Matthew priority: evidence found in Luke 1:1-4

The early church fathers would likely agree with your summation in part or whole based on Eusebius' well-known quote from Papias. I have always been sympathetic with the assertion that Matthew's Hebrew-language gospel was the first of the gospels with a Greek-language version to follow. Any dating of Matthew is very difficult without the presence of any strong time markers. Your dating before 40 is certainly early. Note the expressions in 27:8 and 28:15, "to this day" and "until this day," respectively, suggesting some reasonable passage of time between the resurrection and the authorship of Matthew. If the resurrection took place in 33 A.D. as I prefer or 30 A.D. as others prefer, it would be hard to know whether 7-10 years would satisfy enough time to warrant the expressions in 27:8 and 28:15. Brian, I like what you have presented, but wouldn't you agree that the flip side is just as reasonable? For example, it is just as reasonable to argue that Paul received a verbal testimony rather than a written testimony & that "according to the Scriptures" refers to the Old Testament given Peter's similar argument in the early preaching portions of Acts. Let me sleep on it.

Back from my overseas trip ...

Thiede did not assert that P64 was dated to 50 A.D., so perhaps not a strong link in your presentation.

Note this excerpt from www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/P64TB.htm.
"Before we turn to these manuscripts themselves, we need to clarify Thiede’s claim about the date of P. Magd. Gr. 17. Thiede argued that since the main comparative script (from Nahal Hever) is generally dated around AD 50, the possibility of a date around the middle of the first century for P. Magd. Gr. 17 would be possible. This date, which was picked up in much of the reporting of Thiede’s findings, is not the date that actually emerges from his paper. Although Thiede is sympathetic to the possibility that the manuscript might have been written prior to AD 70, he repeatedly refers more generally to ‘a first-century date’, or ‘prior to the turn of the century’, and in conclusion to ‘some time after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem’. All of these phrases suggest a date between AD 70 and AD 100, and this is confirmed in the following comment:

I do not give a precise date, but suggest a date in the last third of the first century: The ‘starting point’ is the middle of the century; I allow for a variation of c. 20 years + / - and then opt for the later end, ‘soon after A.D. 70’.[34]"

"[34] Quoted from correspondence to the present writer (20th Jan. 1995). In a public lecture for the Hellenic Institute in London on Jan. 28th, Thiede referred repeatedly to ‘a first-century date’."

Been giving your question due thought, but slowed by the presence of house guests.

Is the Gospel of Matthew THE narrative to which Luke makes reference? Are the MANY the apostles who contributed to it with Matthew as scribe? I'm inclined to say "no" to both for the following reasons.

First, there seems to be a distinction in Luke's statement between the "many" who sought to arrange a narrative and the "eyewitnesses and ministers" who delivered the word to Luke and others (orally?). Matthew would certainly fall into the category of eyewitnesses, which again seems to be distinguished from the many who sought to arrange a narrative.

Second, I am not the biblical historian that you are, but I can remember reading in the past about early church teachers (perhaps even part of a movement) who wrote down the stories of the apostles. Perhaps I can research that, but is it not reasonable to understand Luke to be saying that these uninspired, written accounts of the oral testimonies of the apostles were collected by these teachers in an attempt to set forth an orderly narrative, albeit an incomplete narrative, thus prompting Luke to attempt a well-researched and complete narrative?

Perhaps I remembered wrong, but here's this to make me think:

David Smith,"The Days of His Flesh"

"Ere the story was written, there was a class of teachers in the primitive Church whose function it was to go about instructing the believers in oral tradition and drilling it into their minds after the fashion of the Rabbinical schools. They were named the Catechisers ... and their scholars the catechumens.... It was a most necessary service at a time when there was no written record and believers were dependent on oral instruction for their knowledge of the Gospel history."

Looking at the word "narrative," I'm not sure now that Luke is even referring to a written account. Could he be saying, "Inasmuch as many [teachers or catechizers] have set in order a narrative [i.e. oral tradition, singular] of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word [i.e., the apostles et al] delivered them to us [orally], it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to WRITE [or compile] to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus"?

What do you think?

Yes, your point is quite valid. Still working my way through this one.
Here are some quotes to throw into the stew.

Scroggie, "But it must not be concluded that no writings appeared in this period [he means 30-50] because we are not in the possession of any.... Also the lost 'Q' document or Sayings of Jesus, used so largely by Matthew and Luke, indicates that there was considerable literary activity in this period, but none of it has survived, except in so far as it has influenced the writers of the canonical Gospels."

Milligan, "It is impossible to doubt that the leading facts of Christ's life and ministry, which had so profoundly stirred the hearts of many, were written down and circulated almost as soon as they took place."

Ramsay, "So far as antecedent probability goes, founded on the general character of preceding and contemporary Greek or Graeco-Asiatic society, the first Christian account of the circumstances connected with the death of Jesus must be presumed to have been written in the year when Jesus died."

C. K. Williams, translation (1952), "Many writers have already attempted to draw up a connected account of the events which have taken place among us, as these have been handed down to us by men who were from the earliest days eye-witnesses in the service of the story; therefore, having examined them all carefully from the beginning, I have decided, Theophilus, myself to write a continuous account to your Excellency, in order that you may have trustworthy information about the things that you have been taught."

Brian, it is times like this when I wish there were more forum voices to keep the conversation going, for between sick family members, a church crisis, and some intense mentoring over the last three weeks of a young man in need of direction, I have had little time to keep our dialogue going. But I've taken the last couple of days to get back up to speed. I've looked at the Greek until my eyeballs started drying up. I poked around in some of my books once again. I sharpened my memory on the arguments for and against Q. In the end, at least for now, I find myself wanting to read it as follows: Many (not the twelve, but other writers and followers of Christ) have attempted collectively to produce a comprehensive narrative (perhaps both oral and written) of the things that they learned from eyewitnesses, such as the twelve and others, so I too am attempting such a narrative, particularly since I have gained unique insights from my close association with Paul and others. I don't think your view is unjustified, but it doesn't seem quite as natural to me, though there's nothing in the Greek to definitively argue against it. Honestly had never considered your argument previously, but I can say that it will probably be bouncing around now in my head as a possibility until Jesus comes.
- Daniel

P.S. Happy birthday to me!

Perhaps we should return to basics.
What date do you propose for Luke? for Matthew? for Mark?