No. Neither one of them were eyewitnesses.

Matthew would have been an illiterate Aramaic speaker and yet the Gospel is written in highly educated Greek, contains events that hadn't happened yet, contains attributions of events that hadn't happened yet, contains events that the apostle wouldn't have seen, has mistakes about geography and Jewish culture that no Palestinian Jewish person would have made, contains direct word for word quotes from Mark, contains deliberately altered quotes from Mark to get certain results.

John is even in a worse position because he not only makes all the mistakes Matthew made he shows a theology that had not even been developed in the first century.

Luke is not a second hand account. He even admits as much when he talks about various sources. Luke borrowed from everywhere. Josphius, Mark, Matthew, the Letters, probably the Q and L source, and who knows how many oral traditions. He is a second hand account in the sense that if you heard me describe a Wikipedia article I had read 8 years ago would be.

As for Paul sure he had a vision. Dehydration, some bad figs, late onset schizophrenia. Take your pick really.