Which proves nothing in particular beyond the fact that early Christians found Jesus' earthly father to be a bit of a theological problem with regards to Jesus being the son of God. As is also suggested by the genealogy of Joseph you mention (supposedly to prove a relation to the house of David), which ends incongruously with the assertion that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. And when when Jesus reportedly asked John to take care of Mary, that rather suggests that no relatives were present. Anything else is, again, speculation. But, as opposed to speculation, there's nothing in the NT to suggest that Joseph was anything else than Jesus' dad (the annunciation is merely about Mary being present of a son, who she should name Jesus) and that his siblings were indeed just that.
Which in turn suggests that the doctrine of Mary being without sin and Jesus being the Son of God is not the original story. If it were, the gospel writers would have had little compunction about telling the story in such a fashion as to leave no doubt about such crucial elements in Christianity.
From a logical aspect, the historical fact that Jesus was God would have been the strongest at the time of Jesus' life. The immediate authors would have written to convince the readers that Jesus was human. There were only about 1 or 2 dozen Jews who were convinced that Jesus was the Messiah. Those who accepted later were either convinced by trust or with the ability to see the truth in the evidence provided in the retailing of the events of those present to witness them.
It may be easy to look back and claim certain humans had no faults, because we only remember them for the good things they did. However at the time, the point was that the Messiah had to be a blood born Jew. The argument at the time was that any Messiah would not claim to be the Son of God. The Messiah was a descendant of King David who would take the throne of David and be the literal physical ruler just like David was. There was no spiritual aspect to the term Messiah.
The point of the Gospels was to portray Jesus as human. The Roman church had to come up with Mary being immaculate much later, because that was never a issue at the time of the writing of the Gospels. The point was to continue to convince themselves that Jesus was God. However calling her immaculate was going in the wrong direction, and the erroneous view that a virgin had to be born of a virgin, had to born of virgin.... Just like God created the universe, another God created God, another God created God..... Mary was human and capable of sin just like every other human. The point was not that Jesus was a sinless human, but that he was God and that is why he was without sin. Jesus was human and had to have a biological birth, but he was also God, not the result of two humans producing biological offspring. The virgin birth has nothing to do with Mary being a sinner nor sinless, as being a sinner would not prevent Jesus being God, nor would Mary being sinless prevent Jesus from being human. Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, and would have to adopt him if there was to be any legal standing for Jesus to claim inheritance. But Jesus' earthly life was not about claiming an earthly inheritance but the inheritance of Being the first born Son of God, and the spiritual inheritance of reversing the result set in motion by Adam.
The Gospels kept the focus on Jesus Christ the "anointed savior". This would be in opposition to Immanuel son of David, "God with us" or The Messiah the Jews were looking for. We could speculate that his followers did address him with the name Immanuel, but that might be hard to prove as history has just recorded that they only used the term Jesus. Even the term Christian was given as a nickname for those who followed Jesus the Christ. But the name can be confusing, because the Jews were looking for an anointed King, not an anointed Savior. The claim the Gospels made was not to install Jesus on the throne of David, the point was to declare that Jesus was the human who would save the world. However the crowds kept wanting to make him their King. His followers understood he was God on earth. They had to convince the rest of humanity that Jesus was the Messiah, even though Jesus did not overthrow the Romans and reign on the throne of David.
The relationship between the Jews and God was not an earthly kingdom. It was in the Holy of Holies in the temple and the Glory of God as a light. Other than the physical aspect of light, there was no divine king, nor divine anything physical. Any mixed breed divinity/human was not of God, but the point that God had made physical images via human manifestations. The Jews before and even during any form of established religion as in Judaism never accepted any divinity as any physical manifestation, and that is why they rejected Jesus as even claiming to be a god, much less the God in the flesh. Yet Jesus claimed to be the Light of the World. Up until Constantine, Christians were assumed atheistic, because they never accepted any half human, half divine nor any other god/divinity that the rest of the world recognized in one or more fashion. Jesus was not a divinity in any of the normal accepted divine manifestations. In fact, the reality was that Rome had lost all authority when it came to divine beings and Constantine understanding this, gave the Roman church the temporal authority to run with this spiritual manifestation that was unlike any other known to mankind, except by the Christians of the day.
Just like the Hebrews wanted a physical temporal King to lead them like other nations, as the representative anointed of God, instead of God, the Roman church decided to place a single human as vicar and accepted the temporal authority and the armed forces that came with such authority and for the most part left the spiritual aspect of God behind. Thus turning Christianity into a mere religious temporal authority. Replacing everything spiritual with a secular physical representation, that could be economized and more easily implemented than just telling humans to "believe" in something.
