That's nice, educated people do not agree. The title is a Greek way to say it was said by someone else.
Gospel According to Matthew Euangélion katà Maththaîon; (As told by Matthew)
"The gospel itself does not specify an author, but he was probably a male
Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.
[7] The majority of modern scholars believe that Mark was the
first gospel to be composed and that Matthew (who includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses) and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works.
["
Gospel According to Mark Euangélion katà Mârkon) (As told by Mark)
Authorship and genre
"The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.[7] It was probably written c. AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.[3] The author used a variety of pre-existing sources, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1–3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1–35), and collections of sayings (although not the Gospel of Thomas and probably not the Q source).[8] It was written in Greek for a gentile audience. Alternative places of composition include Rome, Galilee, Antioch (third-largest city in the Roman Empire, located in northern Syria), and southern Syria.[9] Early Christian tradition attributes it to John Mark mentioned in Acts, but scholars generally reject this as an attempt to link the gospel to an authoritative figure[4]"
LUKE:
The author is not named in either volume.
[7] According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century he was the
Luke named as a companion of
Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters (Theissen and Merz 1998, p.32)."
[8] An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31, 22:6–21, and 26:9–23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17–24).
[16] Luke admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.
[17] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.
[18]
The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.
[8] Some experts date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,
[19] and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.
[10]
Ha, of course there's always some conspiracy theory with supernatural wu-wu.
No "
source skeptics" ignore that because saying John has special magic memory powers as a solution is moronic and scholarship doesn't work that way. But that's a funny conspiracy anyway - "hey man, they are ignoring the magic-memory powers given to them by spirits!"
But the idea of "writing notes on parchment" besides being complete speculation is also far less simple? Look at this chart, a ginormous list of verbatim parallels. On parchment? No chance.
Gospel harmony - Wikipedia
Again, the writers were not "at campfires", they were highly educated scholars writing high level fiction.
we've already been here, the campfire thing is pure speculation. There is no way to account for the highly educated writing style in Mark which uses a long list of literary devices, devices only used with mythical fiction of the times as well. It was so highly mythical that it scores an almost perfect score on the Rank-Ragalin mythic scale putting the Jesus story as mythical as King Arthur.
"The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a striking resemblance to each other, so much so that their contents can easily be set side by side in parallel columns. The fact that they share so much material verbatim and yet also exhibit important differences has led to a number of hypotheses explaining their interdependence, a phenomenon termed the Synoptic Problem."
