DID MARY WRITE PART OF LUKE'S GOSPEL?

In a previous post on “Women Authors of the Old Testament” I mentioned the difficulty in many cases in determining exactly who wrote some of the biblical books, a problem made even harder by the exact definition of the term “author.” Should it include people who appear in the book and say or do something, a written or oral source that the final writer relies on, and/or a final editor? In the case of Luke's Gospel two possible situations need to be discussed: whether Mary was the oral source of some of this particular gospel account and whether she composed the song popularly called The Magnificat.

Luke's Sources

The first thing we should note is that obviously Luke, Paul's missionary companion, was not an eyewitness to much, if any, of the historical happenings during Jesus' time on earth and neither was his mentor Paul. Therefore it was logical of Luke to begin his Gospel account in Luke 1:1-4 by explaining where he got his information, namely from the eyewitnesses themselves and from others who had already “set down an orderly account of the events.”

And we can deduce a little more by comparing his gospel with the other Synoptic Gospels of Mark and Matthew. From such a comparison, a simple three-source hypothesis emerges. Much of the material in Matthew and Luke repeats almost verbatim Mark's Gospel. Thus, it is logical to assume that Mark was was one of the other accounts that Luke speaks of in his prologue. But then there is much more material that is found in common between Luke and Matthew that does not appear in Mark at all. It consists mainly of the various teachings of Jesus, and Bible scholars have labeled this source Q for the sake of convenience. No one has yet found this elusive document, but the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas gives us a good idea of how it may have looked.

The above scenario still leaves unaccounted for material that is unique to Luke (labeled L) and material that is unique to Matthew (labeled M). In the case of Luke's Gospel, that amounts to roughly 30% of his Gospel including the infancy accounts of chapters 1-2; 9:51-19:48; parts of chapters 22-23 and Luke 24. The first and last of these chapters are especially of interest since it is known that Mary the mother of Jesus was present during both periods of time in Jesus' life. And even more importantly, as Raymond Brown points out, “Mary is the only adult who survives from the infancy narrative into the public ministry of Jesus.”

But would Luke have resorted to obtaining information from any women at all in light of the reputation that they had at the time as being untrustworthy witnesses? It is entirely likely in view of the way that the role of women is highlighted throughout Luke's Gospel. J.B. Green notes, “Some forty-two passages are concerned with women or include themes related to women, most of which are unique to Luke's Gospel. More than one-third of the people mentioned in the Third Gospel of Luke are women.”

M.J. Smith adds: “Since Luke's Gospel contains the largest representation of women, many feminists and womanists, past and present, consider it the most liberating of the four canonical Gospels.”

If so, who were these women? J.A. Martin says, “He may have gathered certain details, such as facts on Jesus' youth, from Mary herself (cf. 2:51).”

Fitzmyer devotes thirty pages of his commentary on Luke to discussing possible sources that may have been included in L. He first explains regarding L that “when one considers the material that is peculiar to Luke, there is, first of all, no reason to think in terms of a written source.” So among the possible oral sources Luke may have utilized, he lists Mary the mother of Jesus, who by some scholars “is said to have been Luke's chief informant for the infancy narrative and the Nazareth episode (Luke 4:16-30)...as well as Joanna, the 'wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (Luke 8:3)” and additional female sources for the Book of Acts.

He continues, “Many have thought that at the root of [the Lucan infancy narrative] lie Mary's memoirs. But all such claims have only speculation for their basis, sheer conjecture.” Fitzmyer then quotes McHugh as saying that “it is a priori likely that Mary gave some account of the infancy of Jesus to the first disciples.” To which, Fitzmyer replies,”This is sheer speculation.”

Fitzmyer cautiously concludes: “Luke could have obtained information from such sources, but such a list of candidates is based on speculation, more pious than critical, about possible informants.” Such a statement is interesting for a couple of reasons. In the first place, it assumes that a historically “critical” stance is the only sure way to address such questions. Secondly, Fitzmyer's comments are enlightening for those who feel that any Roman Catholic Bible translation or commentary must be automatically suspect for an evangelical Protestant reader because it must be filled with Catholic doctrines. In fact, Fitzmyer is a Jesuit priest, and his commentary received an imprimatur from the Archdiocese of Washington. However, I am certainly hesitant to endorse Fitzmyer's ideas since many are too influenced by a prevailing critical and skeptical stance to be taken at face value without careful examination.

The Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55)

Most of the scholarly discussion regarding Mary's possible involvement with the composition of Luke's Gospel involves the Infancy Narratives in chapters 1-2, especially Luke 1:46-55 since it is purported to have been composed and recited by her on the spot. The scholarly comments regarding the author of this hymn range all over the theological map, given below, starting with comments from the evangelical corner:

    “The Magnificat is in form a beautiful lyrical poem uttered by a Jewish peasant girl whose cultural background was the OT writings, which supply the very expressions she uses...Mary knew the OT thoroughly, and many portions, especially the lyrical ones, by heart. Their language became the natural vehicle of her praises.” (Porter)

    “In response to the situation at hand Mary recited a song which praised God's favor on her and her people. 'The Magnificat,' as the song is called, consists almost entirely of Old Testament allusions and quotations.”

    Geldenhuys: In its form as uttered by Mary it is a beautiful lyrical poem. It is remarkable how genuinely Hebrew it is in thought and manner of expression...It is almost wholly made up of Old Testament quotations...where Mary borrowed expressions from the Old Testament she gives to the consecrated words a deeper meaning and a higher application...In discussing this hymn of praise, some critics have asked whether Mary had her Old Testament open before her when she uttered the song. They forget that all pious Israelites from their childhood days knew by heart songs from the Old Testament and often sang them in the home circle and at celebrations. Mary was steeped in the poetical literature of her nation and accordingly her hymn also bears the unmistakable signs of it.”

    Ellis feels that “the hymn need not be regarded as Mary's spontaneous or exact reply. But neither should it be considered merely as an editorial reconstruction. Its significance for Luke lies in the fact that it is Mary's prophecy, i.e. that its contents sprang from her lips and express her mind and heart.”

    “The lack of Christian coloring suggests that the present hymn fits no situation better than that of Mary herself..., although this does not necessarily mean that Mary herself composed the hymn at the precise occasion in the text.” (Marshall)

And then, at the other end of the theological spectrum are comments from two noted Bible scholars mentioned earlier who are interestingly both Catholic priests and who both deny any involvement of Mary in the composition of the Magnificat:

    After reviewing the opinions of other scholars, Raymond Brown states, “For the reader's guidance let me summarize here my own position. I see no need of positing either a JBap [John the Baptist] source or a Marian source for ch. 1.” Instead he proposes that “the canticles [i.e. songs] in Luke 1 came from a group of Jewish Christians that he calls the Anawin, meaning the “Poor Ones'...who had been converted to Christianity, a group that unlike the sectarians at Qumran would have continued to reverence the Temple and whose messianism was Davidic.”

    Fitzmyer: “Since there is no evidence that the Magnificat ever existed in a Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) form, there is no reason to think of Mary as the one who composed it.”

This last statement is of note since much would seem to depend on the question of the original language before it was translated by Luke for a mainly Greek-speaking audience. And on this point, most scholars are in agreement:

    “In contrast to the classical Greek of the prologue, the infancy narratives abound in Hebraisms. Most probably they rest on Hebrew or Aramaic documents.” (Ellis)

    “Marshall notes that “the [Infancy] narratives betray a Semitic background to a degree unparalleled elsewhere in Lk.-Acts. The whole atmosphere of the story is Palestinian. The language too is strongly Semitic...These considerations suggest that Luke has made us of some material, especially the canticles, which was originally composed in Hebrew, although it may well have reached him [i.e. Luke] in a Greek form.”

    “Both R.E. Brown and S. Farris argue that they [infancy hymns] were first composed in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek.” (Vinson) Vinson himself states, “Luke either composed them or edited preexisting hymns to render them so compatible with his purposes.” Brown cites thirteen Bible scholars who propose an Aramaic or Hebrew source and an equal number who deny it.

    Even Fitzmyer, somewhat contradictorily, admits that “it is noteworthy that the hymn is more heavily Semitized than the rest of the surrounding, otherwise Semitized Greek of the infancy narrative.”

The conclusion to this point is that one cannot draw a firm conclusion on the basis of the language since its Semitic flavoring may have been due to sources of the proper time frame but by an individual or group other than Mary herself. Alternatively, Luke has composed from diverse sources a pastiche resembling what Mary might have said and purposely wrote it in heavily Hebraicized language.

If you are curious regarding the similarities of Mary's poem to OT texts, the following list of possible parallels has been collected from several sources: Genesis 12:3; 13:15; 22:18; 30:13; Deuteronomy 10:21; 22:23-24; I Samuel 1:1-2,11, 24-28, 46-55; Psalms 34:1-3; 35; 89:10; 98:3; 103:17; 107:9; 111:9; 126:3; 138:6; Isaiah 41:8-9; 61:10; Ezekiel 17:24; Habakkuk 3:18; and Zephaniah 3:17. But most scholars agree that the closest parallel by far to the Magnificat is Hannah's Song in I Samuel 2:1-10. As an interesting exercise, you might try to see if you can match up these passages with the appropriate verses in Mary's song.

In short, “The Magnificat belongs to the tradition of Jewish hymns in the Second Temple period where both the form and content draw on a variety of OT hymns.” (Pao and Schnabel) It has also been noted that The Psalms of Solomon (ca. 60-40 BC) contains nearly every phrase in the Magnificat.

But there is still one remaining uncertainty concerning the true authorship of the Magnificat. What does the Greek text actually say to address this point? The passage starts out in Luke 1:19-45 with Mary visiting her cousin Elizabeth. Then verse 46 begins, “And Mary said.” And this is the reading in the vast majority of early manuscripts. However, a few Latin translations read, “And Elizabeth said” instead.

The noted textual scholar Bruce Metzger lists three possibilities for this discrepancy:

    1. The original read “Mary” but was changed by some later scribes on the basis of v. 56, which follows the Song itself and reads, “And Mary remained with her [referring again to Elizabeth] about three months and then returned to her own home.”

    2. The original read “Elizabeth” but was changed to Mary due to her veneration in the early church.

    3. The original read “she,” and different copyists supplied different names instead to clarify it.

Most modern translations will note “Elizabeth” as an alternative reading, although The Jerusalem Bible specifically says, “Not 'Elizabeth', a variety with only slight manuscript support.” The footnote in NEB mentions Metzger's final option as a possibility. That is also noted by E.E. Ellis, who adds that scholars “are divided on the question of whether the contents of the hymn are more suitable to Mary or Elizabeth.” As in the case of many textual problems, one needs to take into consideration both the external evidence (the number, date, and distribution of variant manuscripts) and the internal evidence (which option best fits the context).