Direct evidence (eyewitness testimony) used to be given more weight over circumstantial evidence, but that has changed over the last century with fingerprints, DNA, fiber analysis, etc.
But to get back on topic:
None of the the four Gospels are autographed, but internal and external evidence clearly points to 'Luke the Physician', a disciple/companion of Paul, as the author of Luke-Acts.
Unfortunatly for your argument, Luke doesn't claim to be an eyewitnesses. He had to 'investigate' the 'eyewitnesses' (NIV Luke 1):
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Moving on ...
Of the Gospel of Mark; Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, who in his famous 'Ecclesiastical History', quotes Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis quoting 'John the presbyter' :
"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."
As for Matthew, be aware that there were two 'Gospel of Matthew', the first in Aramaic (cf. Irenaeus) and a second one in Greek.
In 'I Clement to the Corinthians' we have two quotes from Matthew, but they are significantly different from the Greek text in our New Testament. So if Clement was quoting the Aramaic version then either the Greek version has some major errors in translation or it is not the thoughts of Apostle Matthew.
Finally there's The 'synoptic problem'. It's been known for many years that Mark, Matthew, and Luke share so much common testimony that they can be read literally side-by-side thus 'syn-optic'.
Regardless of what you think is the cause, why would the story of an eyewitness like Matthew even be vaguely similar to two non-witnesses? More amazing is that his text is so closely related that it can be read 'side-by-side'.
While the Gospel of Matthew is perhaps the best candidate for eyewitness testimony, it fails in that it agrees too much with the others.
And then we come to the Gospel of John. The gospel is a well developed and highly literary testament. Not something that you would expect from a 'unlearned and ignorant' man (Acts 4:13).
Uniquely, John describes the miracles of Jesus as 'signs', further the miracles are a call to faith not the results of faith. In short, John is an evangelacal book.
It is the first gospel to come right out and say that Jesus was the 'Son of God'. The book combines religous features like Gnostic dualism (yin/yang - light/dark - male/female - word/life) with Hellenistic-style teaching:
Jesus says something; The disciples don't understand;Jesus explains himself.
These features are not seen in the other gospels.
John 1:1 & 14 borrows the 'Logos' directly from Philo of Alexandria. As Hellenised Jew, Philo sought to reconcile the Jewish YHWH with the Greek deity of reasoning and wisdom, the 'Logos' and 'Sophia' -- source of an ordered and understandable world.
Remarkable stuff from a 'unlearned' Jewish fisherman.
While clearly intelligent, 'John' doen't seem aware that Jesus and his followers were welcome in the synagogue (Jn 9:22, 12:42, 16:2). It wasn't until the Council of Jamnia in c. 85CE that the Christians were expelled from the synagogue. And John seems ignorant of the Sadducees, which reflects the post-temple Judaism. But the Sadducees were a big factor at the trial of Jesus. Why didn't he mention them?
Maybe eyewitness John just forgot all that stuff while he was studin' up on Philo and Plato; But I doubt it -- as do most of the scholars.
The first external attribution of the text to Apostle John is by Bishop Papias. But then Papias goes on to say that "he [John] was killed by the Jews.". So unless the Jews were wont to kill doddering old men, then it couldn't have been Apostle John, as he would have been well past 90 years old by the time gospel was written.
Of course Papias could be wrong about the death of John, but if so, why then trust him on the authorship?
In the Church, the earliest documented evidence of the gospel is Justin Martyr (c. 150-160), Tatian (c. 170), and Irenaeus (c. 180)
But the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostics. Valentinian texts cited by Clement of Alexandria (c. 140-160), and Irenaeus' Adversus Heraeses about the same time.
In fact the oldest known bit of New Testament is a fragment of the (probably Gnostic) Gospel. It's the John Rylands p52 (Nassene) fragment found in Egypt dated c. 120-130 CE.
The Gospel of John was late coming to the NT. As for why, the first hypothesis is it was written to counter the Gnostics by appealing to the pagan Greeks with it's esoteric themes. Another hypothesis by Fr Raymond E. Brown is that the Gospel started in a Gnostic sect that he calls the 'Johannine community'. As the assault against gnosticism increased this community split, a minority joining the orthodox and a redacted their gospel to make it suitable for the hierarchy in Rome. The majority remained Gnostic and were eventually converted or killed.
Yet a third is by Ramon K. Jusino follows Brown's hypothesis but argues that Mary Magdalene was the venerated leader and the fourth Gospel is her testimony.
If you don't like the disciples' version there's always Josephus for extrabiblical corroboration.
You seem to have me confused with someone that denies Jesus existed. That is not the case, I'm reasonably certain that Jesus did in fact live in the first half of the 1st century. What I can't say is that Jesus as portrayed in the Bible is accurate, because obviously it is not.
PS you still aren't "getting it"
CJ, it's you that's not "getting it". That Bible on your nightstand with it's faux leather cover and gold tipped leaves did not float down from God on a gossamer parachute.
The Bible was developed by the Church, for the Church, and anything that didn't serve the Church was either changed or sequestered. Usually in a violent manner.
Like it's history, the Bible was a Church monopoly for 1,500 years.
The point is the disciples LIVED WITH AND SAW JESUS UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL IF THEY KNEW HE WAS A FRAUD, THEY WOULD NOT LAY DOWN THEIR LIFE FOR HIM.
Well, clearly not the authors of the four Gospels.
Moslem whackjobs are dying for Muhammad today, but I doubt that you believe that ol' Mo was God's prophet. Kinda selective logic, don't ya think?
BTW, in the old days of USENET, argument by CAPs was considered a sign of mental instability.
Just thought you'd like to know ...
It is true that John was written in a manner that the Greeks could understand, but the message is not Greek-- the message is the theology of the NT. Comparing Jesus to the Logos is the very same thing as saying that Jesus is the Torah, something He himself said.
The miracles of the book of John also are messages and follow one another in a logical procession, bringing in a deeper meaning to the text than mere biography. All four books have their roots in the OT and the bible is read as a whole book, the Word of God.
Scholars also deduce evidence for other manuscripts when comparing the synoptics, and they hold that Mark is the oldest and puts its origin during Peter's lifetime. The other books follow closely and so they have validity as eyewitness accounts no matter who copied them down.
Like CJ has said, the truth was so overwhelming that Jesus was the Messiah promised by Moses and all of the OT prophets that death was nothing to the Jews who believed, or to us either.