[kosta50]

just can't buy that all within the same, single thought, it went from naming the closest relatives to Him (mother and reference to "father") to naming distant relatives, if they were relatives at all

They could have been +Joseph's children form previous marriage and in that context would not have been seen as "distant" relatives.

[Forest Keeper]

They could have been +Joseph's children from previous marriage and in that context would not have been seen as "distant" relatives.

That could make logical sense. But one problem with it is that it doesn't appear to support the belief that Joseph was elderly (if you believe that). If that was true then no children of Joseph could probably be confused with siblings of Jesus. The ages would be all wrong. Although the Bible does not mention any prior children of Joseph, if he was of an appropriate age, and if there were stepchildren nonetheless, then that would be an "out" for these verses.