Did St. Luke "interview" the Blessed Mother?

[JReducation]

Most certainly, if the Apostles had known that the Lord would not return in their lifetime, a lot more would have been contemporaneously written for posterity. It could have prevented innumerable subsequent disputes. Let’s take that up with them one day…

We also have to remember, not only did they think that Jesus was coming right back, but Jewish culture had no literature until later. They relied heavily on oral tradition. When Jesus rose and ascended, the OT as we know had not been compiled. All of the stories existed, but they were still in parchments all over the place. The only collection that was organized was the Torah. The Jews did not have all the books in a central place or in an anthology. They were in different parts of the kingdom. Their content ws passed by word of mouth.

When Luke arrives on the scene, not being Jewish, he is forced to deal with this Jewish culture and rely on oral tradition. This must have been very difficult for him, because he was raised in the Greek world where writing and literature existed for centuries. I have always found it interesting to think of how people like Luke, John Mark and Paul dealt with the Apostles. To them the Apostles must have appeared to be primitive. Even though Paul was a Jew, he was a Roman and was not from Israel. Tarsus is much further north and its culture was more European than it was Semite. The Jews were very simple by comparison to the Europeans and their African neighbors: Egypt and Ethiopia. To the east they had the Indians who were also more sophisticated.

The entire question of how the Gospels were written is fascinating, given the circumstances and the obstacles that the writers had to face. By obstacles I mean the fact that they were getting their information from a group of people who did not understand history. They reported events as they recalled them, not necessarilly in chronological order or even in full detail. This is what makes the synoptics credible, the inconsistencies. You can tell that they were different people reporting and not a well thought out plot to push the Christian agenda.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

Per Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., author of Inside the Bible, the book of Luke was written about A.D. 64, before the death of Saint Paul, and is attributed to Luke by Church tradition. Matthew’s Gospel was written between about A.D. 43 and 70, (70 would have been just after the Roman sacking of Jerusalem). Mark was written about A.D. 60, by John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas, who was a companion of Saint Paul as well as interpreter and translator for Saint Peter. Thus, it would likely contain information which only Simon Peter could provide. John’s Gospel is generally agreed as the last to be written, probably between about A.D. 70-90.

The point being that Apostolic tradition is relied upon by all Christians in the case of Luke and Acts, as well as Mark - not only for their attribution, but for the entire content of the three books. The writers (certainly Luke, and probably John Mark) were not eyewitnesses, and so had to rely on the oral tradition for the transmission of both Gospels as well as the events in Acts. Neither Luke nor Mark claim Divine revelation of content - the other option being the collection of that history from eyewitnesses, which naturally included Mary. She would have been well along in years then - but only if the books were produced at that time. The facts in them could easily have been collected much earlier and written for posterity only in Luke’s own later years.

The more the Catholic Church is attacked (specifically Church tradition), the more the bible, which is inseparable from the Church, is also attacked. The accusers stand on the very sand which is the foundation of their arguments.

p.s. Inside the Bible is an excellent resource, and provides information on each of the 73 books of the bible, with known information on writers, dates and places, as well as summaries and theological content. It is a practical book - a quick reference. I highly recommend it to all Christians.

The majority of Catholic scholars do not agree with those suggested dates for the composition of the Gospels.

 

[diggerdomer]

Of note is that Luke chose to omit the names of all of his sources. I see nothing remarkable in that.

I agree. But if he was relying on Mary’s testimony, why would he not note that?

 

[JReducation]

I agree. But if he was relying on Mary’s testimony, why would he not note that?

I would guess that either

A) He never spoke to Mary and learned what Mary had shared through oral tradition.

or

B) It was not until after Mary’s dormition and assumption that the early Church really stopped to take special notice of her. Because it is at the dormition and assumption that everything about her becomes clear to the early Church. As long as Mary was alive she was as submissive to the Apostles as every other Christian. They did not look at her as a figure of authority. Peter and Paul were the big guys and maybe James too. It would have never occurred to Luke or his scribe to mention Mary as a source. Their relationship with her was very informal. She was part of the family. They related to the Mary of history, whereas we relate the Mary of faith. It’s the same person, but he perspectives are different. When we think of Mary we look up. When they thought of Mary they probably thought about the last time they saw her or the last conversation they had about Jesus or their families, etc.

Do these two possibilities make sense?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[po18guy]

The majority of Catholic scholars do not agree with those suggested dates for the composition of the Gospels.

We gladly look forward to any and all positive contributions to this thread.

 

[po18guy]

I would guess that either

A) He never spoke to Mary and learned what Mary had shared through oral tradition.

or

B) It was not until after Mary’s dormition and assumption that the early Church really stopped to take special notice of her. Because it is at the dormition and assumption that everything about her becomes clear to the early Church. As long as Mary was alive she was as submissive to the Apostles as every other Christian. They did not look at her as a figure of authority. Peter and Paul were the big guys and maybe James too. It would have never occurred to Luke or his scribe to mention Mary as a source. Their relationship with her was very informal. She was part of the family. They related to the Mary of history, whereas we relate the Mary of faith. It’s the same person, but he perspectives are different. When we think of Mary we look up. When they thought of Mary they probably thought about the last time they saw her or the last conversation they had about Jesus or their families, etc.

Do these two possibilities make sense?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

As well, in those times, women and children were not always counted, as we read in Matthew 14:21, 15:38. We see also that women were given less credibility than men. This is hinted at in Mark 16:8, and spoken of more explicitly in Mark 16:11. This cultural attitude is also noted by Luke (Luke 24:8-11). This occurred in a society in which the truth of a matter was determined by two or more eyewitnesses. Still, Peter had to go see for himself (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-10).

With such an attitude toward the testimony of women and children, is it surprising that Luke would not mention Mary as a source of information? Was not his job mainly to convince men of the Gospel, under the assumption that the women would follow? Basing the Gospel on the testimony of women would not have served his purpose in that culture - and might actually have worked against it.

 

[po18guy]

As well, in those times, women and children were not always counted, as we read in Matthew 14:21, 15:38. We see also that women were given less credibility than men. This is hinted at in Mark 16:8, and spoken of more explicitly in Mark 16:11. This cultural attitude is also noted by Luke (Luke 24:8-11). This occurred in a society in which the truth of a matter was determined by two or more eyewitnesses (2 Corinthians 13:1, Hebrews 10:28). Still, Peter had to go see for himself (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-10).

With such an attitude toward the testimony of women and children, is it surprising that Luke would not mention Mary as a source of information? Was not his job mainly to convince men of the Gospel, under the assumption that the women would follow? Basing the Gospel on the testimony of women would not have served his purpose in that culture - and might actually have worked against it.

 

[choy]

That particular question brings to mind the fact that the Blessed Mother spent more time with St. John at Ephesus. Thus, St. John would be more qualified to talk about the childhood life of Jesus. May be (guessing only), St.Luke got his information from St.John?

Paul travelled to Ephesus

and Luke of course is Paul’s companion. its believed that during their stay in Ephesus is when Luke was able to gather the information from Mary

our Parish Priest speaks about this all the time

 

[StillWondering]

I have always found it interesting to think of how people like Luke, John Mark and Paul dealt with the Apostles.

I would like to add my own perspective to the interaction of the organized literature of the Greeks and Romans with the Oral Tradition of Israel. I actually have no knowledge of the cultures and languages of this region besides what I read here on Catholic Answers. However, I do have my own personal experience with the Vietnamese culture.

In much of Vietnam when I was growing up, many people were illiterate. Remarkably however, they were definitely knowledgeable of literature even if they do not know the name of the literature they have memorized by heart. There is an amazing eloquence form the simplest of farmers when they recite century old poetry and lore. There is a beauty and a depth that much comparable written works fail to even know that such a level exists.

So if Vietnamese oral tradition is any indication, Saint Paul and Saint Luke may have been both confused and enraptured by the beautiful mosaic of the Semite oral tradition.

 

[StillWondering]

I agree. But if he was relying on Mary’s testimony, why would he not note that?

Mary, in her humble humility to the Lord, may have requested her name not mentioned by Luke. I see that is quite a possibility given the few lines the writers choose to transcribe form her. She is the mother of the Lord and always at his side. They would have plenty to write even if she never spoke a word.

 

[JReducation]

I would like to add my own perspective to the interaction of the organized literature of the Greeks and Romans with the Oral Tradition of Israel. I actually have no knowledge of the cultures and languages of this region besides what I read here on Catholic Answers. However, I do have my own personal experience with the Vietnamese culture.

In much of Vietnam when I was growing up, many people were illiterate. Remarkably however, they were definitely knowledgeable of literature even if they do not know the name of the literature they have memorized by heart. There is an amazing eloquence form the simplest of farmers when they recite century old poetry and lore. There is a beauty and a depth that much comparable written works fail to even know that such a level exists.

So if Vietnamese oral tradition is any indication, Saint Paul and Saint Luke may have been both confused and enraptured by the beautiful mosaic of the Semite oral tradition.

This is exactly what happened and what converted others to Christianity. The first Fathers were not Jews. They were Gentiles. But the depth of this oral tradition was so profound that they could not ignore it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

As well, in those times, women and children were not always counted, as we read in Matthew 14:21, 15:38. We see also that women were given less credibility than men. This is hinted at in Mark 16:8, and spoken of more explicitly in Mark 16:11. This cultural attitude is also noted by Luke (Luke 24:8-11). This occurred in a society in which the truth of a matter was determined by two or more eyewitnesses. Still, Peter had to go see for himself (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-10).

With such an attitude toward the testimony of women and children, is it surprising that Luke would not mention Mary as a source of information? Was not his job mainly to convince men of the Gospel, under the assumption that the women would follow? Basing the Gospel on the testimony of women would not have served his purpose in that culture - and might actually have worked against it.

I see where you’re going with this, but I am going to respectfully disagree on the women thing. The apostles reported to their writers that the women had discovered the empty tomb. They also reported that Mary of Magdala was the first to see the risen Jesus. They reported that Mary his mother was with them both on the day of the resurrection, the ascension and pentecost. These events are all essential to the birth of the Church. And it is interesting that they place women in the story and it is through the women that the Good News of the Resurrection is first proclaimed. The Apostles did not discover the empty tomb. The resurrection was announced to them by a woman and they admitted it.

I don’t think that the apostles had a big issue with admitting that they received something from a woman, if it was something that they considered to be significant. I believe that they did not consider the infancy narrative to be significant. Luke is the only one who goes into details.

I also believe that Mary was their friend and a beloved mother to them. They didn’t see her in the same way as they saw Mary of Magdala. Mary of Magdala proclaims the Good News to them. Mary the mother of Jesus shares the events that led to the Good News. There are two levels here, because the events are at different levels. Look being an educated man, may have seen the difference between the Incarnation and Birth and the Resurrection, both are essential, but they are different.

Just my 2 cents. But it is fun to speculate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[po18guy]

And, my postulating is no more than just that. Our parish priest, who is from the Congo, mentions that women were not counted in those days. In his prologue, Luke says that many others had endeavored to compile such a history. Luke certainly considered the other versions inaccurate, since he specifically mentions that he sought accuracy in his work. He was therefore inspired to investigate and assemble his own Gospel. It might have been his life’s work - certainly his crowning achievement, since it will stand to the end of this earth.

As to other opinions in this thread, I think it presumptuous to exclude Mary from Luke’s information gathering simply because she is not specifically named. Inspired work always attains to the highest and purest source. Who better than Mary, whose soul was pierced “so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed”?

Christ’s peace.

 

[SenorSalsa]

It should be noted here that Luke is held by some traditions to be the first iconographer, painting icons of the Theotokos. Poland has one that tradition holds was painted on a tabletop from the Holy Family’s house.

If that tradition is true, than it is quite likely that he also met Mary and asked her questions regarding the Nativity, as presumably he didn’t steal the table in the middle of the night.

As for why she is not mentioned as being interviewed, a fourth option is that possibly the community would have known Luke had met with and interviewed Mary. After all, the gospels were written for the community being served by the particular Evangelist. It was never meant to be shipped all over the world to people who had never met or at least heard of the writer. We have to keep in mind that the writers of the gospels lived in and among the people they wrote too, and had no concept or even hope that their writings would stick around 2000 years

 

[po18guy]

It should be noted here that Luke is held by some traditions to be the first iconographer, painting icons of the Theotokos. Poland has one that tradition holds was painted on a tabletop from the Holy Family’s house.

If that tradition is true, than it is quite likely that he also met Mary and asked her questions regarding the Nativity, as presumably he didn’t steal the table in the middle of the night.

As for why she is not mentioned as being interviewed, a fourth option is that possibly the community would have known Luke had met with and interviewed Mary. After all, the gospels were written for the community being served by the particular Evangelist. It was never meant to be shipped all over the world to people who had never met or at least heard of the writer. We have to keep in mind that the writers of the gospels lived in and among the people they wrote too, and had no concept or even hope that their writings would stick around 2000 years

Excellent point! Thanks.

 

[JReducation]

It should be noted here that Luke is held by some traditions to be the first iconographer, painting icons of the Theotokos. Poland has one that tradition holds was painted on a tabletop from the Holy Family’s house.

If that tradition is true, than it is quite likely that he also met Mary and asked her questions regarding the Nativity, as presumably he didn’t steal the table in the middle of the night.

As for why she is not mentioned as being interviewed, a fourth option is that possibly the community would have known Luke had met with and interviewed Mary. After all, the gospels were written for the community being served by the particular Evangelist. It was never meant to be shipped all over the world to people who had never met or at least heard of the writer. We have to keep in mind that the writers of the gospels lived in and among the people they wrote too, and had no concept or even hope that their writings would stick around 2000 years

The point of audience and the familiarity between the author and them are well stated. Most scholars do believe this is exactly what happened, because some of the early Fathers mention conversations between them and John. In those conversations they mention details that John does not include in his gospel. My point is that you’re very right. The audience knew the writers and they knew the answers to these questions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

I would guess that either

A) He never spoke to Mary and learned what Mary had shared through oral tradition.

or

B) It was not until after Mary’s dormition and assumption that the early Church really stopped to take special notice of her. Because it is at the dormition and assumption that everything about her becomes clear to the early Church. As long as Mary was alive she was as submissive to the Apostles as every other Christian. They did not look at her as a figure of authority. Peter and Paul were the big guys and maybe James too. It would have never occurred to Luke or his scribe to mention Mary as a source. Their relationship with her was very informal. She was part of the family. They related to the Mary of history, whereas we relate the Mary of faith. It’s the same person, but he perspectives are different. When we think of Mary we look up. When they thought of Mary they probably thought about the last time they saw her or the last conversation they had about Jesus or their families, etc.

Do these two possibilities make sense?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes. Of course. Thanks.

 

[Layman]

I don’t think the gospel writers can be held to modern standards of journalism. On the one hand you have people pulling these works to pieces hoping to get at some ‘ultimate truth’. On the other, you have people trying to hype-up apocryphal works.

We in the West would be better off getting to the mystical core of our religion rather than talking, writing and thinking about it so much. The latter habit is very enervating.

**One minute of a genuine vision of Christ the King is worth more than an 100,000 commentaries on the Bible. **