The main internal evidence for Luke's having interviewed Mary is the fact that Mary was present in the early church. (Acts 1:14) This was not long after the Resurrection and would put Mary in her late 40s at the time, assuming she was a teenager when she gave birth to Jesus. If Luke traveled with Paul to Jerusalem (c. 58 ce) - more than two decades later - Mary could indeed have survived that long, even considering low life expectancies for women of that era. In addition, Luke refers several times to Mary keeping "these things" - meaning the details of Jesus' birth and childhood - in her heart. (Luke 2:19,51). This implies that she eventually shared these stories with others, perhaps including Luke.

The main evidence against Mary as the direct source for the information in the OP is that Mary is not mentioned again in Acts after the first chapter. Luke mentions Mary several times in his gospel and directly quotes James (the Lord's brother) several times in Acts. The fact that he does not mention Mary in Acts except at the very beginning could mean that she was no longer in Jerusalem, either because she moved elsewhere or because she died before Luke came there.

Conclusion: it is not certain whether Luke interviewed Mary. However, it is indeed plausible.

The main internal evidence for Luke's having interviewed Mary is the fact that Mary was present in the early church. (Acts 1:14) This was not long after the Resurrection and would put Mary in her late 40s at the time, assuming she was a teenager when she gave birth to Jesus. If Luke traveled with Paul to Jerusalem (c. 58 ce) - about 2.5 decades later - Mary could indeed have survived that long, even considering low life expectancies for women of that era. In addition, Luke refers several times to Mary keeping "these things" - meaning the details of Jesus' birth and childhood - in her heart. (Luke 2:19,51). This implies that she eventually shared these stories with others, perhaps including Luke.

The main evidence against Mary as the direct source for the information in the OP is that Mary is not mentioned again in Acts after the first chapter. Luke mentions Mary several times in his gospel and directly quotes James (the Lord's brother) several times in Acts. The fact that he never quotes Mary in Acts and does even mention her again after the very beginning could mean that she was no longer in Jerusalem when Luke arrived there, either because she moved elsewhere or because, being very old for that era, she had died.

Conclusion: it is not certain whether Luke interviewed Mary. However, it is indeed plausible.

The main internal evidence for Luke's having interviewed Mary is the fact that Mary was present in the early church. (Acts 1:14) This was not long after the Resurrection and would put Mary in her late 40s at the time, assuming she was a teenager when she gave birth to Jesus. If Luke traveled with Paul to Jerusalem (c. 58 ce) Mary could have survived that long, even considering low life expectancies for women of that era. In addition, Luke refers several times to Mary keeping "these things" - meaning the details of Jesus' birth and childhood - in her heart. (Luke 2:19,51). This implies that she eventually shared these stories with others, perhaps including Luke.

The main evidence against Mary as the direct source for the information in the OP is that Mary is not mentioned again in Acts after the first chapter. Luke mentions Mary several times in his gospel and directly quotes James (the Lord's brother) several times in Acts. The fact that he does not mention Mary in Acts except at the very beginning could mean that she was no longer in Jerusalem, either because she moved elsewhere or because she died before Luke came there.

Conclusion: it is not certain whether Luke interviewed Mary. However, it is indeed plausible.

The main internal evidence for Luke's having interviewed Mary is the fact that Mary was present in the early church. (Acts 1:14) This was not long after the Resurrection and would put Mary in her late 40s at the time, assuming she was a teenager when she gave birth to Jesus. If Luke traveled with Paul to Jerusalem (c. 58 ce) - more than two decades later - Mary could indeed have survived that long, even considering low life expectancies for women of that era. In addition, Luke refers several times to Mary keeping "these things" - meaning the details of Jesus' birth and childhood - in her heart. (Luke 2:19,51). This implies that she eventually shared these stories with others, perhaps including Luke.

The main evidence against Mary as the direct source for the information in the OP is that Mary is not mentioned again in Acts after the first chapter. Luke mentions Mary several times in his gospel and directly quotes James (the Lord's brother) several times in Acts. The fact that he does not mention Mary in Acts except at the very beginning could mean that she was no longer in Jerusalem, either because she moved elsewhere or because she died before Luke came there.

Conclusion: it is not certain whether Luke interviewed Mary. However, it is indeed plausible.