I remember being told, when I was a Protestant, that the Luke geneology was through Mary as well, but all of the early church commentators (we're talking as early as Eusebius in the 200's) reject that notion. I suppose that the idea arose among Protestants that this was the explanation, since there was no traditional account to explain the two geneologies if you don't accept the early Christian commentaries.
Both geneologies are traced to Joseph, unless you don't want to take the account in the Bible literally. :-)
One geneology says that Joseph was the son of Jacob, and the other says that he was the son of Heli. The early commentaries are universal (St. Augustine is particularly firm on this point, FWIW) in saying that it happened in this wise:
Heli (the father in the Luke account) died childless, and Jacob his brother took his wife as required by the law, and raised up seed to him.
Thus Joseph was the son of Jacob by nature, and the son of Heli by law. In either case -- whether by law or nature -- he was the son (by adoption) of David.
Given the fact that the Church has no problem making a big deal over Mary, had it been a legitimate tradition that this was her geneology. Why wouldn't the Scriptures have simply said so, had this been the case?
The name of the Theotokos' parents -- Joachim and Anna -- is a pretty ancient tradition, furthermore.
Anyway, we can be sure about our account because we have Holy Tradition -- you can't, since it isn't in the Bible. :-)
That's a fair enough point.
Anyway, we can be sure about our account because we have Holy Tradition -- you can't, since it isn't in the Bible. :-)
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... :)