Since the Synoptic problem indicates that the Synoptic gospels form a comprehensive view that gives a holistic perspective, therefore, bible readers can Not use the argument that the 3 gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are 3 separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ's lifetime.
I emphasize can Not because if we consider all the following Hypothesis and models associated with the Synoptic gospels then we have to take into account that:
-one of the gospels was a source for the other two gospels
-two of the gospels was a source for one of the gospels
-one of the gospels and some other Q source(s) were a the sources for the other 2 gospels and so on and so forth..............
Two-Source Hypothesis [Mark-Q model]
Four-Source Hypothesis [Mark-Q model with M and L]
Mark-Q Theory with Proto-Luke
Proto-Matthew (and Proto-Luke)
Markan Hypothesis (MkH)
Three-Source Hypothesis [Mark-Q-Matthew model]3SH
Farrer Hypothesis [Mark-Matthew model]
Griesbach (or Two-Gospel) Hypothesis [Matthew-Luke model]
Traditional Augustinian Hypothesis [Matthew-Mark model]
Proto-Gospel Theory (UrG)
LTH: The Logia Translation Hypothesis
Multiple Proto-Gospel Theories
Therefore, Christian apologists can No longer use the argument that Matthew, Mark and Luke are 3 separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ's lifetime.
However, would it still be correct to state that?
a)Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are a comprehensive view that correspond to 1 eyewitness account of Jesus Christ's lifetime
b)and Gospel of John is the other eyewitness account of Jesus Christ's lifetime
Therefore, would it be correct to say that the Bible has 2 eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ's lifetime?