A another contributing matter to be considered, despite what Rabbinical tradition will suggest, is the simple fact that while there are numerous families and their genealogies of Judah named in the scriptures, including the one of David with Boaz included, there is not any mention of the 'birthright' ancestry of Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion from Judah in the formal scriptural Jewish genealogies unless one properly considers I Chronicals 5:1-2 as a clarification of the situation. Obed was 'raised up as the seed of the dead', namely Mahlon and Boaz sacrificed a portion of his wealth for the purchase of that which was Elimelech's, Mahlon's and Chilion's to be the rights and properties of 'family inheritance' to be bestowed upon Obed. Boaz was the redeeming kinsman of Elimelech and Mahlon who took it upon himself according to the laws of God given by Moses to married Ruth and be the surogate father of Ruth's firstborn son who was rightfully consider to be 'a son of Naomi', Naomi being the last living member of the house of Elibelech and Mahlon. The question to be investigated is, 'If Elimelech was a kinsman of Boaz as being of the tribe of Judah, then where is Elimelech's Jewish ancestry? By God's law Elimelech and Mahlon were the legal and rightful ancestors of Obed according to 'birthright' and 'inheritacne'. All that was the family inheritances of the house of Elimelech went to Obed, Ruth's firstborn son. That was the very critical discused point of Ruth chapter 4 of what was being performed accordng to Israel's law in respect to Ruth's marriage to raise up seed to the dead.

It is in the last 5 'tacted on' verses, 18-22, of the last and 4th chapter of the book of Ruth that well establishes the 'bloodline' genealogy of Boaz the 'blood' ancestor of Obed. That genealogy is presented at the right. This genealogy does two things. It uncharacteristicly presents a bloodline genealogy in preference to a legal and rightful genealogy. Boaz had married Ruth, as verses 5 and 10 of Ruth 4 stipulate, to raise up seed to the dead Mahlon and to preserve that family's inheritence. Obed was legally of the house of Elimelech and Mahlon. Why then is not the more 'rightful' genealogy of the House of Mahlon presented rather than Boaz as the father of Obed? Secondly, it also, very uncharacteristically, totally leaves out the lawful, legal, and rightful genealogy of Obed in preference to the preferred Jewish bloodline ancestry. In Matthew's Jewish aimed gospel, it was Matthew's very intent to state Jesus' 'inheritance line ancestry', which gave to Jesus the right of claim as the heir of King David. There according to Jewish tradition and preference the legal and rightful ancestry which made of Jesus the King of the Jews. Where does the Old Testament do the same for Obed? Only if one considers 1 Chronicles 5:1-2 to be that declaration of Obed and thus King David's 'birthright' being as of Joseph, does the Bible ever say anything concerning Obed's 'birthright' ancestry from the house of Elimelech and Mahlon. Certainly the Jewish 'editing and annotating' perspective is well stated that, in that 'the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright for Judah prevailed above his brethren'—namely Joseph, Ephraim and/or Israel.

Ya-but, one says, the ancestry of Mahlon and Elimelech is but the 'same' genealogy of Judah as is Boaz, they being 'brothers'. This presumes that in the strictist since the word 'brothers' literally means that Boaz, Ploni Almoni, and Elimelech were actual sibling brothers. And this seems to be the basis for a much later contrived Rabinnic 'Midrash' type of interpretation supported by the Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 91a, which Bava Batra deals with such matters as property laws, inheritences, and such related ancestrial lines. Of course the 'Talmud' was not written and prepared until after the time of Christ and can be shown in many instances to specifically tend to both discredit and purposefully write Jesus Christ out from being the Messiah, which we know him to be, and it does so from the very slanted Jewish biased perspective upon the matter. This 'bias' as discussed later is not only exhibited in the Rabinnical Talmud writings, but as later discussed, it can be seen in conjunction with that actual 'presavation process' of the Torah, the prophets and other such Old Testament writings. And it cannot be dismised that the 'added' last five verses of Ruth chapter 4 may well have been just such an added Jewish editorial commentary favoring the 'Jewish' ancestory over the herein considered Ephraimite ancestry of the house of David.

Now, while the initial seeming premise to the 'Rabbinic' interpretation to the ancestry of Elimelech is based upon a very 'strict' application of the word 'brother' to mean of being siblings of the same father and mother, even the Rabbinic interpretation then take liberty with that 'strict' interpretation by making of Boaz at best 'Nephew' and 'Cousin' rather than an actual brother to Elimelech and Mahlon. Graphically the Talmud interpreted ancestry is now presented and next stated. It states that the great and courageous Jewish prince Nahshon had four sons including Elimelech, 'Ploni Almoni', Shalmon (Salmon) who was the father of Boaz. and the fourth the unnamed father of Naomi herself. This ties the whole matter of the legal and rightful ancestry of 'inheritence' of not only Obed but king David and Jesus Christ into a very 'neat' Jewish bundle. But we will point out that this by its very nature is just 'too' neat to be true and there are gaping flaws in this overly compack contrivance of the after Christ Rabbinic personal interpretations from supposed 'oral traditions'.

It can be clearly seen from the above graphic on the left, that according to the 'imagined' rabbinic interpretation, that Elimelech would have married his neice Naomi, which is not entirely without presedence, as Abraham did the same in marrying Sarai or Sarah, the daughter of his brother. And it is also clearly shown, according to this contrivance, that Boaz is of the family of Elimelech, which Ruth 2:1 so directly states but as his Nephew rather than 'brother' as is the similar case betwix Jacob and Laban (and in the scriptures Laban does refer to his Nephew Jacob as 'brother'). But according to the presented genealogy, Boaz is also of the family of Naomi, they being first cousins, their fathers being brothers. This is but a little flaw though, that it isn't stated that Boaz was of the family of Elimelech and Naomi, but the scripture seems to imply that Naomi was not of that family and the Rabinnic writing does stipulate otherwise.

In fact there is other matters of 'property' which would set into question this Rabbinic interpretation. If Ploni Almoni, the nearer relative of right to Elimelech were in fact Elimelech's brother, there should be no matter of 'purchase' within the consideration as right to the property of his brother other than a redemption payment to take it out of debt but also Naomi would not have the right to sell the property upon the death of Elimelech, as Ploni Almoni as brother would possibly have such a right without a marriage to Ruth. The Laws of Inheritance (Hilkhot Nahalot) set out that upon the deaths of Mahlon and Chilion, the land would have reverted to Elimelech's brothers, thus 'Ploni Almoni' would not have had to 'purchase' the land of Naomi nor would he have had to marry Ruth to have claim upon the land. This throws a wrench into the entire Rabbinnic writing of Bava Batra 91a in setting out that Elimelech, Ploni Almoni (Tov as such gives his name there) or such a one. And if Salmon, father of Boaz, were so closely related as being brothers, the sons of Nahshon, Boaz might also claim such right via his father's claim. But is Ruth did marry and have a son raised to the dead house of Elimelech then the 'brothers' would loose their claim and thus perhaps the real problem at hand, as the inheritance would fall to such as Obed being a legal 'descendant son' other than into the hands of 'uncle/brother' or 'cousin/nephew'. As Obed was heir to the lands of Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion, it would be those lands upon which David grew up on, the Ramah hills of Ephraim.

The graphic at the right above presumes some traditional considerations as well. One tradition has Rahab, the innkeeper of Jericho, becoming the wife or 'a wife' of Joshua and having some daughters who become ancesters to various prominant prophets and such. It is of some question whether Rahab of the Joshua and Jericho era would be of the same age as the father of Boaz and of a young enough age to baer Boaz as a son? But her daughter of Joshua might and that could be the maternal link between the family of Elimelech and Boaz, similar to how Rebecca was the maternal link between Jacob and Laban who were called in the Bible 'brothers'. And if so it brings further meaning and insight to that scripture of history in 1 Chronicles which clearly attempts to distinguish the why of the genealogy being kept per Judah's bloodline 'though' the 'birthright' blessings to the ancestry of the Messiah were Joseph's.

Now, 'Such a one', named Ploni Almoni by the Hebrew Bible or 'Tov' by traditional stories, would be the 'nearer kinsman' being brother rather than nephew as Boaz is made out to be. And as the brother of Elimelech, he would have a claim to the land directly as being Elimelech's brother. It would have reverted to him by right. Likewise, if Solmon was the brother of Elimelech, he would have by law and right the same such claim, but not if he were but 'in-lawed' out of any such claim. But Boaz, being Nephew by maternal marriage with his mother being a sister to Elimelech, he would have a more distant claim, being the son of Rachab, likely daughter of Joshua by Rahab. Thus what this logic sets out is that the term 'brother' in Ruth in reference to Boaz and Ploni Almoni, is that neither of them were actual sibling blood brothers but more generically, 'brothers' in the same since that Jacob and Laban where 'brothers'. And this seems to be the more correct Old Testament interpretation of 'brothers' and 'sisters' being 'related' but not necessarily of the most strictly defined immediate family of father, mother, brother, and sister. This is further discussed in the topic of what it means to be a 'brother' or 'sister' in the Old Testament. And it must therefore be concluded that the later more 'strict' interpretation of the Levitical Law of Marriage just applying to immediate sibling brothers is of latter Jewish interpretation and not what was had in the Old Testament Law.

This brings us to the actual proposed ancestry of Obed and thus Christ, being outside of Judah by legal right of law through Elimelech the Ephrathite or Ephraimite. This ancestry is graphically set out to the right. Thus there is no known connection between Ploni Almoni, Boaz and Elimelech except that they where all part of Elimelech's extended family and not the Jewish proposed family of the Talmud of Nahshon for the reasons set out immediately here and also for all those set out throughout this presentation. The most likely conclusion must be such a family relationship as was between Mary and Elisabeth and John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. They where 'cousins' but not through a strict fatherly or paternal relationship. Their family relationship would have had to have been maternal as Jesus was of the house of David and John the Baptist was a Levite. So such is considered to be the family relationship of Elimelech and Boaz. Boaz was a Judite of Jewish descent and Elimelech was an Ephrathite of Ephraimite descent, and yet they were 'brothers' in the same since that Jacob and Laban were brothers and that Abraham and Sarah where brother and sister.

Now the Biblical genealogies of Judah are vastly more set out than those of Ephraim. In 1 Chronicles 2-3 is where a goodly share of the genealogies of Judah are presented as the bulk of those two chapters. In fact the ancestry of Hur is noted as the 'firstborn' and father of Bethlehem in 1 Chronicles 5:4. This is not Nahshon's line at all. And if Elimelech was of the house of Judah, one might consider that he could have been of that line. But he was not. He was an Ephrathite and never mentioned in any of the Biblical genealogies of the families of Judah.

Now the New Testament genealogies of Jesus present somewhat of an enigma of there own without bring in the consideration of Joseph of Egypt. There are two diferring genealogies set out by Matthew and Luke. In short one seems to be parent oriented through bloodline father to son (Luke) and the other is by which right the claim to the Jewish throne did come (Matthew). At least that is one consideration. Another consideration is that one represents Joseph's ancestry and the other Mary's. Joseph and Mary were near cousins and their ancestry should not so differ along the vast range of ancestry. So that is easily dismissed. Mary was mother of Jesus by birth and Joseph the carpenter was father by the claim of legal adoption as Joseph presented himself to be the father of Jesus and taught him his trade.

What can most assuredly be pointed out about the New Testament genealogies of Matthew and Luke is that they both have the intent to show that Jesus was the legal and rightful 'Son of David'. And since the book of Ruth had already set out and emphasised that David, Jesse, and Obed where born through the line of Boaz and Ruth, it is most understandable that this was the only well preserved ancestral line that could have possibly been set out through Boaz the Jew. The details of the ancestry of the legal and lawful by right ancestry of Christ through Elimelech had long been surpressed and lost in the records of the Jews. And only the Rabbinnic Talmud after the time of Christ did attempt to resurrect it by forcing it to be a matter of all those related being of the house of Nahshon the Jew, which we have already just discused and refuted as being likely.

So what is left? Perhaps we will have to wait until Christ so declares his genealogy Himself. Or perhaps when the plates of brass are allowed to be brought forth, they will present the true legal line of Christ through the ancestry of Mahlon and Elimelech as to the right to the priesthood, the blessings of the fathers and the covenant blessings of Abraham preserved in the house of Joseph (D&C 27:10) and thence through Ephraim. Remember, far removed Lehi with the aid of that record was able to trace his ancestry back to being of the lineage of Joseph through his son Manasseh. Thus one is left to wonder if such a record of Elimelech who was much clsoer in time to Joseph and of what might be considered of greater significance than Lehi, might also so be able to be connected to the fatherhood of Joseph of Egypt. Lehi does state that that record did contain the genealogies of Joseph, and through the preserving hands of the Jews and their perspective, the Bible certainly is way short on any such genealogies of the house of Joseph. And most assuredly, such has been clearly written out of the records which have been maintained by the Jews which we have as the Bible today.