None of the gospels were written by the apostle they are named after (with the possible exception of Luke / Acts wich were originaly one book). The books of the bible written most closely to thife of Chirst are those written by Paul - the epistles, followed then - chronologically - Mark, Matthew, John, Luke. The word Gospel means good news. The books are titled “the good news according to...” and were written by followers of the particular disciples, often many years later.
Even taking Ryland’s papryus into consideration?
That is certainly not the case. I can’t stand it when people pawn off liberal theories as if they were, for lack of a better term, gospel.
You would be well served to go back and study the source material more closely. And try to look up some scholars that aren’t as biased as the ones you’ve been reading.
Mark may not be the first gospel. I know that is the consensus of Biblical scholars, but Markan priority is a premise that is necessary to sustain a certain philsophic view point. Very good arguments can be made for Mark as a kind of summary of Matthew and Luke.
Actually, I think Mark was probably the first written. He was not an apostle and probably sourced his material first hand from the accounts of the apostle Peter. Some scholars think that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Luke clearly wrote Luke, as you note. This is the first I’ve heard that Matthew didn’t write that Gospel. Perhaps the Apostle Matthew didn’t write it..rather it was written by another apostle named Matthew. John was written the latest—around 90 AD. I don’t know of any reason to think that Paul’s epistles were written before all the gospels.