I was looking at an older thread on CA titled “Jacob or Eli?” about the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew’s & Luke’s Gospels. One poster suggested (according to Eusebius) that both genealogies were of Joseph’s: Matthew’s being Joseph’s biological descent through his natural father (Jacob) through King Solomon, and Luke’s being Joseph’s descent through his “legal” father (Heli) through Nathan (King David’s other son):
Thus, both genealogies actually being Joseph’s. Here is a video that visually & verbally explains this:
Although this is a very well put together video, which is based on Eusebius’ historical account, according to Julius Africanus, it bases it’s assumption that Jacob (Joseph’s biological father) & Eli (his father “by the law” of Moses) were actually brothers, which both Eusebius & Africanus assumed Eli was Joseph’s father “by the law” of Moses based on Deuteronomy 5:5-6.
However, another posted pointed out:
“In the ancient Middle East, family was counted in two ways: inheritance and blood. For Jesus to be the heir of David, he has to both legally inherit the throne, and be a direct descendant in the dynasty. The Gospel of Matthew traces Joseph’s lineage to show that Jesus is the legal heir of the throne of David, while the Gospel of Luke traces Mary’s lineage to show that he is indeed in the Davidic bloodline.
This also solves another mystery of the Bible, which is Jeremiah’s curse (Jer. 22:30). The curse is that no descendant of Coniah would ever sit the throne of David again. Jesus falls into that lineage through Joseph, but they are not blood relatives (thus not a descendant).”
This would certainly bypass the “curse” of Coniah, since Jesus’ blood-line through Mary, through Luke’s Gospel, would not include Coniah, since Coniah (Jeconiah) is in Matthew’s genealogy (Matthew 1:11-12), not Luke’s. Therefore, the “curse” would have bypassed Jesus, since Joseph was not His natural father. Luke’s genealogy, being that of Mary (rather than Joseph’s), seems to have strong OT Scriptural support, that Joseph would have been the “son-in-law” of Heli by marriage – Heli being the representative of Mary’s generation. In fact, Moses himself established precedent for this sort of substitution in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12.
So, if Luke’s genealogy is actually that of Mary’s & not of Joseph’s, based on Numbers 27:1-11 & 36:1-12, then that would make Heli, Mary’s biological father. If so, then “how” can Joachim also be Mary’s biological father, which is based on the non-canonical pseudoepigraphical false “gospel” of the Protoevangelium of James from the mid-to-late second century, which would contradict the canonical “real” Gospel of Luke that states that Heli is? And while we’re at it, why is Joachim “canonized” as a “saint,” if he really didn’t exist?