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. 

The Adopted Son of Joseph Son of David

Another objection to the Genealogy of Jesus as presented in Matthew and Luke is that Jesus couldn't become an Heir to the Throne of David by Adoption.  Now I still stand by my past arguments for Luke's genealogy actually being Mary's, and even without that nothing anywhere says Mary wasn't a descendant of David.  But considering the value I place on Adoption both morally and theologically, it's about time I said "so what".  Because after all there must be a reason we're given Joseph's genealogy in at least Matthew.

But first, before I even get into that argument. I should address what may sometimes be an internal debate among Christians.  Does Jesus qualify as even an adopted son of Joseph?

Because in the story at the end of Luke 2 when Mary finds Jesus she refers to Joseph as His father, but some people like to say what Jesus goes on to say about doing His Father's business as correcting her.  That has it's origin as an over reaction to how some seek to use what Mary said here against The Virgin Birth.

I feel many American Conservative Christians have dug their heels in on that because of their obsession with the modern nuclear family.  They feel an Adopted or Step father is only needed if the physical sire is a deadbeat or just plain dead, because you can't have "two daddies" that would be horrible.  This is also why so many commentaries refuse to acknowledge that Jacob is referring to Leah as Joseph's mother in Genesis 37.

Luke 4:22 and John 1:45 clearly show that Jesus was legally regarded as a Son of Joseph.

In the past I'd focused more on Luke's Genealogy because even though I've always valued Adoption I felt that Jesus had to be a Blood descendant of everyone Prophecy required Him to descend from so that by His shed Blood gentiles can become Abraham's Seed and mortals can become Sons of God.  And I still think He was, but I've come to realize that Jesus is himself an adopted Son for a reason.

Now when this comes up as a Jewish objection to Jesus, it's not because Jews oppose Adoption or anything, The Torah clearly says anyone Circumcised who follows The Torah is to be considered an Israelite.  It's a claim that Royal Inheritance specifically has to be biological.

II Samuel 7:12 does specifically say Seed.  But it'd be hypocritical to use that against Jesus since these objectors to Jesus often reject dual fulfillment elsewhere.  The immediate context of that verse was clearly the Seed of David who took the throne right after David died.  What's interesting is verse 14 talks about this Son of David being an adopted Son of God.  So the New Testament brings it full circle, The Son of God becomes an adopted Son of David.  And that is why David calls The Messiah his Lord in Psalm 110.

The last verse of Jeremiah 33 seems to say that Israel won't be ruled by the Seed of David anymore when they return from Captivity.  The Root in Isaiah 11 is of Jesse rather then David.  Some Psalms speak of David's Seed, but there is room for interpretation there too.

I stumbled recently unto an online book by a Jew who argues that The Messiah will not be a Son of David but David himself Resurrected, arguing that the Branch is an idiom for a Resurrected Body and looking specifically at Ezekiel 34&37.  As a Christian I obviously disagree with that overall premise, but I do agree that Ezekiel is describing David himself Resurrected as the future Nasi, not using the name David as a code for Jesus as some Christians prefer to look at it.  

I think David himself would take offense at excluding adopted sons from Royal Inheritance, since he was a Son but not by blood of Saul.  In 1 Samuel 24:9-11 David calls Saul "father" and in 1 Samuel 24:16 and 26:17-21-25 Saul calls David his Son.

Now David's Kingship ultimately came from God choosing his line over Saul's.  But likewise the Son of God incarnate doesn't need descent from any specific mortal to be the rightful ruler of The World.  David became a Son of Saul regardless.

Now you may respond that David was the Son in Law of Saul because he married Michal.  To which I first would say, "like how Christian apologists argue Luke's genealogy sometimes means Son in Law when it says Son".  This is also a good time to bring up The Bride of Christ, who is also the Daughter of Zion The City of David.

But another reason David was a Son of Saul was 1 Samuel 18:1-4 where David's Blood Covenant with Johnathon made him Johnathon's joint heir.

What Moses says of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine that's become popular in Rabbinic Judaism.  It's the basis for saying it's the Son of Joseph not David who will be killed and then Resurrected.  Something I brought up in my Human Sacrifice in The Torah post, which in turn referenced back to my Nazareth post where I suggested that Mary could have been of the Tribe of Manasseh.  For the sacrificial offering alluded to in that blessing it's being a Maternal Firstborn that mattered, the first to Open the Womb.

But the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine also needs it to be a Son of Joseph who's pierced in Zechariah 12:10, even though the context of that verse is all about the House of David.  Chapter 12 begins with a new "The Word of YHWH came unto me saying" so no it's not a continuation of the previous three chapters where Joseph and Ephraim came up a lot.  These three chapters seem to be strictly about the Southern Kingdom.  So the only way the one Pierced can be a Son of Joseph, is if he's a Son of Joseph adopted into the House of David.

The Curse on Jeconiah was reversed

 In Jeremiah 22:28-30 Yahuah puts a Curse on Jeconiah, calling him Coniah.

Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?  O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Yahuah.  Thus saith Yahuah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

And this gets used to say clearly Jesus (and his half siblings) are not eligible to inherit The Throne of David.

Now it makes some sense to me for Atheists to use this as a criticism of The Biblical record as a whole.  But as I'm about to show using this as a Jewish objection to Jesus doesn't really think things through.

Jeremiah is the only Biblical Author to mention this Curse.  And he's the Prophet who explains that Yahuah reverses His Blessings and Curses based on obedience in places like Chapter 18.  Ezekiel, the other major Prophet of that time, not only doesn't seem to view Jeconiah as Cursed but seems to never regard Zedekiah as a rightful King at all since he dates events of Zedekiah's reign as if Jeconiah was still King.

Earlier in Jeremiah 22 setting the stage for this Curse Yahuah says in verse 24.

As I live, saith Yahuah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;

Compare this to Haggai 2:23 where Yahuah says of Coniah's grandson Zerubabel.

In that day, saith Yahuah of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith Yahuah, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith Yahuah of hosts.

So that's clearly a reversal, exactly what Jeconiah lost according to Jeremiah 22 Zerubabel has back according to Haggai.  And other Prophets of this time like Zechariah speak similarly of Zerubabel.

And indeed the line of Exilarchs acknowledged by Rabbinic Judaism as the heirs of David in Exile all descended from Zerubabel.

People making this objection often also claim it has to be strictly Pater-Lineal descent, so that leaves out the lines coming through Hillel The Elder who was a Benjamite, his Davidic descent was though his Mother, and through a son of David even further removed from Solomon then Nathan was.

So without the house of Zerubabel, we have no known descent from the Royal Line.

Possible Hasmonean ancestry of Jesus

I've already explained why Heli is the Father of Mary.  That combined with my hunch that the solution to the Kenen issue is that Kenen was Selah's older brother or brother in-law and Selah married Kenen's daughter.  Leads me to conclude that Luke 3's genealogy sometimes records the descent through a woman, but keeps it patriarchally expressed by listing the woman's husband as the son in-law of her father.  Joseph is distinct because he is the only one who is NOT a biological ancestor of Jesus, thus he alone lacks the Greek definite article.

This can also explain the issue regarding the father of Shealtiel.  I think a daughter of Neri married Shealtiel son of Jechoniah, then he died without an heir and so she married his brother Pedaiah and had Zerubbabel.  There is also the issue that neither New Testament son of Zerubbabel is named in his Old Testament genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3:19.   

Matthew is definitely skipping generations sometimes, so Abiud could be a grandson or great grandson or further (the possibility that Abiud is a weird Greek form of Akkub of 1 Chronicles 3:24 has entered my mind).  And in the context of what I'm arguing here about Luke's genealogy, 1 Chronicles 3:19 does say Zerubbabel had a daughter, Shelomith, so I think she married Resha.

So my theory is when Heli is called a Son of Matthat it could mean son in-law, and so on, but not always of course.

An interesting name in Luke 3:24 is Janna.  Janna is a very rare Hebrew name, and the only other recorded example of the name around the time this Janna would have lived is the Hasmonean King Alexander Jannaeus.  Again I suspect the Joseph he's described as the son of could be his wife's father.

The only known wife of Alexander Jannaeus was Queen Salome Alexandra (Shelomtzion or Shlom Tzion).  Josephus tells us nothing about her family, but rabbinic traditions recorded in the Talmud say she was the sister of Simeon bar Shetah, Simeon's father was Shetah bar Yossei.  Since the Talmud is oral traditions written down at least 300 years after Salome's time it could be the nature of her relation to this family had slipped by a generation and really Simeon was her nephew and Shetah her brother.  Since Yossei is a different form of Joseph, that would make Alexander Jannaeus a son in law of a Joseph.  Actually I can't help but suspect the Shetah generation is made up entirely since no Shetah was ever Nasi of the Sanhedrin but a Jose ben Joezer was, (however another candidate for the Joseph of Luke 3:24 is Jose ben Jochanan).

Epiphanius of Salamis in Panarion Book 1 in the section discussing the Nazarenes seems to identify the marriage of Alexander and Salome as uniting the Aaronic and Davidic lines.

This family was one of the leading families of the Sanhedrin, from what I know about other leading families of the Sanhedrin (like the House of Hilel which came later), they often had Davidic ancestry.  And once the Hasmoneans started ruling as Kings it would make sense they'd want to marry into the House of David.  And the two Husbands of Alexandra were the first two to rule as Kings.  So Yossei being a descendant of Nathan Ben David is reasonably plausible.  But I have a hunch the mother of Alexander & Aristobolus and wife of Hyrcanus I was also of Davidic descent.

Actually another good reason for Hasmonean leaders to marry daughters of David was perhaps simply because they were the High Priests.  Aaron's wife was Elisheba, the sister of Nashon who was a prince of Judah and direct ancestor of Boaz and thus of David.  Much later Jehosheba was a daughter of Jehoram and sister of Ahaziah, king of Judah of the House of David, who married the Priest Jehoiada.

Salome and Jannaeus had two sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristoblus II.  From then on with few exceptions all the Hasmoneans are known only by Greek names, but I suspect all or most also had Hebrew names that Josephus simply neglected to record.

But Melchi may not even be the main Hebrew name of whoever is meant, it derives from the Hebrew word for King.  Both sons had been Kings, though I feel Aristobulus II was more likely to have used Melek as an alternate name.

Aristobulus II had two sons and two daughters one of whom was named Alexandra (not to be confused with the Alexandra who married her brother Alexander).  Himself, his son Matthias Antigonus II, and his daughters are recorded as being taken to Rome by Pompey after he captured Jerusalem in 63 BC according to Josephus (Antiquities of The Jews Book 14 Chapter 4, at the end of the chapter).  They later returned to Judea, after the death of Aristobulus II in 48 BC they were protected by Ptolemy Bar Mennaeus according to (Antiquities Book 14 Chapter 7, at the very end).  Phillipon the son of Ptolemy married Alexandra, but later Ptolemy killed him and married Alexandra himself.  The unnamed daughter after Antigonus died held the Hyrcania Fortress till just before Actium in 31 BC.

I suspect the unnamed sister is more likely to have possibly been married to a Levi, (or perhaps that name just signified marrying a Levite or a Levitical priest).

Robert Graves started a fringe theory that involved Matthias Antigonus II as the Matthat of Luke 3:24 (a theory defended in a book called Herodian Messiah).  His scheme however did not match a strict literal interpretation of Scripture and so I do not intend to support it specifically at all.

Janna was a rare name which is why I think it could be significant.  Matthat/Matthias/Matthew was very common however so that's not as significant.  Still hypothetically if this Matthat was Antigonus II, we know pater-lineally only one generation comes between him and Jannaeus, so it would mean he married either his niece or a first cousin once removed.  Neither of which are included in The Bible's incest restrictions, so it would be perfectly legal.

Matthias Antigonus is known to have had at least one daughter.

The Herodian Messiah theory alluded to above is dependent on confusing the two wives of Antipater.  Mariamne III who was a daughter of Aristobulus IV, and an unnamed wife who was a daughter of Matthias Antigonus.  The Herodian Messiah theory makes Antipater the husband of Mary and father of Jesus.  My theory makes a daughter of Antigonus possibly Mary's mother, not Mary herself.

Antipater is a Greek name, so Antipater son of Herod could have had an additional Hebrew or Aramaic name that history hasn't recorded.  Herod was not an Idumean.

It's possible this woman wasn't the only daughter of Antigonus II.  And it's also possible she was already a widow when she was married to Antipater, if Antigonus himself had ever arranged a marriage for her it wouldn't be likely to have been to a Herodian.

I think one factor in why Luke laid out this genealogy how he did was because of the potential significance in the numbers.  Luke's genealogy has Jesus as the 77th from Adam and 70th from Enoch.

Solomon was the youngest son of Bathsheba

People keep referring to Solomon as the oldest surviving son of Bathsheba, and Nathan as the second.

All three verses that list the sons of David and Bathsheba list Solomon as the last of the four and Nathan third.  2 Samuel 5:14, 1 Chronicles 3:5 and 1 Chronicles 14:4.

"And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel:"

Also I personally don't believe the four listed here are only the "surviving" ones, I think even the one that died at birth was given a name, and that name was Shimea.

It is true that 2 Samuel 12:24 in context makes it seem like Solomon's conception happens right when they were done mourning the child that died, but these kinds of texts are not above skipping ahead, fast forwarding a bit.

Meanwhile verses that list children if anything are the opposite, they'd list them out of actual birth order only if it's to list the most important first, like Shem being listed first among Noah's sons in Genesis 5 when 10 confirms Japheth was first, or Abraham listed first among Terah's sons when there's reason to suspect he wasn't the first born either.

In 1 Chronicles 22:5 David emphasizes Solomon's Youth, the relevance to this dispute may be only a matter of a few years, but it could be Solomon as the absolute youngest of the options he was even considering was part of the point.

Among the things said by critics to attack the idea that Jesus had any claim to the Throne of David from Luke's genealogy is that the Throne could only be inherited through Solomon.  Solomon is relevant to II Samuel 7 because he is the near fulfillment, but nothing in Scripture says the Messiah must be descended from Solomon specifically, just David. On top of that go back to the account of the division of The Kingdom in I Kings 11.  It says Solomon's sons will never rule a united kingdom, only Judah.  The Messiah will rule all of Israel.  Meanwhile Zachariah 12:12 makes a reference to the House of Nathan that is interesting.  And 2 Kings 23:11 has a mysterious reference to a "Chamber of Nathan-Melech" Melech meaning King.

Heli of Luke's genealogy is the father of Mary

I hold that common view, but I don't argue it in the more common way that view is presented.  It's not about Heli being Joseph's father in law, at least it's not only that.

In the Greek of Luke 3:23, first of all the order of words are different.  Secondly the entire genealogy in Greek only says "son of" once, and that's before the "as was supposed" which is put in parentheses.

In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article with one exception: the name of Joseph. Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that he was not really part of the genealogy.  I actually believe the parentheses in English should be expanded to include his name.

So I would render it.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli,

Thomas Aquinus also said that Luke says Jesus was the Son of Eli (Heli is a Hellenization of Eli) though he didn't explain why.  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, p. IIIa, q.31, a.3, Reply to Objection 2.

In both Greek and Hebrew the word for Son can mean Grandson or any descendant.

Tribal identity in Israel was usually determined strictly pater-lineally.  But in the case of bastards where the father was unknown, or a proselyte marrying an Israelite woman and fathering children by her, the pater-lineal tribal identity of the mother would determine the tribal identity of that offspring.

Another example of a bad argument to use on this issue is the Talmudic reference sometimes cited as saying Heli was the father of Mary (Chag. 77,4).  This reference only seems to say this when a Christian is quoting it, so independent verification is wanting, and it has been cited by adversaries of this view as saying something different.  

We should not build doctrine on Apocrypha, but the Infancy Gospel of James is interesting.  At first glance it would seem to contradict this view by clearly naming the father of Mary as Joachim.... But....

Joachim is a variant form of the name Jehoiakim.  There is only one Jehoiakim in The Bible, he was a King of Judah of the House of David.  The Infancy Gospel doesn't specify Joachim's ancestry, but it does call Mary a Virgin of the daughters of David.  

King Jehoiakim was also known by the name Eliakim.  Those names not only look similar in how they end, but they have effectively the same meaning, just using a different name of God to communicate the meaning.  "He whom God has kept".  So it's probable any Jehoiakim could have also been called Eliakim, especially if a later one was named after the King.

Eli could very easily serve as a shortening of Eliakim.  And as I already said Heli was a Hellenization of Eli.

Yet the Infancy Gospel wouldn't have done it this way if it was seeking out to say the Biblical Heli is Mary's father.  While plenty in the Infancy Gospel is clearly false, being the prototype of Catholic Marian doctrines.  It may have been influenced by some real history that was passed on.

Herod The Great probably was not of Idumean ancestry

The common claim that Herod was Idumean is built entirely on one passage in Josephus that itself acknowledges that isn't the only view of Herod’s ancestry.  Yet everyone on this issue is inclined to trust Josephus over Nicolaus of Damascus in spite of the fact that Josephus himself had an agenda in writing this History the way he did.

First I’m going to Copy/Paste here exactly the relevant passage from Josephus.

Antiquities of The Jews Book 14 Chapter 1 Section 3.

https://gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link142HCH0001

“ But there was a certain friend of Hyrcanus, an Idumean, called Antipater, who was very rich, and in his nature an active and a seditious man; who was at enmity with Aristobulus, and had differences with him on account of his good-will to Hyrcanus. It is true that Nicolaus of Damascus says, that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son, and who, by certain revolutions of fortune, came afterward to be king of the Jews, whose history we shall give you in its proper place hereafter. However, this Antipater was at first called Antipas, and that was his father's name also; of whom they relate this: That king Alexander and his wife made him general of all Idumea, and that he made a league of friendship with those Arabians, and Gazites, and Ascalonites, that were of his own party, and had, by many and large presents, made them his fast friends.”

Here are my issues with what Josephus says about this.

First: It makes no sense to me that Alexander Janneus would appoint someone who was an Idumean to govern a people they’d recently conquered and forcibly converted and intend to fully assimilate in a region he intend to fully annex.  In that situation like when Rome appointed governors of full provinces you appoint someone fully of the ruling nation not the local population.  What was called Idumea during this period was Biblically the heart of Judah's tribal allotment, so I see a lot of logic in letting a descendent of David govern it.

Second: When Rome appointed Client Kings they were always someone with legitimate verifiable Royal Ancestry of the people they are being appointed to rule.  Even Tigranes V of Armenia did descend from Tigranes The Great through his mother.  I know a lot of modern fictionalizations of Ancient Rome want to make it seem like anyone with enough money could just bride the Senate into making them a King, but the Romans understood that in order for a puppet King to be accepted in a culture used to hereditary Monarchy he needed something of a valid ancestry. Herod would have needed to be of Davidic Ancestry especially if he indeed wasn’t a Hasmonean.  Because Rome didn’t crown him King of the Idumeans but King of The Jews.

Third: Look into the history of Costobarus the man who actually led the Idumeans during Herod’s reign, Herod oppressed the Idumeans in a way distinct from the way he can be said to have oppressed the Jews, he clearly viewed them as a Subjugated people not his own people.  Josephus talks about this in Antiquities of The Jews Book 15 Chapter 7 sections 9 and 10. 

https://gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link152HCH0007

Now you may object that “Josephus wasn’t even hostile to all the Herodians, he seems to have liked both Agrippas?".  Those Herods had Hasmonean heritage either way through Mariamne.  Josephus claimed a Hasmonean connection for himself at the start of his autobiography so that kinship may have meant more to him than descent from David anyway.  So Josephus' genealogy makes the Herodians he doesn't like foreigners who shouldn't have ruled Israel and the ones he does like part of a unified dynasty with equal right to rule both Israel and Idumea.

It frustrates me how many Christians take this so for granted they try to read it sub-textually into Herod’s New Testament significance, saying that when The Magi said “Born King of The Jews” it’s partially a dig at Herod’s Idumean heritage.  

The New Testament doesn’t address Herod’s ancestry one way or the other.  But by showing that Jesus’ descent from David could still be documented it does testify against the plausibility of Nicolas of Damascus being able to get away with simply making a Davidic ancestry up. When Josephus wrote Antiquities however much of those records had been destroyed with The Temple in the War, so he could lie about Herod’s ancestry (or uncritically repeat lies others told) without being fact checked.

If the Magi were commenting on an issue with Herod's legal right to rule at all, it could just be him not being the Senior Heir even to his father, he was not Anipater's First-Born.

But mostly I think they are only referring to how Jesus Kingship is more valid because it's ordained by God.  A normal Hereditary Monarch doesn't become King at birth but when their father dies.

I often allude to this view of mine when discussing other things, so I felt it was about time I devoted a specific to defending it. 

Update February 4th 2025: I've now argued that the Idumeans weren't Edomites but only in time accused of being Edomites.  So that could go either way in terms of it's impact on this. 

Update February 12th 2025: I've even become skeptical of the presumable Greek Etymology of the name Herod wondering if it could relate to the designation Harodite from 2 Samuel 23:25.

Update January 19th 2026: I argued all this without knowing about what Julius Africanus said in AD 200 which I found on a Wikipedia Page about the history of how "Palestine" is used. 

 Sextus Julius Africanus, Epistle to Aristides: Some Idumean robbers attacking Ascalon, a city of Palestine, besides other spoils which they took from a temple of Apollo, which was built near the walls, carried off captive one Antipater, son of a certain Herod, a servant of the temple. And as the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterwards enjoyed the friendship of Hyrcanus, the high priest of Judea. And being sent on an embassy to Pompey on behalf of Hyrcanus, and having restored to him the kingdom which was being wasted by Aristobulus his brother, he was so fortunate as to obtain the title of procurator of Palestine.^{["Epistle to Aristides" (PDF). Retrieved 2018-06-12.]}

I feel very stupid having missed this, but it's not like I regularly read Africanus. 

Too be frank I still this isn't exactly what happened either, it still presumes a degree of Cultural Idemainism in the Herodians I don't believe existed.  But it may be the result of reconciling Josephus's narrative with a different tradition. 

A theory about the Death of James The Just, The brother of Jesus

According to a passage found in existing manuscripts of Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, (xx.9) "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus, yet before Lucceius Albinus took office (Antiquities 20,9) — which has been dated to 62 A.D.. The High Priest Hanan ben Hanan (Anani Ananus in Latin) took advantage of this lack of imperial oversight to assemble a Sanhedrin (although the correct translation of the Greek synhedion kriton is "a council of judges"), who condemned James "on the charge of breaking the law," then had him executed by stoning. Josephus reports that Hanan's act was widely viewed as little more than judicial murder and offended a number of "those who were considered the most fair-minded people in the City, and strict in their observance of the Law," who went as far as meeting Albinus as he entered the province to petition him about the matter. In response, King Agrippa II replaced Ananus with Jesus son of Damneus.

But early Christian tradition (recounted in Hegesippus) says James was thrown off the Temple in 66-70 AD.  Simeon becoming the second Bishop of Jerusalem is consistently dated to that time. Later post Constantine Christian historians tried awkwardly to reconcile these accounts.

Also, some skeptics of the Historicity of Jesus insist that "who was called Christ" is a latter addition not in Jospehus's original.  But the majority of legitimate scholars reject that.

However, a poster on IMDB's old Message Boards who's username was austenw (who didn't view The Bible to be inerrant) had an interesting theory that it's the name of James that was added latter.

 it's a matter of Greek grammar; the sentence reads:

    "Ananus ...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was named Christ - James his name - and some others;"

In this quotation, blue = nominative (subject); red = accusative (object), green = genitive (possessive), purple = dative (a difficult one to define, but can be a bit like possessive).

Crucially, the words "his name, James" in the nominative, does not fit into the architecture of the sentence; it could be removed without altering the grammar whatsoever, between the two accusatives "the brother" and "some others".

More importantly, however, the "traditional" theory - that the name James is original and the reference to Jesus is the interpolation - simply can't be correct, because were this to be so, then "James" would have had to have originally been in the accusative, or else he wouldn't have been knit into the architecture of the sentence at all, and the "[was] his name" would have been entirely redundant. This means that the supposed interpolator would have had to go to the trouble of changing a perfectly acceptable accusative case for "James" to the nominative case, and adding "his name", and for no reason whatsoever. Why bother to do this, when he could simply have added the clause "the brother (accusative).. etc", after the name?

However, if "James [was] his name" was originally a marginal note - written in the nominative, playing no grammatical part within the sentence - all makes sense. A later scribe included the marginal note, verbatim, in the only place he could - after the words "the brother of Jesus called Christ" - since nowhere else would have done.

 So basically that would mean it was possibly another Brother of Jesus (not named by Josephus) who was stoned in 62 A.D.  But someone leaving a marginal note later assumed it was the most famous of them.

Two of Jesus half brothers are known to have served as Bishop of Jerusalem. first James from the beginning of the Church until whenever he died. Then Simon from around 69 (Traditions agree he became Bishop just before the Destruction of the Second Temple) till 107 A.D.

We don't know much about Joses or Jude however.  Jude we know had later descendants, two grandchildren who were alive during the reign of Domitian, and Judah Kyriakos who was the last Jewish Bishop of Jerusalem. Though the start of his period as bishop of Jerusalem is not known, Judah is said to have lived beyond the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136), up to about the eleventh year of Antoninus Pius (148 A.D.).

Matthew 27:56 refers to some of the Women at the Cross when Jesus was crucified.  "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."  Mark 15:40-161 refers to the same first two women, but the third is simply a woman named Salome, (the only time that name is used in the New Testament).  Luke doesn't name the women at all.  John's Gospel in chapter 19 alone informs us clearly that Mary the Mother of Jesus was there.

Joses is a shortened form of Joseph.  The only other Joseph refereed to as Joses in The Gospels is the half-brother of Jesus (and an ancestor of Jesus in Luke's genealogy).  At face value John's Gospel is the only one that obviously tells us the Mother of Jesus was among those women. 

I think in Matthew and Mark, the Mary mother of James and Joses is the same as the Mother of Jesus, but why is she not refereed to as such?  Maybe because of the events of Matthew 12-13 and Mark 6 the narrative voice ceases to refer to Jesus biological relatives as such after he effectively temporarily disowns them.

Why name only two of her four other Sons?  Who knows, but in Mark a later references to clearly the same Woman refers to only one.  James and Joses are the two oldest in the list of Jesus brothers.

As far as the more popular view of making the mother of James and Joses the same as Mary the Wife of Cleophas/Clopas.  Cleophas/Clopas I feel is likely the disciple (probably one of the 70 but not one of the 12) Cleopas from Luke 14, the Road to Emmaus.  He's probably the same generation as the 12.

That view conflicts with making this person the same as the Alpheaus who is the father of the James and Jude among the 12.  Cleopas being a parent of any among the 12 is unlikely.  The tradition making Clopas the brother of Joseph has it's origin among those early fathers seeking to deny the siblings of Jesus were of Mary.

Certain authors devising alternative history theories have sought to say that Joseph of Arimathea was an uncle of Jesus, and one that he was the same person as James the half-brother of Jesus.  Logically it would make more sense if you want to make him a half-brother of Jesus to go with Joses.

Joseph of Arimathea is introduced in essentially the same narrative that deals with the Women at the Cross.  I think it would make sense to use the full name when referring to him and the shortened form when referring to someone else as a relative of him.  The last verse of Mark 15 refers to Mary only as the mother of Joses while finishing the narrative of Joseph of Airmathea arranging the burial of Jesus.

There is also the fact that this responsibility Joseph of Arimathea takes, burying the body, is one that in Jewish Custom belonged to the nearest living relatives.

The only problem with that theory is that the traditional assumption is none of Jesus brothers became Believers till after the Resurrection.  We know none were when John 7 occurs, half a year before the Crucifixion.  That fact refutes any theory reliant on making any of the 12 Disciples the same as any of the people refereed to as his siblings (a strategy used by some both for and against them being children of Mary).

But a lot can change in 6-7 months.

He could have moved from Nazareth to Arimathea (I agree with the theory that NT Arimathea is one of the OT Ramah or Ramaths, or perhaps Ramoth which was in Issachar in 1 Chronicles 6:73 and thus near Nazareth), sometime after their father died. But it's also possible Arimathea was an epithet not meant to identify a city, there is a lot of speculation involved here.

If Joses was Joseph of Airmathea then he was in the Sanhedrin.  Antiquities 20.9 does not explicitly say this half brother of Jesus was a Sanhedrin member, but the over all theme of Josephus in depicting these murders leading up to 70 AD is about people that were prominent but against doing a violent revolution against Rome.

Catholics like to argue the references to these four brothers and unnamed sisters are using the words loosely, referring to cousins or close friends or something.  The Greek words for brother and sister are sometimes used in similar senses, I've seen interesting theories about Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany, but context tells us the difference.

Mark 6 is about contrasting a strict literal definition to one that widens it.  As I said above Jesus effectively disowns His biological family who didn't yet believe in Him, and said His true family are those who believe in Him.

And if the New Testament writers felt this word for brother could apply to a cousin, as is popularly suggested.  Why not use it of John The Baptist who is more undisputedly then anyone else in The Gospel narrative a cousin of Jesus?  Maybe they'd say he's not a first cousin, he'd be second at the closest.

Another attempt to reconcile this with the perpetual virginity heresy is to say they are sons Joseph had by a different wife.  Because these same people are uncomfortable with acknowledging polygamy still went on in Judaism at this time, they insist a wife who died before he married Mary.  But if Jesus isn't the First-Born Son legally to both parents then He isn't the rightful Heir to David.  Yes a younger son superseding the actual First-Born is a common theme in Scripture, but if Jesus were an example of that the Gospel writers, especially Matthew, would have stressed it.  Those supercedings happen to help show how God doesn't really care about the formalities of The Law.  But Jesus himself had to be a perfect fulfillment of The Law.

The wording in Mark 6 of "the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."  Starts with Mary and doesn't even mention Joseph (who is generally theorized to have died by then).  That tells me these siblings are siblings via being also sons and daughters of that same Mary.

Some will use that James the Brother of Jesus is called an Apostle by Paul in Galatians to prove he's one of the 12.  I already showed why these individuals can't be counted among the 12.  Apostle applied to any eye witness of the Resurrection.  Which is why Paul used it of himself calling himself the last Apostle.  And in Roman 16 identifies as among the Apostles a couple not even mentioned anywhere else in Scripture.  Paul also distinguishes this James from the 12 in 1 Corinthians 15.

Matthew 1:25 says of Joseph.  "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son." This verse isn't just saying he didn't know her before, it also clearly tells us he did know her after.

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.