There is an ongoing debate between Christian apologists and skeptics about the value of the Gospels as historical sources, specifically whether they are eyewitness accounts. Some apologists argue strongly that the Gospels were written by Matthew and John (both of the twelve apostles) and by Mark (who received his content from Peter) and Luke (who was a colleague of Paul). Others reject this completely, suggesting that any disciples were dead before a Gospel was written.
See my post: What Do We Mean When We Say the Gospels Were Originally Anonymous?
The assumption by both parties is that the historical value hinges on whether the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. I think that is an inaccurate assumption.
I am not taking a stand here on the authorship of the Gospels, although I’m more confident in the authorship of Mark and Luke.
What if we shifted the conversation from whether the Gospels are eyewitness testimony to whether the Gospels contain eyewitness testimony?
Think about a police report after an accident or a crime. Is that police report eyewitness testimony? No. But it contains eyewitness testimony. The police officer talks to the people involved or who saw what happened and then summarizes their statements. The courts take those police reports seriously and see them as giving an accurate description of the events.
The Gospels may or may not have been written by eyewitness. But there is a good chance that they contain eyewitness testimony. Someone who has done good work on this is Richard Bauckham in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
I believe that the Gospels are very valuable historical documents describing Jesus of Nazareth and that statement is not determined by the identity of the four Gospel writers/editors.
