Ben,
You and I conversed a little on this topic, as I, quite unaware of this thread or line of thinking going on, and yet arrived at the Jesus son of Joseph, that is Joseph the son of Jacob/Israel, as the lineage of Jesus --and not the Davidic lineage-- in the first version of the gospel of John. And further that this is a point of schism between the proto-Orthodox "Jewish" Christians and the heterodox "Gentile/Greek" Christians
John 6:42: "They (the Jews) said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
The thing to notice is the separation of "the son of Joseph" from "whose father and mother we know." This is because the former is an appellation, a title, in the same sense as "the son of David", while the latter is the Jewish (for this gospel the author means Jewish Christian or proto-Orthodox) position that Jesus was born human and not descendant from the heaven, per the Marcionite and Johannine Christ.
This got me to thinking, as in John, Jesus is not Davidic descent (i.e., "Jewish", as in Judea), rather Galilean or Samaritan (i.e., Israel, Samaria = Ephraim and Manasseh, the two sons of Joseph [1]), as we find discussed in John 7:40-42 and 8:48. Yet we find the opening of the collections of the gospels --Matthew at the head-- and of Paul --Romans at the head-- that the first declaration about Jesus is that he is of Davidic descent. This is very different also from the Marcionite collections where Galatians speaks only of Jesus revealed, and the Gospel of Jesus' descent into Capernaum of Galilee; a descent onto earth further explained in John as from heaven, per the above passage. The Marcionite text of Luke 20:41-44 (vestigially also Mark 12:35-37/Matthew 22:42-45) also rejects Davidic origin for the messiah.
So what we have here is to competing origin stories. One of Joseph and the other of David. So I ask myself, why is this important to the heterodox, as they see Jesus as coming from heaven rather than woman anyway? What I have decided is it's symbolic, even more so to the heterodox. [2] This does explain the reverence in both the Marcionite and John's gospels as well as the attested Marcionite text for Abraham. (The Patristic claim that the Marcionites excluded Abraham is not correct, at least not originally when the books were written.) We see this rival claim for Abraham between the Jews (Jewish Christians) and Jesus played out in John 8:31-58 where the Jews object to Jesus claiming they are descendant from Abraham (σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ) also. But notice subtly that the same Jews in 8:52 (just after they call him a Samaritan = Ephraim/Israel in 8:48) say that "Abraham died, as did the prophets", separating Abraham from the prophets -- he is father Abraham to both Judah and Israel. The Marcionite text (Galatians 4:22ff in Marcionite form, and Luke 16:19-29, maybe 31b) also shows Abraham in a positive light.
Matthew is well aware of the Marcionite and Heterodox use of the messiah ben Joseph motif. He opposed that lineage and supported Davidic instead (σπέρματος Δαβίδ, per Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8 which no doubt reference Matthew). So how does he diminish Joseph, son o Jacob? He makes him the immediate father of Jesus, and Joseph's father Jacob instead of having Isaac has some Matthan (Matthew?) as his father, breaking the lineage (note, Luke would obscure it further swapping Heli for Jacob). Matthew takes a small dig at Joseph son of Jacob/Israel,by diminishing his prominence in saying "Jacob the father of Judah" then adding "and his brothers" who are not worthy of name mention, when even Ruth and Uriah get mentioned.
So it's in my view not Messiah ben Joseph morphing into Messiah ben David, but rather a convenient symbolism for competition between competing camps.
Note: I think the original list Matthew worked with ends at the deportation, as the first verse (1:2) has "his brothers" and the last (1:11) "his brothers." The third set is entirely of Matthew's making. So you have the era of the Fathers, the era of the Kings, and then Matthew's era after that. I dunno, could be wrong on Matthew making up the last part of the list, more a hunch based on the sloppiness of the third set compared to the first two.
notes:
[1] Benjamin was the youngest son of Jacob, named Israel, brother of Joseph and Judah. Benjamin is also seen as a tribe of Israel, but seized by Judah when the kingdom divided (looks like a buffer state on the map). I find it curious that Paul is described in Philippians 3:5 as of Israel, tribe of Benjamin and Hebrew (Jew). There is definitely some symbolic reconciliation/appropriation going on here, picking the tribe which is both Israel and Judah for Paul's heritage.
[2] Theological differences of symbolism, which make it into books, suggest political motivations driving it; an attempt to differentiate from rivals. Something that the epistles, acts and apocrypha suggest may have been focused on offices -- bishop authority -- that seem to have been claimed by rival families, claiming rival patron saints, especially in Asia Minor. Appealing to aligned bishops would necessarily lead to parties or sects; a natural progression. Theology simply came along for the ride.