Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille shows clearly that the word translated "husband" in husband of Mary should have been translated "father", not "husband". That the father of Mary would have the same name as her husband is not unusual. Joseph is not an uncommon name. Joseph of Genesis was an incredibly great believer and disciple with a wonderful legacy.
For a full explanation of the research, see "The Word's Way" or "Jesus Christ Our Passover" by Wierwille.
Either of those books can be purchased new from The Way International or used copies can be found at Amazon and probably other websites.
Both books were decades in the making and well worth the time and money to learn from.
If providing purchasing info on this website is not kosher, my apologies, but since the subject is handled in depth in both publications and long posts are not welcome here, it seems if anyone wants to learn more they should do it from a solid source, from the horse's mouth, so to speak, not from my retyping of pages from copyrighted sources.
Having the privilege of so many ready answers to these kind of questions is a true God send.
The genealogy in Matthew is Jesus Christ's royal lineage, his legal right to the throne of David, which culminates in Mary being in the royal bloodline. Since Joseph, Mary's husband, is not the biological father of Jesus, this royal genealogy is meaningless if it culminates in Joseph, Mary's husband, instead of Joseph, Mary's father.
Not to worry, I am not the kind that will report you for replying with "too long" of a post. However the argument you present I have read several times in several places, (and debated it more than once) although I have not read it straight from the author you mention. The argument presented is more of an argument for a literal physical virgin birth but still does not address the problem of the forty-two generation count addressed in this thread. Even if you replace "Yosef the man (or husband) of Mariam" with "Yosef the father of Mariam" you still come up short counting forty-two generations within the text, (unless you see that Messiah is the Word which the man Yeshua is legomenos-laying-forth-speaking; for his Testimony is Spirit). But as for the argument itself it is nothing more than a desperate attempt to salvage a flesh minded paradigm that puts its faith in the literal understanding of a physical virgin birth, (which Paul hints at being "old wives tales"). The main problem raised in this thread is that the forty-two generation count, as explicitly stated to be the case by the author of Matthew himself, cannot be reconciled from a physical mindset. But as for "aner", (andra) being rendered as "father", (as according to the author you referred to says it should be rendered) there is nowhere that I know of where this is done in the Greek text. We have a word for "father" and it is "pater" in all places including Matthew:
Matthew 2:22 KJV
22. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father [GSN#3962 pater] Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
Strong's Ref. #3962
Romanized pater
Pronounced pat-ayr'
a primary word; a "father" (literally or figuratively, near or more remote):
KJV--father, parent.
The man Yeshua is the son of Yosef: to ignore this natural fact completely dissolves the entire purpose of the Matthew genealogy because the entire point is that the man Yeshua is of the lineage of the royal line of David, through Yosef, and the genealogy is man-to-man, that is, father-to-son. The holy seed is Spirit and that is why all through the holy seed line "men beget men" just as it is in the Matthew genealogy. While everyone knows that the wife of Adam was Eve still yet that is not how it reads in the first genealogy of the holy seed line from Genesis 5:3. If you forsake this precept at the very end of the genealogy, which precept builds precept upon precept, and you make Yosef to instead be "the father" of Mariam, then you have effectually subverted the entire process by pulling a fast one at the literal end of an age-old tradition going all the way back to Genesis 5:3. The author you mention has merely pulled the old switcheroo at the very end to suit his own means and ends. It is the tactic of the unstable and unlearned who are not willing to follow precept upon precept and actually adhere to and believe what is written. It is blatant error to have "fathers begetting sons" throughout the holy seed line, all the way back from Adam, and then at the very end of the genealogy have a woman suddenly inserted into the final position breaking the most critical rule laid out from the beginning of the genealogy and flowing through all other portions of it. Abraham begat Yitschak, Yitschak begat Yakob, Yakob begat Yhudah, and what the author you mention is suggesting is that at the very end of the same genealogy, out of nowhere, wham-bam-kapow: the father of Mariam gets inserted at the very end, breaking the entire rule of example which came before going all the way back to Adam. And this he apparently believes despite the fact that the word for father, (pater) is not found anywhere in the text, and despite the fact that the word for man or husband, (aner) is nowhere else rendered as "father" by anyone, anyplace, anytime. The failure in understanding is that the virgin birth concerns supernal and allegorical things. Who and what does Eve represent in the beginning? Who does Sarah the wife of Abraham represent according to Paul? Who does Rachel the wife of Yakob and mother of Yosef and Benyamin represent? Mariam is the final allegorical typology of Yerushalem of Above, who is the mother-covenant of us all, (Galatians 4:22-31).
Jeremiah 31:15-22
15. Thus says YHWH; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.
16. Thus says YHWH; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, says YHWH; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
17. And there is hope in thine end, says YHWH, that thy children shall come again to their own border.
18. I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art YHWH my Elohim.
19. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.
20. Is Ephraim My dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore My bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, says YHWH.
21. Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Yisrael, turn again to these thy cities.
22. How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for YHWH cuts-down-creates a chadashah-renewed-new thing in the erets: nqebah-female shall encompass gaber-man!
The final line of the above passage is foundational to the renewed covenant understanding: nqabah-female shall encompass gaber-andri-man, (Greek aner-andra is essentially the equivalent of Hebrew geber-gaber). The woman-wife-bride in this understanding is therefore likened to a bride having been prepared for the adornment of her geber-andri-man, (Rev 21:2). It is the New Covenant which is New Yerushalem that descends out of the heavens from the Father, (Mat 3:16-17, Luke 3:22, John 3:27-29, 2 Cor 5:1-4, Rev 3:12, Rev 21:2).
