So here are some examples from Ecuadorian Quechua.
First of all, Aikhenvald (2004: 43) classes the Quechua language family as having a B1 Evidential system, meaning there are three evidential distinctions: direct (visual), reported, and inferred. Direct, represented by -mi is used to indicate that the speaker was an eyewitness to the event specified. Reported, or indirect -shi is taken to mean hearsay or secondhand information, or that the speaker is removed from the source of the information. The final evidential, the inferential -cha, can invoke a sense of any of the following: probability, doubt, and uncertainty. This is usually translated as “probably” or “perhaps”.
So here: https://www.bible.com/es/bible/98/JHN.1.MTDS are 2 versions of the Bible in Ecuadorian Quechua (Kichwa/Quichua). In John 1 which begins with the "In the beginning there was the word, and the word was with God..."
In all three versions the segment 'the word was with God' the constituent 'with god' is marked with the direct experience evidential -mi:
Rimashca Shutica Taita Dioshuanmi carca
Chai Shimica, Taita Dios-huanmi carca
LIT. "The word father god-with was"
Perhaps the translators chose the direct evidential because they think of the book being written by John, and therefore from John's perspective and since John is thought of by most Christians as a saint or apostle or whatever, he presumably would have 'directly witnessed' such events through visions or some other kind of divine manifestation, and thus could use the "eyewitness" evidential.
However, I think it's important to point out that while most native Quechua speakers today are Christians (Catholic or Protestant), the concepts of Abrahamic religions are still imported concepts. Pre-Colombian South Americans (whose languages developed these evidential categories) didn't have the same ideas about religion and philosophy that have since been imposed on them.
I work with some Quechua dialects in the Amazon in Ecuador, most Quechua speakers there are Christians but they still have a lot of beliefs and ideas about things from pre-colombian times. And the idea of having a consistent "canon" isn't necessary. You'll find 'amazonianized' versions of bible stories like Adam and Eve and Noah's ark and they often conflict with each other in terms of 'canon' but that's not important. Anyway the overall point here is that the system of evidentiality they have may not be the best fit for western ideas about religion, evidence, and canon.
For example, looking a traditional non-Christian myth, we see that the reportative evidential -shi is used quite a lot and the direct evidential -mi only occurs in quotations as speech from specific characters in the narrative. These examples come from a 'beginning times' narrative about a woman who never died but regenerated her body every time she became old by bathing with a certain root. The narrator uses the reportative evidential -shi to talk about the events in the story.
Alli warmishi ag ashkara
LIT. "good woman be-r was being"
"She had been a pretty young woman"
Chasnashi akchata armasha waktarishashi shamushkara shullata anchu-chi-gri-sha
LIT. "like that hair washing hitting she came drops shaking"
"Having washed her hair, she was shaking the water from it as she headed for home."
The site seems to be down at the moment, but you can create a free account at AILLA and access the Janis B. Nuckolls Quechua Collection and download the whole glossed and translated text which is titled: How people came to grow old and die - Como gente vinieron a ponerse viejo y morirse (QVZ003R001I001.pdf). (Content advisory: the text contains incest and rape).
Quechua Collection of Janis B. Nuckolls. The Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America, ailla.utexas.org. Access: public. PID ailla:119502
I'd also recommend Nuckoll's 2014 paper on Quechua evidentials: 'From quotative other to quotative self: Evidential usage in Pastaza Quichua' which breaks down what the more specific functions of the direct evidential -mi is. She departs somewhat from Aikhenvald's descriptions, the direct evidential need not be from an eye witness perspective only, modality and perspective are the more salient elements in defining evidential usage in that language. A speaker may tell someone else’s story and though they were not an eyewitness to the events they may still use -mi in their role as the narrator, thus possessing personal knowledge.
So I think whether the translator intended that John was an eyewitness or not to the beginning time events, it may not be unprecedented to use the direct evidential. Or perhaps it wouldn't be natural to do so at all on the part of the translator.