Could Luke have interviewed Mary for his gospel? (Luke 1:2)

Question

I've heard that it is Catholic tradition that Luke interviewed Mary for his gospel. This is also portrayed in the popular show, The Chosen.

Luke 1:1-4 NKJV

1 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Do Luke’s eye witnesses include Mary?

I don't know of any external evidence for this claim, but, is there any internal evidence for the claim?

Answer 1

This is a very common view, though it is not explicitly stated in Luke's Gospel.

If we consider Luke a reliable historian (see my work here arguing that he is), then it is almost certain that he had a source within Mary & Joseph's family. If we assume that most or all of Luke's nativity account is both fabricated & anonymous (such an assumption, though popular in some places, presupposes naturalism and must discard much historical evidence to do so) then the question is moot.

This post will consider Luke to be a reliable historian.

--

Highly-specific reporting

There are a number of details in the first 2 chapters of Luke that would only be known by a handful of people directly involved, including:

• The discussion between the angel Gabriel and Mary (Luke 1:26-38)
• Specific details from Mary's visit to Elisabeth (Luke 1:39-45)
• Mary's psalm (Luke 1:46-55)
• The encounter with Simeon in the temple (Luke 2:25-35)
• The encounter with Anna in the temple (Luke 2:36-38)

And although Luke points out occasions when people broadcast events in the surrounding area (e.g. the shepherds in Luke 2:17), he contrasts this with Mary who "kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart" (see Luke 2:19).

Several of these events are related with highly-specific details, and most of the individuals involved (e.g. Zacharias, Elisabeth, Simeon, Anna, even Joseph) would have been deceased long before Luke conducted his research. The common thread in all of them is the person of Mary, who would have been able to provide these details and was still living after Easter (for arguments that both Luke & Acts were written within a generation of Easter see Stack Exchange posts here and here).

--

Second hand

If Mary told family members (such as James the Lord's brother, about whom Luke writes a great deal in Acts), then Luke may have obtained personal information from a family member who heard it directly from Mary, making Luke's report second-hand.

--

First hand

If we take this statement literally:

those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us

Then a report from James on events at which James wasn't present wouldn't be in scope, and Mary would be far and away the most likely source for Luke's writings on personal events in Mary's life. This would make Luke's report firsthand.

In fact, it is curious that while Matthew relates the experiences of Joseph prior to the nativity, Luke does not--Luke relates the experiences of Mary. Although it is not proof, it supports the firsthand argument. Luke apparently didn't meet Joseph (John 19:26-27 indicates Joseph has died prior to the crucifixion, Luke 1:2 implies Luke wasn't an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry--if he joined the movement after the crucifixion then he didn't meet Joseph), so he didn't have Joseph's eyewitness testimony and didn't report it.

--

Conclusion

Did Luke only report information he received from primary sources? We cannot be 100% certain, but if we take him literally at his word, the answer would be yes, and the eyewitness for much of Luke chapters 1 & 2 would almost certainly be Mary.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

It is inherently dangerous to speculate given how differently women were viewed in the 1st century. Women were considered "UNRELIABLE" as witnesses. The fact that Mary isnt quoted should not be an oddity or strange. Given the cultural view of the role of a woman in that time in history, it is a bit surprising they are mentioned at all.

Answer 4

It is possible to argue that Luke may have directly interviewed Mary to compose parts of his Gospel, based on the detailed accounts of events related to Jesus’s birth and Mary’s personal reactions. Here are the key points:

Luke 1:2 – Eyewitnesses and trustworthy sources

Luke states that he carefully investigated the events and gathered information from those who were eyewitnesses and “servants of the word.” Mary, as the mother of Jesus, would be a central witness to the events of the Annunciation, Jesus’s birth, and his early childhood.

Luke 1:29 – Mary’s reflective reaction

After the angel Gabriel’s greeting, Mary was “greatly troubled” and “pondered what kind of greeting this might be.” This intimate, reflective detail would be difficult for a third party to know, suggesting that Luke may have obtained this information directly from Mary or someone very close to her.

Luke 1:46–55 – The Magnificat

Mary’s song, known as the Magnificat, reveals a deep understanding of her experience and its connection to God’s promises. It is highly personal, linking her life to the covenant made with Abraham and Israel. It is plausible that Luke received this account directly from Mary, as it would be unlikely for someone else to convey such personal sentiments so vividly.

The detailed narrative of Jesus’s infancy

Luke’s account of Jesus’s birth, the shepherds’ visit (Luke 2:8–20), and his presentation at the temple (Luke 2:25–35) suggests access to information from someone closely connected to these events. In Luke 2:19 and 2:51, it is noted that Mary “treasured all these things in her heart,” indicating that she reflected deeply on these events and may have shared these memories with Luke.

While there is no explicit statement that Luke interviewed Mary, the narrative style and level of detail suggest that he may have received information directly from her or from sources who heard her accounts firsthand. The reference to eyewitnesses in Luke 1:2 and the emotional and theological depth of the Magnificat strongly support this possibility.