If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

But, you act like the early Church(es) unanimously considered the Gospel of Matthew to be divinely inspired, and again, such was not how the New Testament came to be:

Wikipedia -- Development of the New Testament canon

Yes, I am aware, that the declaration of Canon was not perhaps as authoritative and clear cut as some might like.  I also no some who use information like this selectively and incompletly to suggest things that are not true.   Kind of like trying to surprise people that the manuscripts are filled with errors, but suggesting in silence something other than what the data indicates.

It is interesting that you bring up Marconianism, referred to early in the Church as being unorthodox, and given a fair amount of credit for the start of the focus on Apostolic succession by Irenaeus.  I understand that there where some groups (which we can see as isolated and having some growth in history) which did differ.  And it was the connection of the teaching of the apostles and those who knew Jesus, that was the answer which was traced back to; in order to resolve this.   But there where some who certainly had their own ideas which did not trace back to Christ.

You see this as well in Paul's letter to the Gallations;  which most scholars date back to the 40-50s or at latest 60's and which wikipedia states has near universal consensus was written by the Apostle Paul (since I know such things of are great concern to you).   Even here, there are those who where trying to distort the Gospel for their own ends, and Paul gives a rather stiff warning that if they or another teach you any other Gospel, that they are  to be accursed. With this, I find it rather difficult to believe, given that we do have quite a few disputes in history over authorship and canon, that the authorship of the Gospels would go so unnoticed a century later in some conspiracy theory to attribute authorship to them. And then there is the question of why would they do this?   You don't see in the early writings, the challenges and discussions as to the historicity of these things, which largely arose in the 19th century.

---

Why do you think that it was written late?  What is your evidence or reasons?   A few of the NT documents did have some dispute over whether they should be included; but, I don't think that Matthew was one of them.  It seems that the early Church believed that it was Matthew the very same disciple who founded some of those Churches.  We also see the same accounts quoted early in the Church, and being used for teaching.   

https://bible.org/seriespage/matthew-int...nd-outline

In the first place, the late dating of the Gospel of Peter seems to be based on nothing more than speculation.  If you have reason to think otherwise, please present it.  Ignoring the internal evidence, which doesn't really lead us to Matthew, the article you quote implies that the gospel of Matthew was written by the same author as that of the work Papias cites solely by virtue of the fact that the gospel of Matthew was later attributed to Matthew.  It gives no other justification for the assumption.  We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today, and it's unclear whether Ignatius is alluding to events in the work that Papias is referencing, or to the gospel of Matthew that we have today; it could be either.  So the best we can say is that there is evidence to indicate that a work attributed to Matthew existed by the first half of the second century, and an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century.  According to Wikipedia, the gospel of Peter is also believed to date to the first half of the second century.  There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.  How any of this shows that the gospel of Matthew should be privileged above the gospel of Peter is a mystery to me (and doctrinal positions don't count as that argument leads nowhere).  So what exactly are you basing your preference for Matthew over Peter upon?

See above....I think I answer some of your questions.

I am curious in your support for the claims you made which you make from above though. And what gives you such force to use the highlighted words.

1. )  We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today
2.)  an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century
3. ) There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.

I would like to know the reasons for this confidence in these claims.