Yes, I think that’s my view. By and large, I don’t think God preserved the Gospels in Scripture for their history, although they definitely do contain good history in many places and contain theology of Christians others. I think the main purpose of the Gospels is to show how followers of Jesus in the early church saw him and related to Him, showing their praise, and their doubts, and their questions, and their anger, and their requests, and their reverence. Not to give us an inerrant portrait of his ministry. The Gospels are deeply emotional, deeply personal as well as communal, and deeply spiritual portraits of Jesus blending fact with fiction, history with theology.
I am having a little fun yes, but I think its clear that this type of reasoning and genre and purpose considerations can be extended to every Biblical book just as easily. Luke’s prologue doesn’t get around this either.
You have to do better than that. One, I reject the divide and conquer technique. Two, I reject that being able to come up with any explanation suffices. Both sides share a burden of proof in every debate. Third, ff you think the lack of “I am” statements can be waved away by claiming the synoptic authors felt no need to include Jesus’ statements where he directly and obviously claims to be God/one with the father–the most scandalous thing he could do in monotheistic Judaism, you don’t really understand the gravity of the differences between John and the Synoptics. I outlined many of them here: