Eyewitness Accounts in the New Testament?

I came across a gem of a post on the blog of historian Larry Hurtado. He quotes Richard Bauckham commenting on a new book he's working on.  Bauckham has written some incredibly influential books (here and here) on the history of the first century Greco-Roman and Jewish world, and his comment on Hurtado's blog makes me wonder in anticipation what this new project might add to Bauckham's influence on the understanding of the New Testament.  Here's the comment:

“I guess I ought to clarify my position on eyewitness testimony in the Gospels, since it has been raised and you, Larry, say: ‘As I understand him, he doesn’t mean that the Gospels are “eyewitness testimony” such as a court transcript would provide, but that the Gospels draw on “eyewitness testimony” as it circulated in early Christian circles.’ Well, no, certainly nothing like a court transcript, more like “oral history.” But my point was that the Gospels are CLOSE to the eyewitnesses’ own testimony, not removed from them by decades of oral tradition. I think there is a very good case for Papias’s claim that Mark got his much of his material directly from Peter (and I will substantiate this further with quite new evidence in the sequel to [my book] Jesus and the Eyewitnesses that I’m now writing). I think that the ‘Beloved Disciple’ himself wrote the Gospel of John as we have it, and that he was a disciple of Jesus and thus an eyewitness himself, as he claims, though not John the son of Zebedee. Of course, his Gospel is the product of his life-long reflection on what he had witnessed, the most interpretative of the Gospels, but still the only one actually written by an eyewitness, who, precisely because he was close to Jesus, felt entitled to interpret quite extensively. Luke, as well as incorporating written material (Mark’s Gospel, which he knew as substantially Peter’s version of the Gospel story, and probably some of the “Q” material was in written form), also, I think, did what ancient historians did: he took every opportunity to meet eyewitnesses and interviewed them. He has probably collected material from a number of minor eyewitnesses from whom he got individual stories or sayings. Matthew is the Gospel I understand least! But whatever accounts for Matthew it is not the form-critical picture of anonymous community traditions, which we really must now abandon!”

Here's the link to Hurtado's post: 

http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/bauckham-on-eyewitnesses-and-the-gospels/

And here's another little treat.  Bauckham explaining Jesus and the Eyewitnesses:

Noah: The Upcoming Epic Film

"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." (Genesis 6:5-8, ESV)

This should be entertaining.  Even if Hollywood twists the biblical storyline for the sake of moviegoer's awe, Russell Crowe, Anthony Hopkins and Hermione--I mean Emma Watson--is a team that is not likely to disappoint.  According to IMDb the director and primary writer, Darren Aronofsky, has been intrigued by the Noah figure since childhood because of his experience with survivor's guilt.  The film will be based on the recently published French graphic novel by Aronofsky & Handel, Noé: Pour la cruauté des hommes ("Noah: For the Cruelty of Men").  Below are the trailers for both that graphic novel and the 2014 epic film, Noah, as well as some images from the graphic novel.

If I had to guess, based on the director's past, the content of the trailer, and the images from the graphic novel, this film will be quite dark and violent.  Perhaps it will, then, do a better job at capturing the nature of humanity.  John Byron said the following in expectation: "The film starring Russell Crowe and Emma Watson seems to promise a technological feast for the eyes and ears as Hollywood tries to do a better job of destroying the world than God."  So it continues.


Edit (bit of a spoiler here): I've done a bit more research and have found some interesting little tidbits about the thrust of the film.  Apparently the earth is destroyed because humankind disrespected the plants and animals.  That is, our current global-warming debate has been handed off to Noah and friends.  Here's what Aronofsky said: "It’s about environmental apocalypse which is the biggest theme, for me, right now for what’s going on on this planet. So I think it’s got these big, big themes that connect with us. Noah was the first environmentalist."  Basically, it looks like Noah is going to be the good guy, and God and everyone else will be the bad guys.  For a lengthy summary of the script, click here.

Some pages from the French graphic novel: