Exceptions occur only in the case of irregularity of descent or where there is something noteworthy about the woman’s name. Strack-Billerbeck 1.15; compare Mary in the New Testament, ed. Raymond E. Brown et al. (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978), p. 78.


On the likelihood that Matthew himself included the women in the genealogy, see Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ., 1969), pp. 154–159; and Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977).


Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), p. 157. In a way, Judah performed the levirate duty for his son without intending to, because of Tamar’s initiative. But Leviticus 18:15 forbids sexual intercourse between a man and his daughter-in-law.


Johnson, Purpose, pp. 154, 271.


E.g., Testament of Judah 10:6; b. Sota 10b; b. Horayot. 10b; y. Sota 1:4 (16d, 5a); Genesis Rabbah 85.


Philo, Legum Allegoriae 3.74; Quod Deus 137.


Philo, De congressu eruditionis gratia 124; cf. De fuga et inventione 149–156; De virtutibus 220–222.


Origen, In Matt. 1:5.


Raymond E. Brown, “Rachab in Mt 1, 5 Probably Is Rahab of Jericho,” Biblica 63 (1982), pp. 79–80. Cf. Y. Zakowitch, “Rahab als Mutter des Boas in der Jesus-Genealogie (Matth. 1.5),” Novus Testamentum 17 (1975), pp. 1–5.


T. Drorah Setel, “Prophets and Pornography: Female Sexual Imagery in Hosea,” Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Letty Russell (Phildelphia: Westminster/John Knox, 1985), pp. 89–90.


Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), p. 166.


Baruch A. Levine, “In Praise of the Israelite Mišpāḥâ: Legal Themes in the Book of Ruth,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God, ed. Harry B. Huffmon et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), p. 106.


The rabbinic writings are far more concerned with the fact that she is a foreigner—and a Moabite at that. According to Deuteronomy 22:3, “No Ammorite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation.” The law could apply to David through Ruth.


See Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 7.131.


See Susan Niditch, “The Wronged Woman Righted,” Harvard Theological Review 72 (1979), pp. 143–149.