It may yet be.
The problem I see with that theory is that Jesus was Messiah, that is, heir to the throne of David, which was passed paternally, and, by right, would go to the eldest son.
Ergo, an elder step-brother would be the proper king.
That said, God skipped the eldest son (or the son skipped voluntarily) on a number of notable occassions — perhaps such a “skip” occurred here, too.
If so, it makes James an even more remarkable man.
However, our Lord's Kingship DID NOT pass through Saint Joseph.
“However, our Lord’s Kingship DID NOT pass through Saint Joseph.”
Then he wouldn’t be the Jewish King (which he was).
It’s a paternal title, through the line of David -— and adopted sons are fine.
Specifically, the mother (the matrilineal) determines if someone is Jewish (Deuteronomy 7:3-4), but tribal affiliation and family genealogy can only be traced through the person’s father (the patrilineal in accordance with Exodus 28:4, 29:9-30, 30:30, and 40:15 [Priesthood Lineage]; Numbers 36 [Tribal Lineage]; Genesis 49:10, I Kings 11:4, and I Chronicles 17:11-19 [Kingship Lineage].).
For instance, in Numbers, chapter 1, verse 18, we’re told that the Jewish people declare their pedigrees according to their fathers’ houses. When Queen Athaliah wanted to eliminate the Royal Line of David, she only killed the males knowing full well that a female descendant of David couldn’t pass on the right to the throne (II Kings 11; II Chronicles 22).
(