It doesn’t take long to see how people’s memories (short-term or long-term) aren’t always the most reliable.
Ask ten people what happened thirty-minutes after a car accident and you’d really have to do some work to determine what actually took place. Did the driver of the red truck run the stop sign or was it actually the blue sedan driver’s fault that caused the crash in the intersection? There would probably be eyewitnesses arguing over the colors of vehicles involved. It wasn’t a blue sedan, it was a green sedan!
What do we do, then, when it comes to the gospels and their supposed “eyewitness testimony”? Can we trust them?
Some say absolutely not. The fact that these stories are put together through the memories of folks who witnessed certain things being done and said by Jesus doesn’t make any of them true.
I, however, have a different opinion on the matter.
It makes a difference to me whether or not the writers of the gospels were concerned to get the stories right or just to tell a good story. There’s no doubt that the stories are compelling and fascinating, but that means very little if the authors didn’t care to get the details correct.
Luke, whoever he was, is helpful here.
He almost certainly authored both the Gospel of Luke and Acts. Two distinct stories that revolved around the person of Jesus and how he changed the world. Interestingly, both writings are dedicated to the same person: Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). And, in the gospel, Luke makes at least two things clear: 1) his purpose for writing and 2) the care he took in putting the stories together. Two things that can help us trust him as he tells these stories.
The first: his purpose in writing. Luke writes, “it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:3-4, ESV).
Luke is straightforward with his purpose. He wrote his gospel because it seemed good to him. And it seemed good to him because he had been following these things (Jesus’ life and all that came along with it) closely. Therefore, Luke wrote an orderly account. Note that. Luke didn’t just write an account of what took place; he wrote and orderly account. That goes a long way to show us his motivation and the care he took in bringing this gospel to life.
Luke also says that he wrote his gospel for Theophilus so that he would have certainty concerning the things he had been taught. Theophilus had known some of these Jesus stories because he had been taught them, and Luke wants him to be confident in what he has been taught. In other words, Luke wants Theophilus to be know that he has been told the truth.
The second thing Luke makes clear: he spoke with many eyewitnesses to get the stories correct. Luke writes, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us” (Luke 1:1-2, ESV).
Luke says that many people have taken it upon themselves to put together stories about the life of Jesus and the impact he had on the world. This was not a novel thing Luke was stepping into. However, Luke being motivated by accuracy, was driven to consult with many people who saw Jesus say and do things. He didn’t just try his best to remember what Jesus said; he went and talked to the people who heard him and he put their stories together in a way that told the greater story accurately. He spoke with people who had a vested interest in getting these stories right: ministers of the word.
It’s sometimes said that you can’t trust the gospels because they were written by people who liked Jesus, so they told their stories in such a way as to make sure everyone would like him. If that meant putting words in his mouth, taking words out of his mouth, or changing the responses of the people who saw and heard him, then so be it.
I, for one, don’t think that argument is as compelling as some make it seem.
The assumption to that sort of argument is that you can only trust those who are emotionally removed and personally uninvested. To really trust someone they have to be a person who really doesn’t care about the story. I think that’s backwards.
Sure, there are situations where stories get manipulated by someone exactly because they have vested interest in the story being told. However, when it comes to the gospels (and the rest of the New Testament for that matter), what I think we find is a group of people who told these stories accurately because their whole world relied on them. These weren’t just fanciful stories about some guy. These were true stories about a person who changed everything for everyone he came into contact with. They had to get the stories right because of the magnitude of the person they were writing about.
And Luke decides to make that clear from the very beginning of his gospel story, which is why I have no problem trusting him.