"There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name." Luke 1:61

It was part of the Jewish traditions to name their children after the names of their relatives. Thus when Elisabeth stated that her son's name was to be John, those about her insisted that it not be John but Zacharias after his father's name, And they gave as an argument against the name of John that NONE of her or her husband's kindred were ever known by the name of John. It simply was NOT a family name. Though not a hard and fast rule, it was a traditional rule for the naming of children, at least initially, for often a child's name was changed in times past as the person grew and a more fitting name was found.

Now as one reviews the ancestry of Jesus, which Joseph and Mary being cousins shared, there is an item of interest to be found in the names of their direct line kindred as presented by Luke chapter 3. Jesus adoptive father, the cousin of his mother Mary, was named 'Joseph' (Luke 3:23) and the 'family name' of Joseph also occurred as one of Jesus' ancestor in verse 24, 26, and 30; making a total of four ancestors who carried the name of Joseph. Of course that most famous Joseph of all, Joseph of Egypt would have made it five by the name of Joseph in Christ's ancestry, which would be expected and is so. Likewise the name of Judah does also appear in those ancestral lines, in verses 26, 30 and 33; a total of three times including that most ancient Judah, the son of Jacob, Joseph of Egypt's brother. Now Joseph was the most frequently used name in the genealogical linage and if one does not count the original brothers, Judah and Joseph, from whom the names are taken, the name Joseph appears twice as often as the name Judah, Joseph 4 times and Juda twice.

Perhaps also as an odd irony, in the two places where Judah is used, in the first that Judah was the father of Joseph, Judah coming before Joseph. And then in verse 30, that Judah was the son of that other Joseph, placing Judah last after Joseph. This brings to mind that relationship which is in the Kingdom of Judah and Joseph of Israel, when it is said the first shall be last and the last shall be first. This is the order in which the gospel did go forth, first to Judah and then to Joseph whose seed had been shifted in with the gentiles. And then in the restoration, the gospel was brought first unto Joseph and will last be taken to Judah. Whether the course of the appearance of the two names meaningfully followed that consideration and understanding is not known, but it is an interesting parallel.

Will then so what? Well in this case this particular item is one in which what would be expected to be found is what is found. In an genealogy of family names where children are named after their kindred, in a family which had a dual ancestry both from Joseph of Egypt and from Judah the son of Jacob, one would expect to find both names in their family lines. And thus it is. Thus there is both nothing here which would disprove the dual ancestry but in fact by a ratio of 2 to 1, the ancestral names favor Joseph to be the kindred of this family line in respect to Judah, which the Jewish Bible so teaches is. By itself, of no great consequence, just another contributing matter of fact which supports rather than disproves the existance of it.

Now Luke's genealogy is that which is the 'natural genealogy' of Joseph and also Mary, they being cousins of brothers, Heli and Jacob. Heli the father of Joseph and Jacob the father of Mary. But as Matthew's 'Royal Ancestry', that by which the claim to the crown of the house of David is established, it is Mary's father Jacob which is therein given to be the 'Royal Progenitor' by who the claim comes upon Joseph, his son-in-law and nephew, the husband of Mary, the daughter of Jacob. Mary must not have had any brothers, for the heirship to the throne of David so passes maternally here through Mary's father Jacob down to Mary's first born son, Jesus.

Now in Matthew's royal ancestry, the names of Judah and Joseph each only appear once. Once at the beginning with Judah the son of Jacob, and then at the end with Joseph, the husband of Mary. None other of the royal house of David ever so used one of the names of their dual genealogical ancestors with the exception of Joseph at the end, and he obtained the name by natural linage, not by the heirs to the throne line.

It is of some interest to note just where the two family lines cross, as they do so twice. First, in that Jehoiachin was established to have no children and heirs to the throne of his own, his nearest of kin, which happened to be of the linage of the family of Nathan, the brother of Solomon, both being sons of David and Bathsheba, was the contributor to the royal house as nearest of 'royal kin'. Thus where Matthew's royal linage places Salathiel to be the 'adoptive' royal heir to Jechonias/Jehoiachin, Salathiel's actual natural father was Neir of the house of Nathan, not Solomon.

And from there the two houses again diverge, the heirs to the throne and those who are not until the two families once again unit as the royal line in itself again meets extinction in that Eleazar the son of Eliud has no heir, or at least his heirs become extinct in themselves and Matthan/Matthat, the actual son of Levi the nearest kinsman, is again inserted into the royal heirship to the throne of David. This may well fit into that era of turmoil which it was not 'safe' to be of the royal house of David due to competing factions to rule the Jews.

And from thence, Matthan/Matthat has two sons, Jacob the elder and the heir and Heli a the younger son. But Jacob has only daughter(s) as surviving heirs and perhaps likely by design, in order to keep the heirship to the throne within the family, the marriage between Mary, Jacob's daughter of rightful descent tot he throne, now son being existant, was betroved to Jacob's brother's son, Thus through marriage and the rights of heirship, the right to the throne of David was passed from Jacob through Mary and his son-in-law Joseph (the son of Jacob's brother Heli), and thence to Jesus Christ, the firstbron son of Mary.

What helps to establish this to have been the case is that there is no argument placed against Jesus' right and claim to the house of David and that throne by birth, which would have been an easy matter to catch Jesus on by the Jewish rulers if there had been any fault in it.