So much in Matthew? Wow! Thanks for the input.

@LenHazell53 That's interesting because, from what you said, I would have thought that Matthew was the last of the four gospels, as each successive one tended to make more extravagant claims, at least concerning the supernatural. But from the source I referenced it appears Matthew was one of the middle two.

@Rossy92
The generally agreed order agreed on by historians is that Mark was the first gospel, written by a Jewish follower of Paul, dating from about 60 to 70 AD, it is aimed largely as new converts and is a primer on the life of Christ, the final chapters referring to the resurrection, were not present in the earlies texts we have and were seemingly added somewhere around the 6th century perhaps much later.
Matthew and Luke come from about the same period of time, between 75 and 100 AD, they both quote verbatim from Mark and from one other source, commonly referred to as the Q document. Matthew as I said was a gospel for the Hebrews, Luke however is a gospel for the Romans, stated as being such and by the same author as the Acts, Luke it is summarized was a doctor, a Roman or Roman Citizen and was likely a disciple of Paul.
John's Gospel is much later, quotes from neither Q or Mark, but does seem to have been aware of Matthew and Luke as well as some of the apocryphal gospels.
It is a gospel for the Greek Intelligentsia, contains multiple mentions of Platonic philosophy and is also Stoicism influenced. It is assumed it came from a man using the name John living on the Island of Patmos about 120 to 175 AD.
However it has been discovered recently that it is in fact likely an edited down and sanitised version of an earlier document known as the Levitikon (not to be confused with the book of the same name published in the 19th century) a scripture of the rival sect who followed the Messiahship of John the Baptist and regarded Jesus as a usurper that in some parts of the middle east clings on as the gnostic sect known as the Mandaeins.

@LenHazell53 Thanks!