Did Mary Cheat on Joseph?
Key Passage 1
Matthew 1:1
Observation 1
Did you know Matthew's inclusion of Yeshua's genealogy was an apologetic answer to slander and rumor circulations regarding Mary's integrity?
Yes - one (main) thing that commonly gets missed in Matthew's opening with the genealogy of Jesus was to prove that Mariam, the mother of Jesus, did not cheat on her husband with a roman solider.
Sure, Jesus was Jewish, and after the Babylonian exile Jews were meticulous in record keeping (c.f., Ezra 2:61–63 )
And sure, the genealogy ties Jesus to Abraham which is significant for the Abrahamic Covenant and the Seed, while also demonstrating Davidic descent to validate His Messiahship.
That said, it's also important to note Origen (248 AD), in his polemic against a 2nd century work by a pagan philosopher named Celsus, quotes an accusation of Celsus, which says:
"when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera” - Origen, Contra Celsum 1.32
As early as 175-180 AD, Celsus is traced propagating a rumor that Mary cheated on her husband and bore Jesus as the result of her adultery. By contextual implication, the rumor infers Jesus was half gentile, his father being a Roman solider, which discredits the Jewishness of Jesus, undermines the virgin birth, while disqualifying him from being the Messiah due to paternal contradictions.
Where did this pagan philosopher, the Christian critic Celsus get this information from?
Well, it's highly likely he got it from Jewish anti-missionaries. Stitching together Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a, with Sanhedrin 43a, the Babylonian Talmud paints a picture of a "Mary" sleeping with a "Pandera (Panthera)" and having a son introduced as "ben Stada", who is discussed because of his idolatry which led to capital punishment (in short). When this figure is discussed, he is introduced nameless,
“Did not Ben Stada bring magic out of Egypt by means of scratches/incisions in his flesh?” b. shabbat 104b
When the figure is mentioned, it triggers this exchange:
"Gemara: “Ben Stada? He was Ben Pandera!”
Rav Ḥisda: “The husband was Stada; the lover was Pandera.”
Gemara: “But wasn't the husband Pappos ben Yehuda?”
Gemara: “Rather, his mother was Stada.”
Gemara: “But wasn't his mother Miriam, who braided women's hair?”
Gemara: “Rather, as they say in Pumbedita: ‘This one strayed from her husband.’”
Thus, from this exchange, once the unnamed magician is introduced as Ben Stada, the Gemara objects: “Ben Stada? He was Ben Pandera!” Rav Hisda initially attempts to reconcile the names by saying that Stada was the husband and Pandera the lover. The Gemara objects that the husband was actually Pappos ben Yehuda. It then proposes that Stada was the mother, only to object again that his mother was Miriam, the women's hairdresser/braider.
Finally, “Stada” is explained through the wordplay, “This one strayed from her husband.” Thus, within the logic of the exchange, Miriam is the mother, Pappos ben Yehuda is her husband, Pandera is the lover (Celsus: Panthera), and “Stada” is explained by her alleged marital infidelity.
Later we see that this same "Ben Stada" was hanged (displayed, potentially crucified) on Passover Eve. - Sanhedrin 67a
Point 1
Matthew 1:17 — 14 + 14 + 14
Matthew says:
Abraham to David = 14
David to Babylonian exile = 14
Babylonian exile to Messiah = 14
If you count Matthew's listed names according to his divisions, there's an overlap at the boundaries:
First: Abraham to David = 14
Second: David to Jeconiah/exile = 14 (counting David again)
Then the third group is the interesting one:
Jeconiah
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Zadok
Achim
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph
Jesus
So there are 14 names from Jeconiah through Jesus.
But if you're starting after Jeconiah, because Jeconiah already appeared in the second group, then you get only 13 new names:
Shealtiel to Jesus = 13
There are 41 distinct names in the genealogy as written.
Why?
His 3 × 14 is a literary/genealogical grouping in which a boundary figure can participate in adjacent sections.
Matthew is deliberately arranging a genealogy into a 3 × 14 literary structure and has omitted generations elsewhere (c.f. Matt 1:8 with 1 Chr 3).
But... Matthew is especially transparent about what he's doing... he's presenting the genealogy as three organized sets of fourteen generations, not giving us a modern spreadsheet of 42 unique names.
Why?
In Hebrew, David = דָּוִד (D-V-D):
ד (dalet) = 4
ו (vav) = 6
ד (dalet) = 4
Total = 14
So דוד = 4 + 6 + 4 = 14.
That makes Matthew's structure:
14 generations -> 14 generations -> 14 generations
DAVID -> DAVID -> DAVID
And notice how Matthew opens the genealogy:
“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (Matt 1:1)
Then Matthew 1:17 specifically organizes the genealogy around David:
Abraham to David = 14
David to exile = 14
exile to Messiah = 14
So the numerical structure itself appears to emphasize Jesus as the Davidic Messiah.
There's another important point:
Matthew deliberately omits known kings from the genealogy.
For example, between Joram and Uzziah (Matt 1:8), the OT genealogies contain Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.
That strongly suggests Matthew isn't accidentally arriving at fourteen—he has intentionally shaped the genealogy into groups of fourteen.
I dont know about Luke (habent studied that out yet), but this geneology is intentional, its strategic.
Matthew isn't primarily saying, “Here is an exhaustive biological list; count everybody and verify my arithmetic.”
He's constructing a David-centered literary genealogy:
Matthew isn't primarily saying, “Here is an exhaustive biological list; count everybody and verify my arithmetic.” He's constructing a David-centered literary genealogy.
That's generally called gematria (or more precisely, a numerical value based on Hebrew letters), and Matthew's 14-David connection is widely recognized by commentators.
Conclusion
When you carefully assess the hostile climate of the early Church, you find that much of the Apostolic Writings were themselves written in response to competing claims, rumors, false doctrines, and challenges to the faith.
Furthermore, there are conceptual differences to historical record keeping thats hard for our modern (western) minds to grasp. Narration of History was more so for ideological purposes, in contrast to conveying straight forward detailed facts.
Thus, to the believer who says to much study, apologetics/debates are unhealthy, remind them that many of the very things they believe about Jesus - and even how they understand the Word of God - have been shaped by somebody's study, and ancient arguments that were vigorously defended, challenged, won, or lost.