DATE 88
DATE
The quotations of Matthew in Ignatius (referred to above) put an upper limit on the date that can be assigned to the publication of this gospel. The modern consensus approaches that limit: most hold that Matthew was written during the period A.D. 80100. Yet most of the reasons advanced in defense of this date depend on a network of disputed judgments.
1. Most scholars today hold that Matthew borrowed from Mark. Dates for Mark commonly vary from about A.D. 55 to 70, with opinion generally favoring the high end. Hence a date of Matthew before 80 seems impracticable. There are several disputed points in this chain of reasoning. Some scholars continue to uphold the unanimous or virtually unanimous opinion of the early church that Matthew was written first.41Although in this Introduction we have argued that Markan priority is most likely, it is probably too simplistic, and in any case we recognize that the arguments are sufficiently fragile that we are reluctant to let too much rest on them. Moreover, even if Markan priority prevails and if Mark is dated to, say, A.D. 60, there is plenty of time for Matthew to be published before 70, when Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed.
2. Many aver that anachronisms in Matthew point to a date of writing after A.D. 70. The two most commonly cited are the reference to the destruction of a city and the references to the church. In the parable of the wedding feast, we are told that the king "sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city” (Matt. 22:7). This must be seen as an oblique reference to the destruction of Jerusalem at the end of the Jewish War (A.D. 66-70), and the mention of the burning suggests knowledge of what had already happened at the time of writing. The utterance is cast as a prophecy but depends on historical knowledge. This judgment, it is thought, is confirmed by the fact that such sweeping destruction of an entire city seems wildly disproportionate to the offense—namely, lame excuses for turning down a wedding invitation. But quite apart from the question as to whether Jesus could predict the future, most scholars who think that Mark was written before A.D. 70 concede that he predicts the fall of Jerusalem (Mark 13:14; cf. Matt. 24:15). They argue that if Mark wrote about 65, he was so close to the events that he could see how political circumstances were shaping up. But on this reasoning, Matthew, even if he borrowed from Mark, could have done the same thing in
66. More to the point, the language of Matthew 22:7, including the reference to the burning of the city, is the standard language of both the Old Testament and the Roman world describing punitive military expeditions against rebellious cities. Granted that Jesus foresaw the destruction of Jerusalem (as did many prophets before him), the language he used does not in any detail depend on specific knowledge as to how things actually turned out in A.D. 70.42 In fact, Robinson goes so far as to argue that the synoptic prophecies about the fall of Jerusalem, including Matthew 22:7, are so restrained that they must have been written before 70.43 Otherwise, he insists, we should expect to see some indication that the prophecies had actually been fulfilled. True, the punishment in this particular parable seems extravagant if the offense was nothing more than the social gaffe of turning down the wedding invitation of a petty monarch. But there is reason to think this offense is more serious: in the first-century world, it smacks of rebellion against one’s lord. More important, many of Jesus’ parables begin with the commonplace and then introduce elements that destroy the listeners’ world of expectations. The monarch represented by the king in this parable is God himself; the wedding is the wedding of God’s own Son. To refuse his invitation— indeed, his command—is dangerous rebellion that invites catastrophic retribution.
Explicit references to "church” (ekklhsia [ekklesia, G1711], Matt. 16:18; 18:17-18.) are often taken to betray an interest in church order that developed only later. But these texts say nothing about church order. Bishops and deacons are not mentioned (though Phil. 1:1, written before A.D. 70, does!). The church envisaged is simply the messianic community. The discipline pictured in Matthew 18 is cast in broad principles applicable even in the earliest stages of Christianity. And Meyer has mounted an admirable defense of the authenticity of Matthew 16:18.44
3. The references in Matthew to the effect that something or other has continued "to this [very] day” (Matt. 27:8; 28:15) 45 are frequently taken as evidence that there was a long interval between the events of Jesus’ day and the time of writing. But how long is a long interval? Would not three decades suffice? If we were to say that the effects of
President Kennedy’s assassination continue "to this day,” would that be thought an inappropriate judgment on the ground that the assassination took place some thirty years ago?
4. Tensions between Jews and Christians must have been high when this book was written, and the most plausible date for such tensions, it is argued, is either just before or just after the Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 85), which allegedly introduced the so-called Birkath ha-Minim into the Jewish synagogue liturgy. This was a clause in the Eighteen Benedictions which were supposed to be recited three times a day by all pious Jews. In the version found in the Cairo Geniza,46 it reads, "Let Nazarenes [= Christians] and minim [= heretics] perish in a moment; let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and let them not be written with the righteous.” This had the effect (it is argued) of expelling Christians from the synagogues and was the climax of mutual antipathy between Jews and Christians in the first century. But mutual suspicions between Jews and Christians have much longer roots, as both Acts and the epistles of Paul testify. It is far from clear that such antipathy followed a straight line of development, enabling us to plot its apex; it must have varied enormously from place to place and from time to time. Moreover, there is now very strong evidence that the circumstantial reconstruction that locates the Birkath ha-Minim at the time of Jamnia is to be questioned at every level (see discussion in chap. 5, the section Date).
It appears, then, that arguments for a relatively late date of Matthew depend on a network of antecedent judgments, each of which can be questioned in turn. Theological developments that many scholars think must have taken at least two generations of believers may well have occurred more rapidly (after all, Romans was written within twenty-five years of the resurrection). 47And some of the arguments, such as the contention that the prophecy of Matthew 22:7 is in reality a prophecy after the fact, can be turned on their head to argue for a date before A.D. 70. Indeed, five other arguments point in the same direction.
1. The question of date is marginally bound up with the question of authorship. If the apostle Matthew is judged, on balance, to be the evangelist, a date before A.D. 70 is more plausible (though certainly not necessary; there is excellent evidence that the apostle John was active for at least two decades after 70).
2. The early church fathers are unanimous in assigning Matthew an early date. Because this is tied to Matthean priority, a view discounted by most scholars today, patristic evidence is given little weight in the contemporary debate. But the two issues do not have to be tied together. Whether Mark was written shortly after Peter’s death, in the mid-sixties, as Ireneus claims (see H.E. 3.1.1), 48or while Peter was still alive, as Clement of Alexandria assumes (H.E. 2.15.1-2; 6.14.6-7), there is time for Matthew to write before A.D. 70. More can be said for Clement’s dating than is sometimes thought.
3. Some sayings of Jesus might be taken to indicate that the temple was still standing when Matthew wrote (Matt. 5:23-24; 12:5-7; 23:16-22; cf. 26:60-61). It might be objected that Matthew is simply being historically accurate: these things were said during Jesus’ days, regardless of whether the temple was still standing when Matthew wrote. But one must at least inquire why Matthew would include so many utterances cast in terms no longer relevant to his readers. The story about the payment of the temple tax (17:24-27) is stronger evidence yet. Before A.D. 70, the episode, whatever else it meant, would be taken as a gesture reinforcing solidarity with Israel. After 70, when the tax still had to be paid by Jews but was collected on behalf of the temple of Jupiter in Rome, 50 the same episode might suggest solidarity with idolatry. Even if for other reasons Matthew had wanted to preserve this pericope, it is hard to see how, if he was writing after 70, he could have permitted such an implication without comment.
4. While many assign Matthew to the period A.D. 70-100, we actually have few primary sources from that period, so it is difficult to check the claims. By contrast, Gundry has compiled a list of passages in Matthew that, he thinks, suggest a date before 70, on the basis of features known to have existed during that period. 51Not all of his suggestions are equally convincing, but many carry considerable weight (e.g., insertion of the Sabbath day alongside winter as an undesirable time to flee from Jerusalem [24:20]; baptism before teaching [28:19; cf. Didache 7:1 and other later sources]).
5. Arguing for a date earlier than A.D. 90, Kilpatrick draws attention to the fact that although the apostolic fathers demonstrate their knowledge of many epistles from the Pauline corpus, in Matthew there is no undisputed instance of dependence on Paul. 52 Indeed, Kilpatrick argues that some passages in Matthew would not have been written as they are if certain passages in Paul were known (e.g., Matt. 28, with respect to the list of resurrection appearances in 1 Cor. 15). Kilpatrick concludes that a church unaffected by Paulinism and apparently unacquainted with Paul’s epistles cannot possibly be dated after 90. We are inclined to agree, but wonder why this terminus ad quem must be so late. If Matthew was written before 70, this complete independence from Paul would be still easier to understand.
None of the arguments presented is conclusive. Other arguments tend to be even less decisive, owing to additional imponderables. For example, Gundry specifies a date not later than A.D. 63, but this depends on his view that Luke borrowed from Matthew and that Luke-Acts was published while Paul was still alive. We may agree with the latter point (though many do not); fewer yet will agree with the former. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Matthew was published before 70, most probably during the sixties.