Mary, the eyewitness?
In his preamble Luke mentions eyewitnesses. Could it be that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was one of those eyewitnesses? I see a lot of evidence in favor of this hypothesis.
The writing of Luke’s account
First of all, we must examine the dating of Luke’s Gospel account. N.T. Wright believes it quite probable that when Paul was under house arrest in Caesarea Maritima under Felix, from 57 CE — 59 CE (as reported in Acts 24), that Luke would have had the geographical proximity and the relative time to conduct his careful examination so that he could write his orderly account. If Mary gave birth to Jesus when she was 16 years old (likely given customs at the time), and Jesus was born in 4 BC, Mary would have been 77 years old at that point, and if still alive, most likely fully capable of telling her story.
Luke 1
Luke chapter 1 contains several stories that are unique to Luke’s Gospel account, stories that are either focused on Mary, stories that only Mary would have been an eyewitness to, or stories more feminine in nature, that is, about the domestic sphere.
Luke’s first pericope gives us the backstory of the miraculous birth of John the Baptist, involving his father Zechariah meeting an angel in the Temple, and the words his elderly mother Elizabeth said while in seclusion. Elizabeth, Zechariah, and John the Baptist would all have been long dead by the time Luke wrote his account, and as John the Baptist faded into the background (as John himself prophesied in John 3:30), the story of the miraculous events surrounding his birth might have easily been forgotten, lost to the oral memory. But the story of John’s birth would have remained important to Mary. Mary, Elizabeth, and Zechariah would certainly have shared stories of these unprecedented events—angelic visits and surprise pregnancies—during Mary’s visit to the hill country of Judea. Elizabeth’s story was closely associated and parallel with Mary’s own. She would have remembered.
The account of the angel Gabriel visiting Mary is only in Luke’s account, and, quite obviously, Mary was the only human present. Matthew also contains details of Jesus’ birth, but his account is decidedly focused on Joseph. For example, Matthew includes the account of the angel visiting Joseph in a dream to tell him not to be afraid to marry Mary, the escape to Egypt (when again an angel appears to Joseph), and the return to Nazareth, prompted by yet a third angelic visit to Joseph. Mary is but a minor player in Matthew’s account of the birth of Christ, mentioned only briefly, and with no words attributed to her.
This is in great contrast to Luke, who includes the scene between the two kinswomen, Mary and Elizabeth. Both women utter words of prophecy at the encounter. Elizabeth declares (most likely within Mary’s earshot and heard by no one else as she was in seclusion), “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!” For her part, Mary launches into her Magnificat, a prophetic song recorded nowhere else but the Gospel of Luke.
Luke 2
Luke chapter 2 contains three stories about Jesus’ birth, his presentation at the Temple, and his childhood. All three stories contain special details that make them appear that they came from the mouth of his mother, Mary.
For example, after Jesus is born in Bethlehem and the angels sing and the shepherds visit, we are told:
“But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.” (Luke 2:19, NIV)
This is not a public memory; it is a private recollection. How could Luke know this if Mary did not tell him herself?
When Jesus is presented in the Temple, and the Spirit-filled Simeon gives his parents a prophecy, we are also told about his special message to Mary:
“This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.” (Luke 2:33)
This is unusual, for it is more likely that most of Simeon’s words would have been directed towards Joseph, as it would have been customary for the two men to converse together. While Luke does not record any words spoken by the prophetess Anna, also in the Temple, we are given a lot of details about her life: daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher, had lived with her husband for seven years after their marriage, was a widow until she was 84. How did Luke learn all these details? Quite likely the two women, Mary and Anna, talked together, as would have been customary, and Mary learned about Anna’s life. In any event, by 57 CE when Luke might have been investigating, Anna would have been long dead. Who would have remembered these details about Anna-the-elderly-prophetess-who-never-left-the-Temple-but-worshiped-night-and-day, a woman with no husband and no children and likely few close familial relationships, but Mary herself?
The last story in chapter 2 is about Jesus as a boy in the Temple, the only story we have in all of the Gospels about Jesus’ boyhood. This was before Jesus’ public ministry, making it less likely that this story would have been placed in the stream of oral tradition surrounding Jesus. In any event, the only ones to return to Jerusalem to look for Jesus were his parents, Mary and Joseph. When they finally find Jesus, it might have been normal to hear about Joseph’s words of admonition to his son, for after all, he was the father and the head of the household in a patriarchal culture. But any such words, should they have occurred, are not reported. Instead, we are told what Mary said to her son:
“Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.” (Luke 2:48)
The chapter closes with a summary of the boyhood of Jesus, a summary which sounds like one coming from the mouth of his mother, in essence, he was good boy, grew tall, and everyone liked him:
“Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” (Luke 2:51-52)
In addition, we are told a second time that Mary treasured all of these things in her heart, a very private intimation.
Luke and women
Luke is well-known for including more women and more women’s stories than any other Gospel account. Some have wondered if Luke were a sort of proto-feminist. I think not. I have great trouble placing a modern construction such as feminism on top of an ancient text. I think the answer might be more simple and straightforward.
After talking with Mary and writing down her eyewitness testimony about the angel Gabriel, about visiting Elizabeth, about giving birth to Jesus, about meeting Anna and Simeon, about searching for the boy Jesus in Jerusalem, she likely directed him to others in her networks of women that could tell Luke about her son. She might have sent him to Mary and Martha, to Susanna and Mary (Magdalene) and Joanna. Perhaps she sent him to the widow of Nain, whose son Jesus raised (Luke 7), or the woman who anointed his feet with her alabaster jar of perfume (Luke 7), or the bleeding woman who was healed by touching the blue tassel on Jesus’ garb (Luke 8). Once Jesus had left this earth, I imagine these women might have flocked to his mother Mary, instinctively, culturally, lovingly, as the closest link to Him, and because that’s what women do.
More important than Luke’s view of women, feminist or otherwise, is the view of Jesus Christ of Nazareth toward women. Jesus never disparaged or scolded women.1 I believe he had women disciples, women patrons, and healed many women. The narratives of Jesus, in a patriarchal society such as the first-century Mediterranean world, are bound to reflect such patriarchy, meaning many (though certainly not all) of Jesus’ interactions with women might have gone unmentioned in the written accounts. But if Luke started with Mary as his first eyewitness, and then moved on to the other women eyewitnesses that were a part of Mary’s network, this would explain why he was the Gospel writer to capture these stories.
With the partial exception of the Syro-phoenician woman, reported in Matt. 25:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30. But I believe there is much going on in that interaction that culturally that we do not understand. And in any case, the Syro-phoenician woman herself does not act like she has been disparaged.