When was the Gospel of Matthew written?
The Gospel of Matthew never tells us when it was written, so every date offered rests on outside testimony and inference. Proposals in the commentary run from as early as AD 38–41 to as late as AD 85, and the gap matters because it touches how close the record stands to living eyewitnesses.
No date inside the book
The first thing to admit is that the text itself is silent, which is why estimates spread out so widely.
Arend RemmersThe gospel does not contain any details about its exact time of writing, so opinions about it vary considerably. Some researchers believe the gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70); others think there are no facts supporting this, and date it to AD 60–70. Irenaeus (about AD 140–202) suggests Matthew's gospel was written around AD 61–66.
The range the early sources allow
The oldest testimony clusters well inside the first century, and one writer sets out both ends of that range along with the reasoning behind each.
J. N. DarbyAccording to all historical evidence, Matthew was written before that — many think, long before it. The siege of Jerusalem, at which time Zacharias the son of Baruchus was killed, took place in the year 70. Some think Matthew wrote his gospel in the year 41, a date borrowed from Eusebius, that is thirty years before the siege... and the common account given in the immediately following period, the first centuries, was that he left it for the use of the Hebrews when he went out to preach the gospel elsewhere. Others, relying on a passage in Irenaeus, think he wrote it as late as 61 or 62, and even 64. But this is the latest date assigned by anyone who has examined the subject.
A very early date puts the record under public scrutiny
Dating matters for more than tidiness. If the Gospel appeared while the generation that lived through the events was still alive, its claims could be checked or exposed.
J. N. DarbyIf Matthew wrote his Gospel in AD 38, as many suppose, living witnesses must have known whether it was true or false; and even sixty years later it would hardly have been forgotten. Justin, Irenaeus and Origen refer to it as a known fact; and in the fourth century a heathen author, Macrobius, speaks of it.
Quoted as Scripture almost at once
Another line of evidence works backwards from the earliest surviving quotations of Matthew in Christian writing.
J. N. DarbyWe have Matthew quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, and quoted as Scripture... The epistle is considered to have been written in 71 or 72, that is a year or two after the death of Zacharias, the son of Baruchus, and in it Matthew's Gospel is already quoted.
Commentators differ on what that same epistle proves. A set of notes in another volume reports scholars using the very same quotation to argue for a later date, on the grounds that Barnabas treats Jerusalem's fall as fresh news:
William KellyDean Robinson adopts Professor Harnack's earliest date for Mark, which is AD 65; Professor B. Weiss's date is AD 67. The corresponding date for Matthew is AD 70 (the Epistle of Barnabas, quoting Matthew's Gospel, refers to the destruction of Jerusalem as quite recent); and for Luke, AD 80. Zahn's dates are: Mark, AD 67; Luke, AD 75; Matthew, AD 85.
Written in Palestine, for Hebrew readers
The tradition attaches the date to a setting: the book was left behind in Palestine when Matthew moved on.
J. N. DarbyThe testimony of the ancient historians and fathers of the church... states that Matthew wrote his Gospel to leave it in Palestine before he went out to preach in the world... Matthew's Gospel, if we are to believe the authority of the fathers, was written very early indeed, before there had perhaps been any preaching outside Palestine; John's very late indeed.
Hebrew original or Greek?
Part of the old tradition claims a Hebrew or Aramaic first edition, which would push the writing earlier still.
Arend RemmersPapias (about AD 65–150) writes: "Matthew has written these words in the Hebrew language, but everybody translated them as best they could." The interpretation of this is not easy, and there have been various explanations... The text of Matthew's gospel is now generally viewed as a Greek original, and not as a translation.
A similar judgment allows room for both, without letting the Hebrew claim unsettle the Gospel we have:
William KellyThere is the strongest evidence to prove that the Greek of Matthew is the original and not a translation, though possibly the Evangelist may also have written it in Hebrew for the early Church in Judea. That could lapse, and what was permanently needed remain.
Summary
- Silent. Matthew never dates itself; every figure offered comes from tradition and inference, not the text.
- Early. The old testimony ranges from AD 38–41 (from Eusebius) up to AD 61–64 (from Irenaeus) — the latest date those who examined the question would allow.
- Checkable. An early date places the Gospel among people who lived through the events and could have contradicted it.
- Quoted. Matthew is already cited as Scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas, dated around AD 71–72 — though the same epistle is used by others to argue for AD 70 or later.
- Placed. Tradition sets it in Palestine, left for Hebrew readers before Matthew went out to preach — a Gospel written first for those who knew the Old Testament promises.