But also the assumption that Nero persecuted Christians is necessary to make it possible that John's exile to Patmos was under Nero, yet even the traditional view of the Neronian persecution makes it local in Rome only.  All the facts I laid out above make John's exile far more plausible under Domitian's Jewish persecution (if it was an Exile at all). 

Persecuting Christians isn't the only evil thing attributed to Nero that I think is slander.   But he is someone who became ruler of the world at a young age, and so could have cracked under the pressure a few times and certainly perfect. 

I think Poppaea probably died of a miscarriage and the claim Nero kicked her to death was probably another of Suetonius's tabloid rumors.  

I don't think Sporus was actually Castrated agaisnt their will (if at all), I suspect they were in fact what we'd today call a Trans Woman. The part about them resembling Poppea and Nero calling them by her name doesn't show up till Casisus Dio, even Suetonius doesn't report that and he certainly would have if the story was already around.

If the rumors of the Incest with Agrippina were true, he'd be the victim in that case, he was probably still a minor by modern standards when that started since he was only 17 when he became Emperor (and I think the Age of Consent should be raised to 20 at least).  However a book called Women of the Caesars (I'm not sure which book on Amazon with that title was the one I read, it came in Red) argues for a more positive portrayal of Agrippina and thus agaisnt such rumors, but it did so supporting the negative portrayal of Poppaea which I view as wrong.

So I feel there is a lot of evidence to re-evaluate how we view Nero.

I became aware of this Article thanks to Religion For Breakfast on Twitter.
https://www.academia.edu/26841558/The_Myth_of_the_Neronian_Persecution
There are differences between his view and mine, he does still think Paul was executed in Rome in the 60s, I think regardless of where Paul died he lived into the 90s and had been to Spain before then.  And arguing the term "Christian" didn't exist yet I view as wrong since I believe Acts to be true History. But it's still an interesting article.

The History for Atheists Blog has a post defending the authenticity and reliability of Tacitus accounts of the Fire and Persecution in which context he makes his reference to Jesus.
https://historyforatheists.com/2017/09/jesus-mythicism-1-the-tacitus-reference-to-jesus/
That defense of Tacitus remains the main weakness to my thesis here.  Though uncritically accepting Tacitus still doesn't change that we can't prove Paul was martyred in Rome, in fact it becomes odd that Tacitus didn't mention Peter or Paul if there were prominent leaders of this new religion killed here.

Still as much as I agree with this blog on many subjects regarding the Historicity of Jesus, I still view Tacitus as problematic.  The issue of being dependent on one very late manuscript and getting the kind of Governor Pilate was wrong I can't so easily write off.  And O'Neill's argument that people who just assumed Nero set the fire wouldn't mention Scapegoats I can't really buy either, his falsely blaming others for it would only make his tyranny look worse. I mean I get why Christian sources maybe wouldn't want to remind people they were accused of this, but the Pagan Roman sources shouldn't be leaving out such a vital detail.  And in my opinion the early Christians would not have been that afraid of it.  

Here is another Article from an Atheist Website deconstructing the arguments in defense of the Tacitus account.

https://vridar.org/2022/01/13/rome-burning-the-christian-problem-in-the-annals-of-tacitus/

The traditional dates for Paul and Peter's martyrdom also predate them ever being linked to the fire since they were AD 67.  Which interestingly is a year in which Nero wasn't even in Rome, he was touring Greece at that time.

Thersities the Historian has talked about how many Roman Persecutions are exaggerated.  Saying only the Diocletian (really Galerian's) persecution was as extreme as the Christians imagined the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century persecutions to be.  Many Emperors were labeled persecutors when really it was local persecutions that happened during their reign.  Tertullian who was a contemporary says Septimius Severus was well disposed to the Christians.

And the thing is, it's possible even the idea of Christian persecution being linked to being blamed for a fire has it's origins in the Galerian persecution because there was a fire in Nicomedia (which was Diocletian's capital in the east) that Galerius blamed on the Christians.

No account of the Neronian Persecution that can be proven to have existed before the 300s links it to the Fire of 64 AD.  Tacitus is the only one really even claimed to have existed that far back which does, and our oldest manuscript for Tacitus is Carolingian, and all younger manuscripts are known to go back to that one.

Here's a link where you can read Lactantius's Of the Manner in which The Persecutors Died. 

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0705.htm

The text in the later part of chapter 2 asserts that Nero persecuted Christian, I still believe that idea emerged in the 2nd Century maybe even late first, but he doesn't tie it to the Fire or anything like a Fire.  

Later in chapter 14 and 15 he is one of our main contemporary sources on the role the Fire in Nicomedia played in the Diocletian Persecution, he was a contemporary and had been in Nicomedia.  If the idea that Nero's Persecution was tied to Christians being blamed for that Fire already existed you'd think he's mention it, the Biblical way he's trying to present all this would be well served by pointing out ways in which History was repeating itself, but he doesn't.

When discussing Persecutions that can be blamed on Roman Emperors Lacantius skips right from Domitian to Decius meaning there was no Imperial Persecution under Marcus Aurelius or Septimius Severus or Maximinus Thrax either.

Even Eusebius still knows of no connection to a Fire in Rome when discussing the Neronian Persecution in Book II chapter 25 of Church History, in fact he doesn't cite any source older then Tertullian who says he's basing it on Roman Records but that could honestly just be Suetonius, but it's also the same text where Tertullian is claiming Tiberius tried to have Jesus added to the Roman Pantheon, a claim no historian takes seriously.  And Eusebius also records the Nicomedia fire in Book VIII chapter 6.

Update October 27th 2024: I've discovered another similar incident that could have inspired the Christians being blamed for the Fire of Rome Narrative.  Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book 7 Chapter 3 Section 3 talks about events in Antioch in AD 67 which include a persecution of the city's Jews based on accusing them of plotting to burn down the city.

You'd think if something similar had happened to what was then still a sect of Judaism in Rome only 3 years earlier it'd also be something Josephus would have noted somewhere.

Since Antioch is the other City that Peter is traditionally the first Bishop of and since his martyrdom was traditionally dated to AD 67, maybe he was actually Martyred as part of this Jewish Persecution?

That being the inspiration would allow the Tacitus account to be an authentic original part of that text with him simply already hearing a muddled version of the story that confused the two fires.

AD 67 as the original traditional date for the year of Peter's Martyrdom comes from The Liber Pontificalus which places the Martyrdom of Peter in the 38th year from the Passion which at the soonest was AD 30.  

It also fits a theory some scholars have that Peter was burned alive rather then Crucified, since that's what happened to certain Jewish leaders at Antioch according to this story.

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/ch156-peters-fate

Update January 8th 2025: Here's a YouTube Video attempting to provide some Nuance to the discussion of Nero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1SlvWCjvk

Update August 2025: And now he has a follow up on Sporus.  Looks like there is more evidence for them being associated with Poppea then I originally thought, but I'm still skeptical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WMlJ00aK4Y

Update January 2026: Here's a newer post i made on Peter.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2025/10/i-no-longer-support-supposed-simon.html

Stoicism in Early Christianity

Is the name of a book I recently bought edited by Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen and Ismo Dunderberg, it's a collection of articles written by even more authors but Engberg-Pedersen wrote the introduction.  Engberg-Pedersen has also written books on this subject that on Amazon are way too expensive right now.

I have already on this blog talked about potential affinity between Biblical Theology and Stoicism in God and The Universe and Spiritual and Heavenly what do they actually mean and opposed the common Platonist Interpretation of Biblical Theology in those as well as Pagan Greek Origins of Puritan Sexual Morality, the post on Divine Impassability and Divine Immutability, and also mentioned it in the post on The Sects of First Century Judaism.

These authors however argue for a Stoic Context to the New Testament and other Early Christian texts because they believe in the 1st century AD and even still early 2nd century Stoicism was the mainstream default Philosophical viewpoint and that Platonism took over during the 2nd Century. Which is true, the picture painted in Acts 17 for the Sermon on Mars Hill does imply only the Stoics and Epicureans were really relevant at that time and the Epicureans were the Atheists/Deists so their Philosophy wouldn't have been useful to Christians.  And so the Stoic texts they engage with are mostly the Roman Late Stoicism of Cato The Younger, Cicero, Thrasyllus of Mendes, Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.  But earlier a key transitional figure in Stoicism abandoning it's more radical roots was Antipater of Tarsus.

I however believe Christianity was a fundamentally Rebellious religion at it's inception, Pacifist but Rebellious.  Within their Jewish Context the Early Christians were Pharisees but ones who rejected many of the traditions the Pharisees had developed during the Intertestamental period.  And likewise the Stoicism I see in the New Testament is a return to the Old Stoa of Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrysippus.

One of the articles in this book talks about how during the period of Middle Platonism and Later Stoicism the two schools borrowed a lot from each other.  That Platonism that seeped into later Stoicism was the source of it's problems just as it would become the source of Christianity's problems.

The worst thing these Roman Stoics had taken from Platonism was the rigidly Pythagorean Sexual Morality of The Laws, particularly the argument that males lying with males is wrong because it's "Para Phusis".  The Laws was Plato's last work, so late some have argued he didn't actually write it, it is Platonism at the height of it's Pythagoreanism.  Symposium was one of Plato's oldest dialogues, possibly before any of the Pythagorean influence, and the Eros teaching of Diotima is the one thing in the Platonic canon that could have been compatible with Zeno's Eros or New Testament Agape at least in some ways.  But these Roman Stoics ignored that and followed The Laws instead, Musonius Rufus in Rome in the 50s AD used the Para Phusis argument verbatim and Epictetus repeated it.

But famously that argument that Homosexuality is wrong because it is "against nature" or "unnatural" technically appears in the writings of Paul, in Romans 1:26-27.  The context so many fail to get is that Romans 1:18-32 is not Paul's own opinion, it's him laying out the opinions that the rest of the Epistle is systematically refuting.  Romans is like a Breadtube response video, 1:18-32 is them simply playing clips from the PragerU video(s) they disagree with, then it proceeds with the take down.  In chapter 2 verses 1, 3 and 17 are Paul explicitly saying that part was someone else's argument.

The argument that this part of Romans 1 is Paul quoting or paraphrasing someone else isn't even limited to those trying to argue The Bible doesn't condemn Homosexuality, it's made by people who probably still think it's a Sin because of other mistranslated/misinterpreted verses.  It is well known that Romans 1:18-32 is largely based on Wisdom of Solomon 13:1-10 and 14:22-31.  [Update: and here is an article on how the influence of Philo was possibly also relevant.]

One article in this book also says that Wisdom of Solomon is an ultimately Platonist text even though it borrows a bit from Stoicism.  So someone who sees Paul as somewhat of a Stoic should easily agree that if Paul is quoting Wisdom it's a quotation made in disagreement.

Romans goes on even to refute stuff from Wisdom of Solomon not included in that specific paraphrase, like in Romans 5 when Paul says Death and Sin entered the world because of Adam's Sin, he's directly disagreeing with Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 which says Death entered the world because of the Envy of The Devil.  But the main argument of Wisdom and Romans 1:18-32 is that God gave up on the heathens and surrendered them to their sins.  In Romans 11:30-32 Paul says that God consigned ALL to disobedience so that he might have mercy on ALL, God doesn't give up on anyone, in Romans 5 he says ALL will be made righteous in Christ.

However the Para Phusis argument is the one thing in Romans 1:18-32 not taken from Wisdom.  To people in Rome in the 50s AD this might have seemed like a direct reference to the teaching of Musonius Rufus in Lecture XII.  But as I said it came from Plato's Laws (though was probably a Pythagorean teaching before that) and so that is why it fits in with the Platonism of Wisdom of Solomon.  And in a first century Jewish Platonist context the basic concept is found in Philo even if not the exact phrase.

Paul in all his writings uses the phrase "Para Phusis" only twice, this section of Romans 1, and then again in Romans 11:24 where he uses it to describe what God does grafting Gentiles into Israel. Now Paul saying God did something that is "contrary to nature" sounds like something those who argue for a Stoic reading of Paul need to explain, since in Stoicism God and Nature are in a sense the same thing.  Well the explanation is that the context is Paul using this wording to refute the anti-Homosexual argument he quoted in chapter 1.  If males lying with males is "Para Phusis" because it can't result in biological reproduction, then God making people who don't biologically descend from Jacob into Israelites is even more "Para Phusis" since it's reproduction without sex.  

Diotima argued that all Love is Generative whether it results in an actual new baby person or not because you are generating the mind of both yourself and your lover when you love, and to me that fits in well with Zeno's understanding of Eros as well New Testament Agape.  1 John 4:7 says that all who Love are Born(Gennao) of God.  Isaiah 53 speaks of the Suffering Servant having Seed, but to Christians that Prophecy is of Jesus and He didn't biologically reproduce, His Seed was His Disciples who He called the Children of the Bridechamber (Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34).  In Galatians 3 Paul says that all who are Christ's are the Seed of Abraham.  Revelation 12:17 says the rest of the Remnant of the Seed of the Woman are those who keep the Commandments of God and Testimony of Jesus Christ, John's Gospel and 1st Epistle repeatedly teach that the commandments of Jesus are to Love one another.  This Spiritual generation is what Romans 11 is all about, that is how the Fulness of the Gentiles will be Grafted into Israel and then ALL Israel shall be Saved.

Romans 1 isn't the only time Paul has been painted as more "Conservative" then he really was because he quoted someone to refute them.  1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is also taken at face value by Engberg-Pedersen in his Paul on Identity book, but I've studied the chapter and it's clear to me those verses are Paul quoting someone else that he then immediately calls an idiot in the following verses.  

1 Corinthians 7 is Paul responding to being asked a question, and he more then once pretty much says that this is his personal thoughts and not God speaking, I think Paul was personally Asexual and so knew this wasn't his areas of expertise, but with all those qualifiers I still think what Paul says here is not as prudish as it's made out to be, most importantly he clearly contradicts the notion that marriage and sex are for biological reproduction.

Some other books on Stoicism I own are The Making of Fornication by Kathy L. Gaca, The Stoic Idea of The City by Malcolm Schofield and Cities of The Gods: Communist Utopias in Greek Thought by Doyne Dawson.  These books tend to fall into the outdated trap of thinking Paul was a Platonist, but they are useful in how they are in part attempts to reconstruct Zeno of Citium's Republic, and in doing so argue that the original Stoics were both the Communists and Free Love Hippies of the Hellenistic world.  And that is useful for the Christian Stoicism argument because I agree with Roman A Montero's All Things in Common that Jesus was a Communist and that the Church continued to be even for awhile after Constantine, but I do disagree with his conclusion on the Essenes who I feel were the Pythagoreans of 1st century Judaism, the most Stoic Jews were the Zealots.

One subject covered in those books is how Zeno essentially tried to redefine Eros, Eros in the classical Pagan Greek understanding was uncontrollable Passion, Zeno wanted to make it something more genuinely positive.  I talked in a prior post about how Agape was rarely used at all by Polytheistic Greeks, well my new theory is that among some Stoics, perhaps specifically Hellenized Jews in Galilee and/or Tarsus, Agape become their word for Zeno's Eros, and this is the Agape meant in the New Testament and the Septuagint version of Song of Songs, especially 1 John where God is Love.  Eros is also the name of the City in Zeno's Republic, in Romans 9:25 Paul uses a specific form of Agape as a title for God's people, which like some other forms is translated Beloved in the KJV, the only other time that exact form of Agape is used is of the Beloved City in Revelation 20:9 but I think one justify translating the word order different to instead read The City of Love.  Diogenes Laertius in Book VII of Lives of Eminent Philosophers in the chapter on Zeno does use a form of Agape.

In Revelation 21 it is stated that there is no Temple in New Jerusalem.  On my Prophecy Blog I've explained that entirely in the context of Old Testament Prophecy.  But perhaps in addition to that it was also meant to remind some of the Greek readers of how in Zeno's Republic the ideal City of Eros should have no Temples.  One of these books (I currently forget which one) argued this and other things the City is not supposed to have is a response to Plato's Laws where a major Temple is at the center of Magnesia, but it's also been argued that Temples are abolished in Zeno's city because his God doesn't need Temples but rather is Imminent and Omnipresent, which sounds a lot like Stephen in Acts 7:48. 

1 John 5:6-8 gives Biblical support to the Stoic World Soul

My somewhat Stoic readings of The New Testament are also consistent with Hebrew Bible ideas, when it says that for God the Heavens are His Throne and the Earth His Footstool (Isaiah 66:1 quoted in Acts 7:49), that to me shows He's not Outside the Universe as we have come to traditionally think of Him but within it as He is in Stoicism.  That God made Adam a Living Soul by breathing His Breath of Life into him, and how Ezekiel 37 describes the coming Resurrection the same way fits the Stoic view of Pneuma pretty well I think.  Even the association of God and His Pneuma with Fire has roots in the Hebrew Bible stuff I talked about in my Baptism of Fire post.  Ecclesiastes 12:7's description of the Spirit returning to God who gave it also anticipates The Stoic ideas about Pneuma, the same idea is also in Psalm 104:29.  Isaiah 46:9-11 also agrees with Stoics over Middle Platonists on divine foreknowledge.  And when you fully understand the nuances of the Hebrew and Greek words translated "living" then God being called The Living God does support the Stoic view of God being corporeal.

Before I got into this research of Stoicism I was very hostile to using any kind of Greek Philosophy in studying the New Testament because I don't like trying to explain anything in it in a Greek context rather then Hebrew.  And some of this Stoicism in Early Christianity stuff can seem like it too is going there.  But the key difference is Zeno was a Phoenician, and so was Chrysippus, so some of their ideas may have been Semitic in origin and that's why Stoicism is more compatible with the Hebrew mindset then any other school of Greek Philosophy, and so their ideas made a good context in which the Early Christians could explain their ideas to the Greeks.

At first one is inclined to assume those the Greeks called Phoenicians were simply the Biblical Canaanites particularly of Tyre and Sidon.  However I think the Greeks used that term of maybe even all the ancient Israelites, but particularly the Tribes of Dan and Asher had strong ties to the same coastal regions that the Greeks and Romans called Phoenicia.  But even the Canaanites while Polytheistic still spoke a similar language and I think had basically similar ideas to the Hebrew Bible on Metaphysics simply using Polytheistic rather then Monotheistic framing.  Some have already argued Zeno's ideas about Eros could be related to the cosmology presented in Philo of Byblos, Byblos is part of what I believe became Danite, but also in that same Danite region was Apheca with it's cult of Aphrodite and Adonis.  The Danites became Pagan Polytheists, but even if there was a minority who tried to stay faithful to YHWHism they wouldn't have had a text of The Hebrew Bible as we know it, that Canon was developed in the Southern Kingdom, up North even The Torah was only Oral Tradition.

Zeno of Citium was contemporary with when the Septuagint is traditionally said to have been written.  I think the actual history of the Septuagint is more complicated, it developed over time and it's final form we have comes in part through Christian copyists.  But the process may have still began then, and thus some of the key words Stoic Philosophers used could have come from Zeno independently making similar translations of Semitic words/concepts into Greek, while perhaps translating some others differently.

That includes Theos/Dios/Zeus being El/Eloah/Elohim. And from something like Psalm 33:6 he could have gotten both The Logos being the Dabar/Deber (1697 and 1698 in the Strongs Concordance) and Pneuma being Ruwach, but Nshamah is sometimes used interchangeably with Ruwach. Also Psyche for Nephesh, Sophia for Chokmah and Phronesis for Binya.  And then Zeno's Eros could have been a translation of Ahav/Ahavah.

The main thing the Stoics lacked was the Resurrection, but their Cyclical view of the Universe is what I'd expect from getting most of the basic metaphysics right while still lacking The Resurrection.

Further evidence that even the Hebrew Bible can be read Stoically are the existence of Modern Jewish Philosophers who's Theology and Metaphysics sound fairly Stoic, from Baruch Spinoza to Moses Hess to Aaron David Gordon.

Facts don't care about your Feelings, but God Does because God Is Love

I think my contribution to the argument that Homosexuality isn't a Sin is my most important Internet accomplishment.  While I certainly think many others could make my arguments more eloquently then I do, only I take the correct perspective on each relevant passage.  And that I approach them and Scripture in general from a hyper literalist perspective means lots of people will be more open to my arguments then the arguments of more theologically liberal theologians.

I'm not quite so happy with my past attempts to allude to Trans issues on this blog.  My original main post on the subject was written this month five years ago, weird coincidence since I didn't know about June being Pride Month back in 2015.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-refusal-to-accept-claims-of.html

Back when I wrote that I didn't yet know that not all Trans people experience Dyphoria or Dysmorphia about their bodies.  And that's not the only thing I wasn't nearly as informed on as I am now.  That was before the Game Over Charles crisis, before I started following a lot of the Trans and Non-Binary people in the Anime Community on YouTube and Twitter, and before I ever watched a ContraPoints video.  And I'm sure I still have more to learn.  But that issue is most directly relevant to why I feel that post is problematic now.

I made an argument predicated on comparing being Trans to people born with disabilities and other issues and that I believe everyone will have the body they're meant to have in The Resurrection.  I know that Trans people don't want to be viewed as a mistake, it's just that in the context of those who feel deeply uncomfortable in their own bodies, that is a problem I don't view as God's intent and still one I feel will be eliminated at The Resurrection.  But those who are okay with or even like having physical features Society says doesn't match their Gender Identity, their situation will probably be different, I don't want to speculate too much.

Of course another thing that has changed since I made that post is I now believe in Universal Salvation.  I no longer believe it is only Trans people who become Christians that will find happiness in Jesus, Jesus Loves and will inevitably bring All of them to Salvation.

The beginning of dealing with any gender issues Biblically should always be the end of Galatians 3, "neither Male or Female" in The Church.  A passage that has been relevant to many posts I've made already.

There are no New Testament verses that are even remotely about Crossdressing.  Some Sermons from independent Baptist Pastors may trick you into thinking otherwise, but there are in fact none.  Deuteronomy 22:5 is the only passage in the entire Bible that is even at face value relevant to that issue.  Here is an article on a Jewish website dealing with the complex history of Jewish interpretations of this verse.
https://www.beki.org/dvartorah/crossdressing/

The observation that it should have lead with is how in context the passage is about doing it for the purpose of deception.  It is not at all relevant to Crossdressing as self expression.

But let's return to the real question that makes the Trans issue difficult for Christians, how can they exist?

I think most Christians casually take the view on the origins of Souls that they are individually created by God either before or during the body's formation as a result of the sperm fertilizing the egg.  However I have already expressed on this blog (but it was another issue I didn't know about 5 years ago) that I take the Traducian view, that our souls reproduce the same way our bodies do.

So since there are sometimes bodies born with "biological sex" ambiguities, there can also be Psyches with Psychological ambiguities and Spirits with Spiritual ambiguities.  And maybe them being ambiguous is more common then the Flesh.

InspiringPhilosophy has a video on the scientific evidence that conciseness isn't solely the product of the Brain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFGKhvWQ4M

But even if it were, studies have also shown that many Transgender people's Brains are wired like what is more typical of their preferred Gender not their assigned Gender.

But such Scientific Justification should be irrelevant because Christians aren't Materialists, not in the Aristotelian sense anyway.  We don't hate and disregard the Flesh the way Gnostics or Marcionites do, or view it merely as a lesser copy of some higher form the way Platonists do, but it is still only part of what we are.  But when it comes to Gender mainstream Western Christians act like Materialists.  And of course "Christian" Sexual morality actually has it's roots in Plato not The Bible.

When Genesis 1 says God made Adam Male and Female, I think it's referring to all the aspects of Human Gender being there already in the first Human, or maybe it could be just referring to him having both Chromosomes.  It was never meant to rule out the possibility that many of Adam's descents will relate to Gender in ways that defy or flat out don't fit into a simple Binary.

"Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin"

The modern left and liberals repeatedly calls this common mantra of modern American Evangelicalism a hollow meaningless distinction.

When the Christian saying this believes Endless Fiery Torment is how God punishes Sin, then I agree, it is utterly nonsensical to claim you "love the Sinner" or that God does in your theology.

Now I don't consider Homosexuality or Homosexual acts as Sinful, same with cross-dressing or identifying as a gender other then the one you were assigned at birth, and a lot of other things that are often the specific "sins" in mind when this subject comes up.

But I still want to defend the true meaning of this statement, it may not exactly come from The Bible but neither does Homousian.  

I do believe God Hates Sin, but His anger is for but a moment (Psalm 30) long enough to judge and purge the Sin.  God Is Love and His punishments come from His Love as our Father.

Jesus said the whole of the Law is to Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. Therefore I conclude that the chief Sin that God so vehemently Hates is Hatred.  Even Esau, the one specific person The Bible seemingly says God "Hated" (past tense) is described as Hating his brother Jacob in Genesis 27.  And Judas Iscariot, the "Son of Perdition" behaved hatefully towards Mary of Bethany.

This is an important opportunity for me to really stress that I believe in Universal Salvation and Affirming Homosexuality.  If there are other Universal Salvation teachers who agree that Homosexuality isn't a Sin, they aren't publicly stressing it. It's as if they want to maintain as much credibility as possible with conservative Evangelicals.  Well I believe I qualify as an Evangelical, since I preach the Evangelion, The Resurrection of The Flesh.

Some of you might be thinking "if they don't think anyone goes to Hell for Eternity, what does it matter if they technically think Homosexual acts are a sin".  Because we do believe God's punishments are for Correction, so I don't want Gay and Trans people thinking that means God is going to simply rewrite an important part of who they are, that he's going to Burn the Queerness out of them.  And it can also still lead to supporting things like Gay conversion therapy, which is basically psychological torture.  So it is important to me to stress that what God seeks to correct is hateful and harmful behavior, not Love.

My arguments regarding Homosexuality and Universal Salvation happen to be intimately linked to each other, because of my view of Romans, particularly how Chapter 11 contextualizes Chapter 1, is vital to both.

I agree with the view that Romans 1:18-32 is a rhetorical rant largely drawing on works like the Wisdom of Solomon and possibly Philo of Alexandria, and that the rest of Romans is refuting the people who say things like that.

The "Clobber verses" from this section speak of something being "against nature" (Para Phusis), and then verse 28 talks about God giving sinners up to a reprobate mind which is the basis for the Baptist doctrine that some people are beyond saving.

But in Romans 11 "against nature" (Para Phusis) is used of what God does grafting people who do not biologically descend from Jacob into the family of Israel, showing that acting "against nature" (Para Phusis) can't be inherently bad.  And then after the fullness of the Gentiles are grafted into Israel, All Israel shall be Saved.  God Consigned ALL to Disobedience so that he might have Mercy on All.

Update: I later wrote this post on what "Sin" properly even means.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2021/09/hamartia-what-does-sin-actually-mean.html

The Christology of the Sanctity of Monogamous Heterosexual Marriage.

So I've been talking on this Blog about how Paul said there is neither Male or Female in The Church.  And recently I've been noticing how traditionalists will say that it's important to defend "traditional marriage" because of how it's a picture of the relationship between Christ and Israel and/or The Church (whatever your view on The Bride of Christ doctrine is).

And it just occurred to me to ask, have they forgotten about Colossians 2:16-17?  Which Paulian Christianity has long viewed as arguing that the Sabbath, and The Holy Days and other aspects of The Law being type pictures of Christ are exactly why those mere terrestrial shadows of the truth don't actually matter, or at least aren't something to be dogmatic and legalistic about.

Or likewise Mark 2:27 where Jesus said "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath", which was one of His responses to the Pharisees overly strict legalistic attitude towards The Sabbath.

That same principle can be applied to marriage.  God didn't create Adam and Eve because He wanted Ken and Barbie dolls to play with, He created Eve so Adam wouldn't be alone.  Where the KJV says "Help Meet" other translations say Helper or Companion, some scholars argue it means "rescuer".  So when the companionship someone needs is from a person with the same reproductive organs they have, that is perfectly consistent with the intent of Genesis 2.  And likewise when some people need more then one companion.

1 John 4:7.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

So there is no context in which it can ever be appropriate to call Love a Sin, in fact doing so could quite possibly be Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit.

Peter Hiett loves mentioning various Romantic movies in his Sermons and making then analogies for The Bride of Christ doctrine.  Well guess what, I'm capable of seeing the same analogy in Gay Romances, or Het ones but with the traditional roles reversed, especially in the Anime I've watched.

The God of The Bible is both Masculine and Feminine.

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

In The Hebrew these two statements about the Creation of Mankind are not listed together for no reason, they explain each other.  Man was created Male and Female because they were created in the Image of God.  And the first two verses of Genesis 5 reaffirm these facts about Adam's creation.

In Hebrew one common way to make a word or name grammatically feminine is to have them end with a Heh or a Teth.  Some names however end with a Heh but aren't considered Feminine for various reasons.  Among these are two forms of the word El (god) Elah and Eloah, both are used of YHWH.  Elohim being plural is frequently pointed out, but it's technically the plural of Eloah not merely of El.  Though -im is technically considered a Masculine plural while ending with a -th would be the Feminine plural, -im is used however when the plural includes both male and female.

The name YHWH (I pronounce it Yahuah) itself ends with a Heh, as does the shortened form Yah, as does Ehyeh (I Am).  Yeshuah is a Hebrew word commonly translated Salvation that is acknowledged by scholars and the Strongs Concordance as being grammatically Feminine, it's the spelling of Yeshua (Jesus) with a Heh added at the end, it ends the same way as Yahuah.

Some want to primarily make The Holy Spirit the feminine aspect of The Trinity, because the Hebrew word for Spirit is itself Grammatically Feminine, and also because of the Sophia connection I talked about in Greek Words viewed as being Gnostic.  But in my view that does not make the Masculine and Feminine equation of the Trinity even enough.

Hebrew Strongs Number 801 is a feminine form of the word for Fire that is actually spelled the same as the Hebrew word for Woman/Wife, it is used exclusively of the Fire on the Brazen Altar of the Tabernacle.

Here is an Article about El Shaddai possibly referring to a Feminine Attribute of God.
 https://scribalishess.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/el-shaddai-and-the-gender-of-god/

The "Desire of Nations" in Haggai 2:7 is generally agreed by Christians to be Jesus, the word translated "Desire" there is Grammatically Feminine.  And it's the same with "Desire of Women" in Daniel 11:37 if like Chris White an Chuck Missler you view that as a Messianic Title.

If like me you've come to support a Mount of Olives Crucifixion Model.  That involves seeing The Red Heifer as a type of Jesus, and the Red Heifer was required to be Female (as were all Trespass offerings and certain Sin offerings).  That is apparent even in the KJV English, "Heifer" tends to be used of female Cows not Bulls.

Typologically I've argued that the Bride not the Groom represents Jesus in the Song of Solomon, and that the type of Jesus in Psalm 45 was a Woman as well.  And I've also talked about Venus being a Star of Bethlehem candidate.

It's also interesting how the Hebrew word translated "Mercy Seat" is really the Feminine form of the Hebrew word for Atonement, Kapporeth.

Jesus's body was definitely assigned Male at Birth according to Luke's account of His Circumcision and Mary's time of purification being 40 days (it would have been 80 for a female).  And Jesus seems to have presented as Male, or was assumed to be doing so, during His ministry.  But the modern conceptions of a Bi-Gender, Non-Binary or Gender Fluid identity hadn't become fully understood yet.

What I'm saying is on a Spiritual Level Jesus was both Genders, Jesus too is called The Image of God by Paul.  He took the Sins of all Mankind upon himself on the Cross including Sins committed by and against Women, Transgender, Intersex and Non-Binary human beings.  The Church is The Body of Christ, and it contains both Masculine and Feminine, because within it there is neither Male or Female.

If you support Aramaic Primacy for the new Testament, the key Logos verses in John's Gospel say Miltha for Logos in the Peshita.  Miltha is a grammatically feminine noun but is refereed to in these verses with masculine pronouns creating a contradiction of normal Aramaic Grammar.
http://www.peshitta.org/bethgazza/Mystery%20of%20Miltha.htm

I'm not sure if the Memra equated with the Dabar of YHWH in some Aramaic Targums is Grammatically Feminine, but it looks like it could be.  Logos and Dabar are both grammatically masculine, but the feminine form of Dabar does appear in the Hebrew Scriptures as a personal name, Deborah.  And a Feminine form of Logos, Logia, is used a few times in The New Testament, translated "oracles" (even though it doesn't appear to be plural in the Greek) in the KJV of Acts 7:38, Romans 3:2 and 1 Peter 4:11.

Every time you see "Oracle" in the KJV of the Old Testament it is a form of Dabar, mostly the Dbiyr, a term associated with the Holy of Holies of Solomon's Temple, but in II Samuel 16:23 it's Dabar in a weird form I don't get.

I should note that the English word "Oracle" is kind of thought of as inherently feminine due to it's association with the classical Oracle at Delphi and the Sybils. For example when talking about Japanese/Anime culture we might use it of how Mikos used to be Prophetesses but not of any males who foretold the future or spoke for a Kami.  So maybe the KJV translators, or translators of earlier English Bibles the KJV followed the lead of, felt there was something Feminine about how Dabar was used in these verses.  After all three out of four uses of some form of "oracle" in the New Testament were for Logia, (the exception Hebrew 5:12 was Logion).

Update September 23rd 2019:  I can't believe I forgot about the parable of the Lost Coin from Luke 15:8-10.  This parable is a companion to the Lost Sheep and Prodigal Son parables, where it is a Woman in the role of the Good Shepherded and The Father.

Update March 2020: I disagree with much of what InspiringPhilosophy says about God and Gender in "Israel's Revolutionary Monotheism".  But this ScreenCap is helpful.

Hosea 14:8 is about wordplay in the Hebrew "aniti wa'ashurennus".  Anat is also a from of the word for answer which the KJV sometimes translated "heard". 

This verse of Hosea is thus further prove that Anat Betel and Asham Bethel at Elephantine were titles of Aspects of YHWH not separate gods. In Genesis YHWH is also called El Bethel the God of Bethel. 

Mishkab and Koiten should be translated Bed.

That's what they mean, there are other Hebrew and Greek words to say "lie with", which sometimes appear in the same verse.

"But they are clearly often used euphemistically of Sexual intercourse."

Well we also use "bed" that way in English so that's not an excuse for not translating them as "bed".  Just translate the word as what the word means and let grammar and context determine how it's being used.

The Greek Koiten/Koitus was definitely used that way hence being the origin of our word "Coitus".  But I can't help but suspect the Hebrew Mishkab only came to be used that way because of the Septuagint using Koiten to translate Mishkab.

This isn't just about the Homosexuality clobber passages, the other five times the KJV translated "Mishkab" as if it were a verb were in totally Het contexts and are also verses where a break down of the Hebrew Grammar shows it's being used as a noun.  They are Judges 21:11-12 and Numbers 31:17, 18 and 35.  The difference between those five and the two verses in Leviticus assumed to be about Homsexuality is those verses suggest the bed belongs to the Zakar (male) while in Leviticus the bed belongs to the woman or wife.

All seven verses are definitely about some type of sex happening, but whether or not the word for bed is being used as a noun or a verb can make a big difference in what a verse means.  And the number of times even the KJV translated this word as a Noun regardless of if sex is involved dwarf these seven occurrences.

The most hyper literal unbiased translations of Leviticus 18:22 tend to be something like "And with male not lay bed of woman; abomination-her."

In my initial analysis of the Leviticus clobber verses I talked about the theory some have proposed that it means "Thou shall not lie with a male in a Wife's Bed", but was ultimately dismissive of it.  Back then I stressed the Pagan context of Leviticus 18 but was also willing to slightly throw anal intercourse under the bus.  Today I'm not as comfortable with that.

The grammar of The Hebrew supports some from of the "Wife's Bed" interpretation.  But other aspects of it are still unclear.

What if that reading opens the door for it to not even be a gay act at all?  Looking at the very literal translation, what if it's about having another male lie with your wife?  Something many ancients practiced under the right circumstances.  The problem there is I also want to encourage Christians to be more open to Non-Monogamous arrangements.

The fact that the word 'Tovah" (commonly translated "Abomination" or "Detestable" but I feel is perhaps best rendered "Taboo"). has a feminine pronoun attached to it is fascinating.  Many scholars pointing this fact out don't see it as really relevant.  But I think it could be.

Traditional interpretations say the reference to "womankind" in the verse is just as an analogy, "don't do with a male what you're supposed to do with a woman".  And that includes my own past desire to see anal sex a key factor.

But this ignored fact of a feminine pronoun attached to Tovah suggests that this is in fact a crime or offense for which the wife is the victim, or the one being wronged.

Which would mean if it were about having another male sleep with your wife, the issue would be if she's okay with it or not.  And going back to the gay option, if your wife is a Fujoshi who's totally cool with you banging a guy in her bed then that's not an issue either.

Regardless of all that, it's certainly NOT a verse condemning all male Homosexuality.

Traditionalists may on this or other disputes throw a "these heretics can't even agree with each other" argument at a post like this.  But that's not evidence their view is right, it's evidence their view is one of many.  But it's inevitable people will think that way when they've been used to their interpretation being the default.

Fortunately I don't think we're under The Law anymore and so am not that concerned with knowing what these two obscure verses want people to not do. But I do address these Torah passages because I want LGBT Jews to know that the G-d of Abraham is cool with them.

Update: Here's an interlinear Bible showing what I'm talking about.

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/lev18.pdf

The Feminine Pronoun attached to Tovah is Eua spelled Aleph-Vav-Heh.  

The translation on the side is just the AV (Authorized Version) more commonly known as the KJV.

Psalm 45, The Tune of The Lilies

The traditional view of this Psalm doesn’t sit right with me.  But nothing I argue here will really go against how I use this Psalm in the Bride of Christ post on my Prophecy Blog.

The traditional view has the person being addressed in the Psalm change a few times.  The first verse isn’t the Psalm proper at all but just the author's preface, that I agree with.  Then the traditional view says verses 2-9 are addressing “The King” and 10-15 his Bride, and then 16-17 are addressing The King again.  Of course the King’s Bride is presumably first introduced in verse 9.  I don't see these changes in who’s being addressed as being all that justifiable.

Nothing in the sections presumed to address the King actually calls them King.  In fact verse 5 is referring to the King as separate when it says they defeated the King’s enemies.  Verse 1 says this Psalm concerns the King in some fashion, but doesn’t clearly say how.

Verses 13-15 say.

“The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.  She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.  With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace.“

Again, the King and the subject are separate, the King’s daughter is being brought to the King first then given to the subject.  These verses tell me that the King like in my view of the Song of Solomon is serving as the father of the Bride, not as the Groom.

I think it’s much more coherent to interpret the subject of the Psalm as being the same person all throughout.  And that this person is being given the King’s daughter.  

Now it’s possible in that view the subject could still be David, but that in this context the King is God or Saul.  But that will become less likely later.

The word translated “Queen” in verse 9 in reference to the subject’s bride is not a feminine form of Melech or Sar like a lot of other words translated Queen in The Bible.  The word is Shegal, which is translated “wives” when Daniel 5 uses its plural form though it’s not a usual word for wife either.    The verb it’s derived from is Shagal, a word usually translated “lie” or “ravished”, and in all contexts seems clearly about sex.

Nothing all that controversial so far.  Till we look at verse 10 which clearly called the subject a daughter.  Verse 11 is the primary basis for saying this is a woman the King is marrying, but I think that is jumping to conclusions.  Verse 10 is also the basis for seeing the woman here as a foreigner, but I feel that terminology could simply be her not being of the same Tribe.  The word for “people” is Am not Goyim.  Genesis 48 foretells Manasseh will be his own Am.

Verses 6 and 7 are quoted in Hebrews chapter 1, verses 8 and 9 as being about Jesus (Paul says “the Son” not “a son”).  

First of all I can again reference my Song of Solomon studies as precedent for a female personage being a type of Christ.  And many think the Wisdom of Proverbs is Jesus, which is clearly referred to with Feminine pronouns, and the Hebrew and Greek words for Wisdom are all grammatically feminine.

Secondly this isn’t the only place where a New Testament quotation is being kind of creative with the Old Testament context.  I think it’s also possible Paul was paraphrasing and that this doesn’t justify the Septuagint translation as much as one might at first think.

On the subject of translating these verses, the words for Throne in both Hebrew and Greek are words for Seat or Chair not solely limited to Royal Thrones the way that English word usually is.

Alternate translations of Psalm 45:6 include "your divine throne endures for ever and ever"[Rhodes 78] and "the eternal and everlasting God has enthroned you"[Dahood 269].  Verse 7 could also read “Elohim thy God has anointed thee” or “Elohim has anointed thy God”.  The Hebrew Bible calling a human an El in the right context isn’t as weird as you at first think, just look at Exodus 7:1.

The word for God used in verse 6 is Elohim.  But in verse 7 the word for God with the Thy/Your suffix attached is not Elohim though the Strongs categorizes it like it is.  It does have a Heh however, which makes it possible to view as Grammatically Feminine.  Actually it’s possible to even interpret Elohim as partly grammatically feminine, but that is a much bigger rabbit hole.

The subject possibly being or representing Jesus isn’t actually the most controversial implication of making the subject a woman all throughout it.  The biggest issue is the implication that this daughter is being given, either in marriage or in some sexual fashion, the King’s daughter.  Meaning I have just argued this Psalm is about a Lesbian couple.

Now at face value you can say the last two verses are clearly making this about a Heterosexual couple since they have children.  But the application of this to Jesus and His Bride does not view these children as literal offspring of sexual reproduction, but as the “remnant of her Seed” of Revelation 12:17, or more controversially in my view The Man-Child.  There is also the Suffering Servant’s Seed in Isaiah 53.  

What is special about Psalm 45 however is it doesn’t even say Seed, so it is the most linguistically justifiable to apply to children by Adoption, or any other means by which a Lesbian couple could have kids.

The word for Earth in verse 16 also just means land, and refers to specific lands many times.  It doesn’t always mean the whole Planet Earth.  That is how I interpret it when applying this Psalm to Jesus, but as far as this original woman who married into the royal family, they may have been given a specific region, maybe a whole Tribe’s allotment at most.

Now what I’m about to mention is just an interesting coincidence.

I started seeing this possible Lesbian implication to Psalm 45 before I noticed this is one of the Psalms that is to the Tune Shoshannim as it’s transliterated in the KJV.  

What does Shoshannim mean?  Well first of all the im suffix makes it plural.  And Shoshan/Shushan is the Hebrew word for Lily.  Meaning Shoshannim means Lilies.  But what does Lily/Shushan translate to in Japanese?  Yuri!!!  

Meaning this Psalm was “to the Tune of the Yuries”.

The last verse is a bit of an issue if the original subject of the Psalm is some random woman otherwise forgotten by history.  So let’s see if we can identify her with someone else mentioned in Scripture.

The Gold from Ophir tells me this isn’t a proper Davidic Psalm but from the time of Solomon at the soonest.  The word for “Daughter” can also refer to a granddaughter or more distant female descendant, basically any woman of the Royal family could be the King’s Daughter in question.  I note that here though it may not be relevant.

1st Kings 4:7-19 lists officers Solomon placed over the Tribes of Israel, it’s most well known for how two of them are said to have married daughters of Solomon.  One of those two, Ahimaaz in verse 15, is also unique in being the only one of these 12 not called the Son of someone.  The English translation uses a male pronoun, but that could be a product of the limitations of English.  In fact there are other places where this same Hebrew prefix Hu is translated more gender neutrally, and Genesis 29:12 uses it of Rebecca.

The other references in the Hebrew Bible to people with the name Ahimaaz mostly seem to clearly be males (though it’s not impossible that for some reason Ahinoam wife of Saul was referred to as the daughter of her mother), but it wouldn't be the only name used by both Sexes.  The name ends with the letter Tzadiq, the Hebrew word for Earth/Land is Eretz which also ends with a Tzadiq and is considered grammatically feminine according to the Strongs.  

The meaning of Ahimaaz being interpreted to have “brother” in it doesn’t mean anything in regard to their gender, David had two wives whose names mean father of something, Abigail and Avital.  Ach, the part taken to mean brother, is used at the start of a few feminine words and names, like the name of Ahinoam.

So perhaps Psalm 45 is about the marriage of Ahimaaz to Basemath?

This might be a good time to note my personal hunch that Basemath was probably the daughter of one of Solomon’s Edomite wives, given that name’s association with wives of Esau.

Ahimaaz was placed over Naphtali, Genesis 49 calls Naphtali a Hind, Ayalah in the Hebrew, a specifically feminine word for a deer like animal.  So maybe a woman being in charge of Naphtali fits that prophetically.

The land allotted to Naphtali is where most of Jesus ministry was. Isaiah 9 defines Galilee as Zebulun and Napthali, though the traditional site of Nazareth is closer to Zebulun, Capernaum which seems to be the main base of operations in the Synoptic Gospels was firmly in Naphtali.  Tiberias, a capital of NT era Galilee, was also in Naphtali.

I proposed a theory on my now semi defunct revised chronology blog that the Amazons of Greek mythology might have come from Dan.  Dan was the full sibling of Naphtali.  The goddess of the Amazons was sometimes viewed as being Artemis, who was often associated with female Deer.  And I could conceivably connect the name of Artemis to Ahimaaz, or the etymology of the word Amazon itself to Ahimaaz.  And the husband of a daughter of Salmoneus was also relevant to that post.  Perhaps the distorted Greek memory changed Ahimaaz to a brother of Salmoneus because of the name’s meaning having brother in it?

Update November 2018: It's also possible Ahimaaz could be a Trans woman or a Trans man, I'd consider a Trans woman more likely.

Gendered Hebrew names and Transgender people in The Bible

I've done one post defending Trans gender people Biblically already.

In Hebrew, certain grammatical rules make some names pretty indisputably either Masculine or Feminine names.  The most well understood by me being that names ending with a Heh or Tav tend to be Feminine.

Now this can complicate looking at names in English since both those letters have other letters that seemingly sometimes become the same letter in English, like Tav and Teth both becoming a T and/or Th.  There are two names for example that become Noah in English.  The Patriarch of the family that survived The Flood was a Noah ending in a Het, so Masculine.  But the daughter of Zelophead was a Noah ending in a Heh and thus Feminine.  Selah and Terah of the ancestors of Abraham ended with Het so those are Masculine names.

Sometimes however a name that seems unambiguously of one Gender, is seemingly used by individuals of the other Gender.

The first Shelomith in The Bible is in Leviticus 24 and is clearly a woman.  Later however a few Shelomiths seem, in the KJV translation at least, to be males.  Like the one in Ezra 8:10 or 1 Chronicles 26.  2 Chronicles 11:20 lists a Shelomith among the children of Rehoboam, I believe that was a daughter because of my Song of Solomon theory, but others are inclined to assume only sons are named in verses like that.

I'm suggesting that maybe sometimes apparently confusing uses of certain names are evidence of Transgender people in The Bible.  In many cases it can be unclear whether The Bible is recording the name given at Birth/Circumcision, or a name taken later.  So it may not always be easy to guess which kind of Trans they could have been.

Also plenty of verses translate "Ben" in a way that suggests it can be gender neutral, especially when used in plural (Children), even though the default is to translate it Son.   And also be aware that sometimes translations include more pronouns then the Hebrew and Greek text imply., so often Gendered pronouns appear only because of preconceived notions about the Gender of the person being refereed to.

However "begating" offspring I do believe refers strictly to the technically male role in reproduction, and so anyone who "begat" offspring must have been assigned Male at birth.  Just as "bearing" children refers to the female role.

So you're about to read the result of me going through the 1 Chronicles genealogy looking for examples of Trans Women via people with feminine names who Begat offspring.

Elishah ends with a Heh, Elishah was of the children of Javan son of Japheth (Japheth ends in a Teth so it's masculine).

Raamah ends with a Heh, but The Bible avoids using "begat" when referring to Sheba and Dedan as Raamah's sons.  So at first I thought I had an example here, but it turns out Raamah could easily be a Cis woman, or maybe a Trans man or Non-Binary.

Diklah of the children of Joktan ends with a Heh. As does Havilah, a name that pops up among Cush's children also.  But Jerah ends in a Het and is also the Semitic name for the Moon which was seemingly always viewed as masculine by the Semitic near east. Hazarmaveth ends with a Tav.

Dumah of the children of Ishmael also ends with a Heh.  No examples of Dumah being described as begating anyone.  Isaiah 21:11 however associates Dumah with Seir, a region tied to Edom.  I've cited before Bill Cooper 's After The Flood saying the Idumeans descended from Dumah not Edom.  I could see a documentary hypothesis proponent suggesting Dumah and Edom as conflicting Genesis origins for the same nation, since the name possibly share a common root.

Esau married a daughter of Ishmael, (possibly two depending on how you view the different accounts of his wives), in Genesis 36 a daughter of Ishmael bares him sons.  Could it be Dumah and one of the wives of Esau were the same person?

Kedamah also ends with a Heh, in this case Kedamah can even be explained as a feminine form of Kademon, which means "East", east of the Jordan/DeadSea/Arabah is mainly where the Ishmaelites originally settled.  But perhaps most surprising is how the first born of Ishmael, Nabojoth, ends with a Tav.

Of the children and grandchildren borne to Abraham by Keturah.  Shuah ends in a Het so is a masculine name.  But Ephah ends with a Heh,, and is later the name of a Concubine of Caleb in 1 Chronicles 2:46.  Eldaah ends with a Heh as well.  But I'm still searching for an example of one who begat children to make my case airtight.

Aiah and Anah both end with a Heh.  Anah is a name that within Genesis 36 seems to be applied to both a male and a female.  Being called both a Bath of Zibeon and a Ben of Zibeon.  Since it seems possibly Bath is used more strictly gender-wise anyway it's safe to say Anah was a daughter.

Now I enter 1 Chronicles 2, and we reach Judah.  Judah ends in a Heh, and Judah begat at least 5 children.  But Judah is someone we know enough about that it's hard to imagine the intent was for this name to imply anything Feminine.  Nothing in Judah's story seems to suggest Gender Identity being an issue.  Not that I can deduce from my limited Cis-Het experience anyway.

And it's a pretty common male name, largely from people being named after this Judah.  So this is perhaps where the critics of the hypothesis I'm building here would really see it's Achilles heel.  Judah was simply named after the Hebrew word for "praise", which also ends with a Heh.  In general, Judith is viewed as the feminine form of Judah.  There seem to be less exceptions to the Tav ending implying Gender then the Heh.

This does make me, as someone who is admittedly no where near an expert on linguistics, ask how do Hebrew scholars decide when ending with a Heh is Feminine, and when it is not?

A lot of the exceptions to ending in a Heh being Feminine are for theophoric names ending with Yah or YHWH.  Others seems to be when there is a Vav before the Heh, which is the case with the name of YHWH itself.  And that causes to me to wonder if there is a desire among scholars to deny that Yah and YHWH could be technically feminine names.  Meanwhile Elah and Eloah are possibly feminine forms of El (God) that are both used of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible.

At any rate the Hebrew word for Praise perhaps ends with a Heh because it's frequently used to praise YHWH who's name ends with a Heh in both long and short forms.

Eleasah is a name that ends with a Heh.  1 Chronicles 2:39-40 says that Helez begat Eleasah and Eleasah begat Sisamai.  So I finally found something.

Two of David's children born in Jerusalem are named Eliphelet, but that name ends in a Teth not a Tav.

I've refereed to Shelomith and Shulamith as variant forms of the same Feminine version of Solomon's name, and they both end with Tav.  Are the verses with Shelomith that sound like they're referring to Men referring to Transgender people perhaps?  I can't be sure.  But 1 Chronicles 3:19 does refer to a Shelomith as the sister of her brothers so that refutes any attempt to deny it's ever feminine.

Solomon is an interesting name on it's own however.  The Hebrew is Shlomoh, an example of a name ending in Vav-Heh.  So maybe that name itself could be Feminine?  It could be Salma or Salmon is the actual masculine form, Solomon possibly comes from Greek texts combining the names Shlomoh and Salmon.

At no point is Solomon described as Begating any of his children, they're just called Solomon's son or daughters.  Naamah the Ammonitess is refereed to as the mother of Rehoboam, but is not described as bearing him per say.  Naamah is also never referred to as a Queen or Queen Mother, a fact probably most likely to mean she was one of the Concubines, but still interesting.  Naamah is definitely a female name, it ends with a Heh and was in Genesis 4 the sister of Tubal-Cain.

I've also often wondered if Solomon might have been Asexual or something, having seemingly less children then his father or son in-spite of having way more wives and concubines.

As King, Solomon definitely presented as male, since The Hebrew Bible has distinct terms for Female Monarchs.

Another name of Solomon's was Jeddiah, the name Nathan the Prophet gave to Solomon.  This name is another one that would always been assumed to be male chiefly because it's Yah Theophoric.

There is speculation that Lemuel of Proverbs 31 is a name for Solomon, perhaps specifically the name Bathsheba gave Solomon at birth.  It seems like a Male name though there are women in The Bible who's name ends in L, something I didn't want to get into here.  Those examples aren't El Theophoric names however.

The word Koheleth appears only in the Book of Ecclesiastes, the KJV always translates it Preacher though Assembler would be more accurate, the name Ecclesiastes is essentially a Greek translation of this name.  It is feminine, it is not even controversial to say it's Feminine, the Strongs says it's Feminine.  Yet this is a name or title being used of the book's Author, who's usually assumed to be Solomon for good reason even though the name of Solomon is never used in the book.  Sometimes the Koheleth is refereed to with male pronouns in English, but that could be translation issues.  The first verse of the book says the Koheleth is the Son of David and King in Jerusalem.

And at this point it occurs to me I forget something very early on. Right at the start.

Seth ends with a Tav, and Seth Begat Enosh, and many other sons and daughters.  Could Seth have been a Trans Woman right at the start of The Bible?

This is all speculative, and not at all something I want to build a major Doctrine on.  Especially the Solomon part, that's the most speculative.  But it's interesting how something Conservative Christians want to reject can potentially make more sense out of some confusing details of The Bible.

Update: It turns out, on the subject of Salmon ancestor of David, father of Boaz.  The KJV rendering obscures this, but in Ruth 4:20 the name is spelled Salmah, ending with a Heh (Strong number 8009) while in Ruth 4:21 it is Salmon.   Sometimes this person is also called Salma, like in 1 Chronicles 2:11 (another Salma towards the end of that chapter may or may not be the same person).

Then there is the matter of this Salmon/Salmah's spouse.  Salma was likely assigned male at Birth because Matthew 1:5 says "and Salmon begat boos of Racab".  This Racab is often viewed by Christians as the same person as the Rachab of Joshua, the Harlot of Jericho who helped the Spies Joshua sent.  Fitting a presumed theme of the women named in Jesus genealogy being women who did or were perceived as committing sexual sins.  And that would happen to fit my own agenda of deconstructing Augustinian sexual morality, a whore being an ancestor of Jesus.

But the Greek spelling in Matthew is Racab.  While Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 when unambiguously referring to the Rachab of Joshua use the spelling Raab.  Meanwhile I find it unlikely chronologically that the father of Boas was a contemporary of Joshua.

A Hebrew name perhaps far more likely to explain the origin of the Greek Racab is Rekab, rendered in the KJV as Rechab.  But this name is a male name, given to at least two male individuals.  But the last verse of 1 Chronicles 2, while talking about clans of Judah (one of whom being the founder of Bethlehem Ephratah) and right before returning to David's genealogy, refers to "the House of Rekab".  The Septuagint text of 1 Chronicles 2:55 uses almost the exact same spelling for Rekab that Matthew 1:5 uses for Racab, only the first vowel is different, Recab rather then Racab.  There are other places where Matthew and the Septuagint use different vowels for the same name, like Solomon being Salomon in the Septuagint.

Is it possible that Salmah and Racab were a marriage between a Trans woman and a Trans man?  Or maybe Salma was non-binary?  Making Boas the son of a Trasngender couple?  Remember these are Ancestors of Jesus Christ.

Update November 27 2017:  Another theory about Salmon.

This second theory involves possibly backing off on my initial absoluteness of anyone who "Begats" offspring being assigned male at birth.

However I do believe Generations are skipped sometimes (Genesis 10 and 11 are different because they give numbers of years, which was clearly for a reason, if there is skipping there, it's skipping that doesn't change the total amount of time that passes).  Especially with the line from Judah to David. I have that time-frame as over 300 years longer then Ussher's dates.  And even in Ussher's time-frame only 10 generation was a little bit of a stretch.

In which case the actual biological father of Boaz could descend from Salmon.

And I still think the Racab of Matthew's genealogy is the Rekab of the last verse of 1 Chronicles 2.  But it could be what Matthew's saying is Boaz mother descends from Rekab.

The thing about the Hebrew of Ruth 4:20-21 I can't get over, is that Salmah is used of this person being Begat, and Salmon of them begating Boaz.  Which would imply Salmah is the name they were given at birth, and Salmon is the name they went by later, by the time they had children.  Which creates the impression that that they are a Trans Man.  And so there is no need for me to refrain from using Male pronouns for him.

The thing is, I do think it's important that David's Y-Chromosome come directly from Judah and Pharez.  So I should investigate who is the assigned Male at birth individual that Salmon reproduced with.

Again, Salmon is Salma in 1 Chronicles 2:11 (Salma could have been constructed to be a compromise name).  Another Salma appears at the end of the Chapter.  This Salma is, if no generations were skipped, the same number of generations from Hezron, yet by a different son of Hezron.  But having the same name isn't the only thing making me wonder if they are the same person, it's also that Salma son of Caleb Ben-Hur (generally assumed not to be the same Caleb prominent in Numbers and Joshua) is called the "Father of Bethlehem".  Whether that means he literally had a son named Bethlehem or not, the main point is it's saying his family founded the city of Bethlehem.  Ephrath is also the name of a female ancestor of this Caleb, Hur is called the Father of Bethlehem in 1 Chronicles 4 in a verse reminding us he's the firstborn of Ephrathah.  And because of the Book of Ruth, and 1 Samuel, and Micah 4-5 and the Nativity narrative, we know that Salmon's descendants were also inhabitants of Bethlehem, and some were prominent ones.

Caleb Ben-Hur is not described as begating Salma.  Could it be Salma was really a Son in Law of Caleb Ben-Hur?

The reason this Caleb is usually assumed to be separate from the famous Caleb is that the latter presumably had a different father.  But Jephunneh ends with a Heh, and they're never called the father or son of anyone.  And we're not told anything about their ancestry, except possibly that they're a Kenezite (which would seemingly make them not of Judah but a gentile).  Jephunneh could be Caleb's mother.

Caleb Ben-Hur is the same number of generations (if none are skipped, and even if there is skipping, they may skip evenly) from Hezron as Nahshon, who was the Prince of Judah during the same time Caleb son of Jephunneh was Judah's spy.  And an Israelite named Hur was prominent at that time as well.

Caleb son of Jephunneh was given Hebron, but 1 Chronicles 2 associates Hebron with the same clan it's Caleb came from.  There are a few things in 1 Chronicles 4 repeated from 1 Chronicles 2.

One of the "sons" of Caleb son of Jephunneh in 1 Chronicles 4:15 is named Elah.  A name that can very easily be argued to be Grammatically Feminine.  Three are named in total.  Why say "the sons of Elah, even Kenaz" but not refer to the sons of the others?  1 Chronicles 4 can be pretty confusing.  I think the Kenaz who is refereed to as a brother of Caleb is a maternal half-brother.

Caleb Ben-Hur has three named sons in 1 Chronicles 2, Shobal, Salma and Hareph.  The "sons" later named to each of them are not individuals but cities and clans.

So perhaps Salmon and Elah were a marriage between a Trans Man and a Trans Woman?

Boaz and the first husband of Ruth had a common ancestor, that's part of the premise of the book.  That another near kinsmen was in line before Boaz implies they were probably second cousins not first cousins.

Update March 19th 2018: Luke's Genealogy lists a Joanna in Luke 3:37, same spelling as the other two appearance of Joanna in the Gospel which clearly refer to a female follower of Jesus, in 8:3 and 24:10.

Now it's true that the Greek text does not use the word "son" nearly as many times as our English Translations do.  But still, as someone convinced of the theory this is Mary's Genealogy, I think the only people named in it are people considered legally the father.

So perhaps that Joanna was a Trans Woman.

As a Christian I do believe The Gospel's Genealogies refer to people by their preferred names consistently but that the Hebrew Bible may not have since as Hebrews tells us The Law was in imperfect.  Thus both Gospels using Salmon I feel settles what name should be used to refer to that person.