Board index ‹ Bible

[Gear Head]

When was the book of Matthew written? Some scholars say between 65-100 AD. How credible is this position?

[jimwalton]

Between 63-100 is VERY credible. I put Matthew in the early 60s, about the earliest possible date, for a variety of reasons, but it was for sure in the first century.

• The book of Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), Nero's persecutions (moid-60s), the martyrdoms of James (61) or Peter (65), the Jewish war against Rome from 66 on. Many of the expressions of Acts are very early and primitive. Acts deals with issues that were especially important prior to Jerusalem's fall. Since Acts is the second part of a two-part work authored by Luke, Luke's Gosp[el was likely written before the early 60s, and Matthew is probably in the same era.
• The author is interested in breaking down the barriers between Jew and Gentile, male and female, both issues in early Christianity (Acts 15; Gal. 3.28-29) and fairly irrelevant after AD 70 (it was a given by then).
• Matthew is writing an apologetic for the legitimacy of Jesus aimed at a Jewish audience, which makes far more sense in the 50s than in the 70s.
• Matthew’s Gospel is thoroughly Jewish, a much more difficult audience to reach after 70, especially if written from Palestine.
• The archaic expressions, interest in ecclesiastical matters, carefully recorded statements of Jesus about the Law, a conservative type of eschatology, together with an already dying method of commentary, all serve to convince us that we are dealing with someone writing in the mid-1st-c.
• A conservative type of eschatology suggests an early context.
• Matthew has many similarities to the book of Acts, giving the account of the Church in the 30s and 50s. It was written in the cultural milieu, the theological context, the linguistic setting, and the church era of the 30s and 50s, pointing to its composition at the end of the 50s.
• 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 sharp language about various Jews in the Gospel reflects the kinds of discussions and disputes within Judaism prior to 70.
• Ignatius of Antioch (ca. AD 30-110) quotes Mt. 12.33 in his "Letter to the Ephesians," Mt. 19.12 in Letter to the Smyrnaeans, and Mt. 10.16 in Letter to Polycarp. It shows that the Gospel was extant in the first century.
• Clement of Rome (AD 30-100) quotes from Matthew several times. It shows that the Gospel was extant in the first century.
• Hermas (AD 97) in "The Shepherd," mentions that there are four Gospels.
• The Didache (AD 100-105), quotes Matthew 6.5, 9-13.
• Papias, in 125, was aware of a Gospel written by Matthew
• Irenaeus, in 180, says it was written while Peter and Paul were still preaching in Rome in the early 60s.

The Gospel was certainly written in the first century.

[Spiderman]

> The book of Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem

arguments from silence aren't good, in general.

luke/acts does draw on a couple of sources we know to be post 70. ignoring mark for a second, there's a strong argument for dependence on josephus's antiquities, which was written in the mid 90's. for instance, the "emmaus narrative" in luke 24 follows closely the model of the testimonium flavianum (ant 18.3.3), regarding jesus, including an apparently redundant duplication of "man" (left out of most english bibles, but it's there in greek, jesus is a "man prophet") straight from the TF.

there's also this mistake:

But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. Then he said to them, “Fellow Israelites, consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” (Acts 5:34-39)

this only makes sense if he was misreading antiquities:

Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan. For he told them he was a prophet: and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it. And many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt: but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. Who falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befel the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus’s government.

Then came Tiberius Alexander, as successor to Fadus. He was the son of Alexander, the alabarch of Alexandria: which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family, and wealth. He was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander: for he did not continue in the religion of his countrey. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which Queen Helena bought corn in Egypt, at a great expence, and distributed it to those that were in want: as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain: I mean of that Judas, who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews; as we have shewed in a foregoing book. (Ant. 20.51-2)

josephus, of course, is not referring to some additional census, also conducted by quirinius, some 40 years after the initial one. he's referring to the one in 6 CE, when judea was annexed to syria. the one where judas of galilee rose up and revolted, founding the zealot movement (ant. 18.1) he's just mentioning judas here because his sons were killed after theudas. josephus mentions judas out of chronological order, but luke reads the sequential order as chronological. luke is reading antiquities, which was published around 93 or 94 CE.

> The author is interested in breaking down the barriers between Jew and Gentile, male and female, both issues in early Christianity (Acts 15; Gal. 3.28-29) and fairly irrelevant after AD 70 (it was a given by then).

extremely relevant after 70 CE, when being a jew wasn't particularly popular in the roman empire.

> Matthew’s Gospel is thoroughly Jewish, a much more difficult audience to reach after 70, especially if written from Palestine.

matthew is greek -- he's writing to jewish people abroad -- much more common after 70.

> Papias, in 125, was aware of a Gospel written by Matthew

papias's description of matthew doesn't match the gospel we have. he says it's sayings, not narrative, in hebrew (or aramaic). the document we have a greek narrative, that relies on greek sources (mark, Q, the LXX) and has certain features that do not work in hebrew or aramaic. for instance, the birth narrative's quotation of isaiah must be greek, as we know that contemporary versions of isaiah in hebrew (see the great isaiah scroll from qumran) did not say "virgin".

[jimwalton]

> arguments from silence aren't good, in general.

I agree that arguments from silence aren't the strongest, but significant events in the culture like the fall of Jerusalem, and significant events in Christendom, such as the martyrdom of Peter, would be more than very odd for him to ignore.

> luke/acts does draw on a couple of sources we know to be post 70

I'm not aware of any such thing, so you'd need to be more specific.

> there's a strong argument for dependence on josephus's antiquities

The argument for dependence on Antiquities is actually quite weak. I know Richard Carrier posits this theory, but it doesn't stand up to scholarly evaluation. The claim is so lacking in substance that most scholars consider the issue highly debatable, not at all obvious or settled, and able to be rejected on many grounds. What is a stronger argument is that Luke and Josephus shared some of the same source material.

> Acts 5:34-39

It's not a mistake, and doesn't require Josephus to make sense of it. The rebellion of Theudas occurred in AD 46-47, but Luke has Gamaliel, about the year 33, refer to it in the past tense; not only that, but he says the revolt occurred before that led by Judas of Galilee in AD 6. Two issues exist here. The first is that the sole source of information about Theudas’s rebellion comes from Josephus. What makes this interesting is that Josephus is widely discounted by critics as an unreliable historian, especially when he mentions facts that confirm the biblical narrative. Here, however, when Luke contradicts Josephus, Luke must be wrong. The obvious solution, of course, is that Gamaliel was referring to a smaller revolt led by a different Theudas of whom we have no further record. When we realize that Theudas was also an abbreviation for names such as Theodotus or Theodosius, which are themselves the Greek equivalents to the Hebrew names Jonathan, Nathanael, and Matthias, the probability of this option increases.

> extremely relevant after 70 CE, when being a jew wasn't particularly popular in the roman empire.

Neither was being a Christian popular in the Empire. By 70, the Church had come to fully accept the inclusion of Gentile members without them having to become Jewish. It was no longer an issue. It has nothing to do with Jews being unpopular in the Empire.

> matthew is greek -- he's writing to jewish people abroad -- much more common after 70.

Matthew was a Levite, and of solidly Jewish roots. His Gospel is thoroughly Jewish, examining the Law and how Jesus fulfilled it, examining Jewish prophecy and how Jesus fulfilled it, the Temple, and concerned with Judaistic ecclesiological matters and how Jesus addressed them. Matthew's Gospel contents about 55 quotations from the Jewish Scriptures, and throughout is dealing with Jewish customs, debates, language, and politics.

There is no evidence he is writing to Jewish people abroad. His attention to the intramural disputes between Pharisees and Sadducees is far more indicative of an early- to mid-1st-c. perspective than to "Writing to Jewish people abroad—a claim for which there is no evidence.
Albright and Mann, along with John Kempen, comment that "The level of Greek fits a man who was probably tri-lingual, a native Palestinian but who regularly does business in Greek, which is what Matthew was. The Gospel’s Greek composition is fully consonant with Jewish Palestine of the first century."

> papias's description of matthew doesn't match the gospel we have.

What Papias's note does show is that a Gospel by Matthew existed. That was my point in response to the OP

> he says it's sayings, not narrative,

Matthew wrote something, possibly even a precursor to the Gospel, possibly even Q, the supposed source material of the Synoptics. Papias admits that it was written in Hebrew (or Aramaic), but also that it was translated. As Blomberg writes, "There may have been multiple translations of this document, including into Greek, which could have resulted in any or all of what we know as Matthew’s Gospel.” That Papias says it's "sayings" doesn't discredit the Gospel, Matthew's authorship, or (primarily for our conversation) that it took place in the first century.

> for instance, the birth narrative's quotation of isaiah must be greek, as we know that contemporary versions of isaiah in hebrew (see the great isaiah scroll from qumran) did not say "virgin"

This suggestions doesn't discredit Matthean authorship, nor that the Gospel may have originally been written in Hebrew, nor that it was written in the first century. Even if Matthew had used the term 'almah, the Greek translators (or Matthew himself) could or would have translated 'almah as parthenos, as the Septuagint did 150 years prior (with no ax to grind about Jesus).