Editing Matthew 1:6 (section)

==Analysis==
This verse marks the end of the first third of [[Genealogy of Jesus|the genealogy]] as the list and the transition from the list of descendants of [[Abraham]] to the list of the [[Kings of Judah]].  This change is marked by the reference to "David the king."  [[Robert H. Gundry]] also sees the reference to "David the king", an Old Testament turn of phrase, as an attempt to present him as a prototype for "[[Jesus, King of the Jews|Jesus the king]]."<ref name=gundry>[[Robert H. Gundry|Gundry, Robert H.]] ''Matthew a Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art.'' Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.</ref>

Allison suggests that the key to understanding the composition of the genealogy is the device known as '[[gematria]]', where 'names are given numerical value' (cf. {{bibleverse|Revelation|13:18|KJV}}).{{sfn|Allison|2007|p=848}} The name of "David" in Hebrew consists of only three consonants, which the numerical value amounts to fourteen: ''[[Dalet|d]]'' + ''[[Waw (letter)|w]]'' + ''[[Dalet|d]]'' = 4 + 6 + 4, so that as David's name is the fourteenth on the list, that he is given the title 'king', and that 'David' occurs both before and after the genealogy, it can be inferred that 'David' is the structural key to {{bibleverse|Matthew|1:2-17|KJV}}.{{sfn|Allison|2007|p=848}}

The genealogy of [[Luke 3]] and Matthew diverge at this point.  Previously the lists from Abraham to David were identical.  While Matthew continues to [[Solomon]], Luke links to David's less well known son [[Nathan (son of David)|Nathan]]. One explanation for this divergence is that Luke's genealogy is of [[Mary (mother of Jesus)|Mary]]'s father [[Heli (biblical figure)|Heli]] rather than of Joseph.  Gundry argues that the divergence is because while Luke was following Joseph's biological ancestry, Matthew is listing Jesus' predecessors as the leader of the Jewish people.<ref name=gundry/>

The wife of [[Uriah the Hittite]] mentioned as the mother of Solomon is [[Bathsheba]]. Mentioning her by only her first husband's name emphasizes both her foreignness and the adulterous nature of her union with David. She is one of four women that are included in the genealogy (the other three are: [[Tamar (Genesis)|Tamar]], [[Rahab]] and [[Ruth (biblical figure)|Ruth]]; not counting [[Mary, mother of Jesus]]). Fowler states that the addition of the female names to the genealogy was not only unprecedented, but that the very idea would have been "abhorrent" to the traditional authorities.<ref name=fowler>Fowler, Harold. ''The Gospel of Matthew: Volume One.'' Joplin: College Press, 1968.</ref> [[William F. Albright]] and C.S. Mann support the popular theory that the four women are mentioned to highlight the important roles women have played in the past and also to portray Mary, the Mother of Jesus, as the equal of these well-known figures.<ref>[[William F. Albright|Albright, W.F.]] and C.S. Mann. "Matthew." ''[[The Anchor Bible Series]].'' New York: Doubleday & Company, 1971.</ref> [[Raymond E. Brown]] feels these women are added to show that [[God]] often works through women and also that his actions are not always in keeping with standard mores.<ref>[[Raymond E. Brown|Brown, Raymond E.]] ''The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke''. London: G. Chapman, 1977.</ref> [[Feminist]] scholars such as [[Amy-Jill Levine]] support the idea that the addition of women to the male dominated genealogy demonstrates that women have an important role and serves to undermine the [[Patriarchy|patriarchal]] message of the long list of male begat male.<ref>Levine, Amy-Jill. "Matthew." ''Women's Bible Commentary''. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe, eds. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.</ref> [[Robert H. Gundry]] suggests that all four have a dubious reputation and sees their addition to the genealogy as an attempt to show that the great leaders of Jewish history have origins as undignified as those of Jesus,<ref name=gundry/> although Harolf Fowler disagrees, arguing that under any circumstances the author of Matthew would have been unlikely to link the Virgin Mary to harlots and adulterers.<ref name=fowler/>