Therefore, per Adam Clarke (1817), John Wesley, John Kitto and others the expression "Joseph, [ ] of Heli", without the word "son" being present in the Greek, indicates that "Joseph, of Heli" is to be read "Joseph, [son-in-law] of Heli". This view is strongly supported by the classical Jewish Rabbinical records, which state that Mary was the daughter of "Eli." This is also supported by the Jewish tradition of patrilineality that "the family of the mother is not called a family," further indicating that Luke is referencing Mary's genealogy (that, by marriage to Mary, Joseph was the son of Heli). There are, however, other interpretations of how this qualification relates to the rest of the genealogy. Some see the remainder as the true genealogy of Joseph, despite the different genealogy given in Matthew. Comparison of the two genealogies The following table is a side-by-side comparison of Matthew's and Luke's genealogies. Converging sections are shown with a green (and yellow) background, and diverging sections are shown with a red background. Explanations for divergence The Church Fathers held that both accounts are true. In his book An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, John Damascene argues that Heli of the tribe of Nathan died childless, and Jacob of the tribe of Solomon took his wife and raised up seed to his brother and begat Joseph, in accordance with scripture, namely, yibbum (the mitzvah that a man must marry his brother's childless widow); Joseph, therefore, is by nature the son of Jacob, of the line of Solomon, but by law he is the son of Heli of the line of Nathan. Modern scholarship tends to see the genealogies of Jesus as theological constructs rather than factual history: family pedigrees would not usually have been available for non-priestly families, and the contradictions between the two lists are seen as clear evidence that these were not based on genealogical records. Additionally, the use of titles such as 'Son of God' and 'Son of David' are seen as evidence that they do not come from the earliest Gospel traditions. Raymond E. Brown says the genealogies "tell us nothing certain about his grandparents or his great-grand-parents". Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan contend that both genealogies are inventions to support Messianic claims. Gundry suggests the series of unknown names in Matthew connecting Joseph's grandfather to Zerubbabel as an outright fabrication, produced by collecting and then modifying various