The question of whether Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus is a complex one, with no definitive answer that satisfies everyone. Here's a breakdown of the arguments and evidence:
Arguments FOR Matthew and John being eyewitnesses:
* Traditional Authorship: Christian tradition, dating back to the early Church Fathers, attributes the Gospels of Matthew and John to the apostles Matthew and John, respectively. If they were indeed written by these apostles, they would have been eyewitnesses.
* Internal Evidence (John's Gospel):
* The Gospel of John refers to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20). Tradition identifies this disciple as John. Some argue the intimate knowledge and detailed descriptions suggest an eyewitness account.
* John 1:14 states, "We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." This implies a personal experience of witnessing Jesus' divine nature.
* John 19:35: "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe." This emphasizes the eyewitness nature of the account.
* Accuracy and Detail: Proponents argue that the Gospels contain accurate and detailed accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, suggesting they were based on firsthand observation.
Arguments AGAINST Matthew and John being eyewitnesses (or at least against the Gospels being solely their firsthand accounts):
* Anonymity: The Gospels of Matthew and John are technically anonymous. They don't explicitly identify their authors within the text. The attribution to Matthew and John comes from later tradition.
* Source Criticism: Scholars who study the Gospels through source criticism argue that the authors relied on earlier sources, such as the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical source called "Q" (for sayings of Jesus). If they relied on these sources, they weren't solely relying on their own memories.
* Literary Form and Editing: The Gospels are not simply transcripts of events. They are carefully crafted narratives with theological agendas. This suggests that the authors were not merely recording events but also shaping them to convey specific messages.
* Differences in Perspective and Style: The Gospels differ in their perspective, style, and content. For example, John's Gospel presents a more theological and symbolic portrayal of Jesus compared to the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). These differences raise questions about the extent to which they are all based on direct eyewitness accounts.
* The "Beloved Disciple" in John: Even if the "beloved disciple" is John, some argue that the way he is portrayed suggests a figure used to represent ideal discipleship rather than necessarily being a historical apostle writing the entire gospel.
* Matthew's possible use of Mark: Many scholars believe that the author of Matthew used the Gospel of Mark as a primary source, copying and adapting large sections of it. This would mean Matthew's gospel is not entirely independent eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion:
It's impossible to say definitively whether Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to the entire mission of Jesus with absolute certainty.
* Possible Scenario 1: Direct Authorship and Eyewitness Testimony: It's possible that the traditional view is correct, and the apostles Matthew and John did write the Gospels attributed to them, relying on their own experiences and memories.
* Possible Scenario 2: Eyewitness Tradition with Later Editing: It's also possible that the Gospels are based on the eyewitness testimony of Matthew and John (or others in their circles), but that these accounts were later edited, shaped, and compiled by other authors or communities.
* Possible Scenario 3: Dependence on Sources and Theological Interpretation: Another possibility is that the Gospels relied heavily on earlier sources, traditions, and theological interpretations, and that the role of Matthew and John was more as editors or compilers than as direct eyewitnesses.
What can be said with more confidence:
* The Gospels are valuable sources of information about the life, teachings, and significance of Jesus.
* They are carefully crafted narratives with theological agendas.
* The question of authorship and eyewitness testimony is complex and has been debated for centuries.
Ultimately, each reader must weigh the evidence and decide for themselves what they believe. It is a matter of faith and historical interpretation.