I wanted to give a separate reply on the authorship arguments to get into more detail.
> The superscription "According to Matthew" is part of the first editions we have of the Gospel (mid-2nd century). It is found on ALL known manuscripts of the book. There is no manuscript without the attribution "According to Matthew" and no evidence contesting Matthean authorship.
Actually, Most of our manuscripts of Mark come from the third century. In the third century, they were all fragmentary meaning that only pieces of the books were preserved and the rest were lost to damage overtime. Titles would usually go on the front of the work. But since the front is lost in most fragments, we do not have that evidence. We only get these later in the 4th century, 100s of years after the attribution.
> The Church Fathers, not just Papias, were unanimous in attributing it to Matthew.
As mentioned in the OP, Papias' testimony is lost and his books are lost. You are going on conjectures and evidence that we do not have. Your "consensus" is an agreement between 3 Christians century later.
> It is undeniable that the titles of all four Gospels were unanimously accepted over a large geographical region in the 2nd century. Because travelers networked early Christian assemblies throughout the Empire, early traditions concerning the authors have credibility.
There is unfortunately no evidence for this.
If you want to use it that way. The earliest quotations are done anonymously meaning that the author was not known unlike how they would do with the OT or Paul's letters. They also heavily imply that the gospels were in oral tradition not written form by the time they were writing.
> The author was a conservative-minded Jew, aware of but not inclined to sectarian views. This fits Matthew's profile.
We unfortunately have no evidence of this claim.
> The interest of the Gospel in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and custom, would come most readily from a man trained in the legal disciplines (Matthew, or Levi), or from one who had been in constant touch with men so trained. Matthew fits the bill. The preservation of sayings of Jesus about the Law, and about some of its interpreters, would be precisely the kind of interest we might expect from a Levite. The Gospel presents a picture of Jesus carefully preserving the true principles of the Mosaic Law. Again, Matthew fits the bill. The archaic expressions, interest in ecclesiastical matters, carefully recorded statements of Jesus about the Law, together with an already dying form of writing, all serve to convince us that we are dealing with an author very much as we would expect Matthew to be, and that the writing was earlier, rather than later.
You do realize that I can grant every single one of these points and it would still be compatible with a gentile hellenized Christian who never knew Hebrew living in France and attempting to proselytizing Jews into converting to Christianity based on how many prophecies Jesus fulfilled.
The takeaway is this: The author's interest in proselytizing Jews or having a Jewish audience does not in any way, shape or form mean that he was Jewish nor does it mean that he was an eyewitness.
> Matthew's particular parables reflect a consuming interest in the spiritual history of Israel as a chosen people, not a subject of conversation after AD 70. The archaic terminology and expressions and interest in ecclesiastical matters give evidence to a date before 70.
Not even sure that there is evidence for either. Even if true, I can use the same arguments for a post-70 AD.
> "Matthew's parables are a reminder to Jewish people as the people of God and serves as an encouragment to the Jewish people after 70 AD"
> The sharp language about various Jews in the Gospel reflect the kinds of discussions and disputes within Judaism prior to 70.
Well this contradicts your other points. But Matthew speaks of the Jewish people rather nicely in his gospel. I think you mean the canaanites whom Jesus calls dogs.
> It seems that Acts was written in the early 60s, which would put Matthew in the 50s.
Based on fallacious arguments from silence.
> Irenaeus says Matthew was written while Peter and Paul were still preaching in Rome (early 60s).
A christian in the third century. Nice!
> Mark preserves Aramaic expressions, a common practice in the 50s.
Well there are no aramaic expressions in Mark, you provided no evidence. There are actually latinisms which would push its dating later. You provided no evidence for your claim that Mark contains aramaic expressions.
> Mark seems to write in an atmosphere where the theological understanding of the ministry and message of Jesus are still in their primitive and elemental forms. Its main concern seems to be Jesus at war with Satan.
No, Mark's main concern is about painting Jesus as the Messiah.
> Clement of Alexandria says Mark was written while Peter was alive. (Peter is thought to have been martyred sometime between 64-68).
Another Christian in the third century.
> Papias wrote that Mark got his information from Peter.
Addressed in the OP.
> Some Marcan material seems to stem from a controversy about Gentiles, clearly a concern in the 50s, and a dead issue after 70.
No there is not. What material are you talking about?
> Themes of Gentile inclusion and Jewish rejection. These are themes that indicate pre-70.
There is nothing like that. If anything, that would be evidence for Post-70 CE.
> Acts deals with issues especially important before 70. Luke was written before Acts.
Acts records events about issues particularly important pre-70 CE, that does not mean that it itself is composed pre-70 CE. If anything, that would mean that it is post- 70 CE since it needed to know the issues before talking about them.
> Luke doesn't mention anything in Paul's writings, nor any acquaintance with them, and yet he travelled with Paul. It gives evidence of a date of writing before his travels with Paul in the late 50s.
There is no evidence that the author was a companion of Paul. Do you know what fallacy you committed here?
> It is possible that Paul quotes from Luke 10.7 in 1 Tim. 5.18, which was written in the mid-50s.
We have no evidence that 1 Timothy is written in the mid 50s. It is one of the disputed letters actually meaning that it is a forgery that came later in Paul's name.
Since you love laundry Lists. Here is evidence that the gospels were written in the mid second century, Let's start with luke.
Luke:
1) Luke is probably writing to Theophilus of Antioch based on the title "Most Excellent" that others called Theophilus of Antioch, who was known in 169 AD only.
2) The gospels of Basilides and Atillepes were written before gLuke meaning that gLuke must have been composed post-160 AD
3) Luke-Acts copies gLord by Marcion (Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle by Joseph Tyson)
4) Acts Seminar gives multiple other reasons like the Use of Josephus. Here is Richard Carrier's evidence.
5) Hermann Detering in the analysis of the Olivet discourse in Luke 21 shows that it is based on the Bar Khokhba Revolt in 136 CE