The earliest modern source on dating the Synoptic Gospels that I’ve included in this study is a book called THE DATE OF THE ACTS AND OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, written by Adolf Harnack, and published in it’s English translation in 1911.Most later books on the subject refer to this book. Harnack’s point of view on Matthew is that, while it may have been originally written before 70 AD, there has been so much added to the Gospel since it was written, that we should actually date it’s origin to some time after 70 AD.  He admits that Matthew, “in regard to form” is the ‘oldest ‘book of the Gospel’; the others have obtained the rank and dignity of such a title because they have been set by the side of St Matthew’s gospel, which from the first, unlike the others, claims to be an ecclesiastical book.”

I do not agree with Harnack in his assumptions that Matthew has had many changes over the years. I believe there are some additions, but truly not many: there is too much agreement in the various versions found down through the years.

The next source is another book that is mentioned in many of the later sources, here’s the first paragraph on Matthew:

“The arguments for Matthean priority, though not overwhelming, are substantial. Matthew looks original. His eight thousand supposed departures from Mark’s text are cleverly disguised. It looks early and Palestinian, reflecting a terrible clash between Jesus and the religious authorities, rather than a post-70 clash between church and synagogue. Mark looks like Peter’s version of the same Palestinian tradition composed for Jewish and Gentile readers outside Palestine…” [from REDATING MATTHEW, MARK & LUKE: A FRESH ASSAULT ON THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM, by John William Wenham, 1992]

Of course, I object to his using “Palestinian,” a Roman name for Israel and Judea, but, it’s possible that Wenham has chosen that name to delineate not just a place (Israel and Judea), but a time as well (Roman). 

The first two comments seem rather tongue-in-cheek. “Matthew looks original” is almost funny. For that to mean anything, means we are trusting the author to be very well informed on what “Palestinian” writings are like.

The next line: “His eight thousand supposed departures from Mark’s text are cleverly disguised” is also very droll, but makes the very good point that Matthew is more complete than Mark, yet their differences are not clunky in either Gospel.

I especially appreciate what is said about the Gospel “reflecting a terrible clash between Jesus and the religious authorities,” as opposed to meaning something that happened after 70 AD between the church and the Jews. After 70 AD the action moved away from Jerusalem and became far more fragmented. The Gospel tells of Jesus going up against the monolithic culture of the Temple, not the scattered Jewish authorities in multiple other countries and settings.

Wenham goes on to quote from Edgar Johnson Goodspeed (an American Theologian, 1871-1962) to the effect that Matthew, as a tax-collector, would be well suited to write the Gospel, and that it was likely that Matthew was taking notes on Jesus’ teachings while He was presenting them. Wenham summarizes the patristic tradition in two propositions: “a) The apostle Matthew was the first to write a gospel, which he wrote for Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue; b) The second gospel, by Mark, was a record of the teaching of the apostle Peter as given in Rome.” In other words, they were written independently, though it’s possible that Peter and/or Mark read a copy of Matthew while Peter was teaching.

Wenham quotes from H. G. Jameson, who wrote THE ORIGIN OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, published in 1922:

“The elaborate and well-considered arrangement of the book… [would] be more naturally found in an original composition than in an adaptation from other documents, while the masterly presentation of its subject, implying even in an original work an author of unusual skill, is very difficult to account for in a mere compiler, who is supposed…to have conflated and interwoven these sources in a complicated patchwork of paragraphs and sentences which (like Aaron’s calf) have somehow emerged from the process in the shape of a complete and wonderful whole.”

In other words, Matthew is so well composed that it’s not likely that he was just copying it from the writings of others. As Wenham goes on to say: “It is difficult to see it as the result of making eight thousand alterations to someone else’s work. But of course it is not impossible.”

When Wenham says that Matthew “looks early and Palestinian,” he says it’s because the “beginnings [of] Christianity was a wholly Jewish movement and it seems natural that the gospel most evidently designed for Jewish readers should be early.” He also explains that the Book of Matthew was an “apologetic showing that Jesus was the Messiah.”

Wenham states the case by some for the post-70 writing of Matthew as being that Jesus and the Pharisees were quite close in outlook, and therefore would not have been quarreling. Therefore, the conflict depicted in Matthew couldn’t have been Jesus vs the Pharisees, but was more likely the post-70 church against Judaism. Wenham agrees with them that the “official ideals of the Pharisees were irreproachable, but their practice did not match their ideals, and their teaching made a life of legal rectitude almost impossible to the common man.”  

I am in full agreement that Matthew is depicting a fatal clash between Jesus and the religious leaders of Jews rather than “a veiled polemic of church against synagogue.” I’m not totally convinced that the Pharisees were “irreproachable” in their teachings. Jesus does say:

²…”The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. ³Therefore, whatever they tell you, do and comply with it all, but do not do as they do; for they say things and do not do them.     (Matthew 23:2,3; NASB)

But, to me, this is not saying that the Pharisees are right in all they say, just that because of the “seat” they have taken unto themselves, they should be obeyed. In other words, obey the office. What interests me more is what Jesus says next:

⁴And they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as their finger.     (Matthew 23:4; NASB)

My take on this verse is definitely not that what the Pharisees are saying is “irreproachable.” These “heavy burdens” were not of God, they were of man.

Wenham’s next topic is the idea that Matthew “looks” like it was originally written in “a Semitic language.” He can’t seem to give up on the idea of it being written in Aramaic, though he does speak of it as Hebrew more often. He identifies the idea of “most scholars” that Matthew “is based upon the Greek Mark,” making an original Hebrew Matthew less likely (although, there is some thought that Mark was also originally in Hebrew).

Wenham provides some good examples of why Matthew is thought to be originally in written in Hebrew:

• “The sentence ‘You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins’ (1:21) makes good sense in Hebrew, but in makes no more sense in Greek than it does in English without further explanation. It looks as though a translator did not think to explain the meaning of the well-known name Jesus, although two sentences later he gave the translation of the more unusual Emmanuel.”
• “Matthew’s use of ouranoi[means “heavenly, in heaven, from heaven”, in the plural] for ‘God’ makes strange Greek: it is ‘never used in plural by classical writers’ and the use of the plural in any sense is rare in the pre-Christian Greek-speaking world. Biblical Hebrew on the other hand uses the plural term shamayim [heavens] with great frequency. In consequence the plural ouranoi obtained a grudging foothold in Greek through the Septuagint, where it is used (almost exclusively in poetry) fifty-one times as against 616 cases of the singular…by metonymy [using something closely associated to represent the whole concept] and for reasons of reverence, it became customary among Jews to substitute ‘heavens’ for ‘God’, thus introducing a usage which was doubly unGreek…Matthew uses it habitually…But Matthew by no means avoids theos[means God, usually the one true God], employing it fifty-one times…so it may be that a translator is simply rendering literally the text that lay before him. Be that as it may, it is easier to imagine Mark dropping this strange expression than to think that Matthew wrote it into Mark’s text thirty-four times.”
• “Chapman remarks on the difficulty of supposing that a Greek or Hellenist interpolated tote[means “then, when, at that time”] into Mark and Q ‘by the bushel’. Tote appears ninety times in Matthew as compared with six times in Mark and fourteen times in Luke. Fifty-one of these are in passages paralleled in Mark; that is to say, he introduced forty-five new tote’s into the Markan material in addition to the six already there. Often they appear to have very little force and represent a light ‘after this’ rather than the classical ‘at that time’.”  

Wenham goes on to describe the Aramaic usage of the word for “at that time,” but as I prefer to make a case for Hebrew, I will say that Hebrew also has a similar usage. The word acharey is used to indicate “after” or “behind” something; for example, acharey zeh means “after this” and acharey otah means “after that” (feminine). Both these terms are used in modern and Biblical Hebrew, though with some variation, such as acharey ken which means “after this,” in a more formal or archaic tone.

• “… idou[means “look!, suddenly, now; “used to enliven a Hebrew narrative style, by marking the change of a scene, or emphasize some detail or idea, and is not always translated” billmounce.com], which occurs sixty-two times, is also Semitic. Thirty-four of these are in passages parallel to Mark, but Mark retains only six of them.” 

 Wenham quotes B. C. Butler (1902-1986, Catholic Bishop and Benedictine Monk) as saying:

“It is hardly conceivable that St Matthew added idou on all these occasions when engaged in improving Mark’s Greek style; but it is entirely natural that St Mark should dislike and eschew the word whenever he meets it in Matthean narrative, and in all except six occurrences in Matthean discourse.”

The next fallacy that Wenham fights against is the idea that people were either illiterate, or just more comfortable with oral history than with it written down. He looks to Edgar J. Goodspeed (1871-1962, American theologian), who pointed out the complexities of the tax systems of the time, that many of the contemporary tax collectors knew a form of shorthand, that Matthew would have been very capable of writing, and, that it was a very literate world at that time. Goodspeed even thought it likely that many others also took notes when Jesus spoke.

Next, Wenham turns to Robert H. Gundry (born 1932, American scholar and retired professor of New Testament studies and Koine Greek) who talked about the common practice in the Graeco-Roman world of the use of shorthand and the carrying about of notebooks. He reports that there was a school practice of circulating lecture notes, and, “the later transmission of rabbinic tradition through shorthand notes support this hypothesis.” 

Wenham reports that Justin Martyr referred to gospels as apomnimonevmata, the Latinization of a Greek word meaning “memoirs.” He also quotes D. A. Carson as writing in 1988:

“There are good grounds, then, for supporting not only that the traditioning of Jesus’ acts and teachings began already during his earthly ministry, as H. Schurmann has argued, but also that some of them were given written formulation at that time.”

The next author we are looking at is from a website:

“Matthew is likely written sometime in the ’60s and, like Mark and Luke, is anonymous. Tradition attributes this gospel to Matthew, the tax collector who became a disciple of Jesus. But I do not think that is likely. If so, why would he draw so heavily from Mark rather than his own recollections?”     [https://aclayjar.net/2021/06/about-gospels/]

I’m thinking that this author did even less research than my poor attempt. First of all, writing that Matthew was written “in the ’60’s” is saying that he wrote in the “something 60’s”; the form “’60’s” was used ubiquitously in and around the 1960’s, which is not when Matthew was written. Obviously, the author means that Matthew wrote in the “60’s AD,” but used the wrong form.

Per the website, this author bases his conclusions on two sources, one a website that he admits is no longer in existence, and the other the book REDATING THE NEW TESTAMENT by John A. T. Robinson, of which he says “an often quoted book, although not universally accepted.” 

Matthew is thought to have been martyred around 60 AD, although some think even earlier (~41-50 AD), so placing the writing of Matthew after his death is clearly a way of saying that Matthew did not write the book. If Matthew wrote the book, then certainly it was written much earlier, though perhaps just before he died. So, on what did this author base his reasoning  in calling the book “anonymous”? As he says: On the idea that Matthew “drew heavily” on Mark; and this is based on the assumption that Mark was written first. Assumptions can get you into a lot of trouble. Perhaps we can see why Robinson’s 1976 book is “not universally accepted.”

As for Robinson’s book, he deals with the Synoptic Gospels only in regard to the dating of Acts. Indeed, his writing on the dating of the Synoptics is a brief overview of ideas from several other authors, and then he concludes “This is not the place to become involved in the synoptic problem for its own sake.” He does, however, not leave it there, and goes on to lay out his reasoning for considering the Synoptics to be “seen as parallel, though by no means isolated, developments of common material for different spheres of the Christian mission, rather than a series of documents standing in simple chronological sequence.” He sees this “common material” as, what he calls, a “proto-Matthew” (or sometimes as “Q”) that was Semitic in origin, but with the final version of the Gospels being later. He does not seem to see the Gospels as being written independently, based on different memories (with, of course, cross-talking early on). He speaks of doing several different “studies,” but only gives his conclusions, and rarely refers to the actual Bible passages while making his sweeping statements. As for dating the Synoptics, he gives a “provisional schema” of:

“1. Formation of stories- and sayings- collections (‘P’[Peter], ‘Q’[Matthew], ‘L’ [Luke], ‘M’[Mark]): 30s and 40s +

“2. Formation of ‘proto-gospels’: 40s and 50s +

“3. Formation of our synoptic gospels: 50-60 +”

He then explains his schema in great detail, using quotes from Early Church Fathers, but not from the Gospels themselves, only to conclude that, miraculously, the dating of the Gospels fits his ideas for the dating of Acts (the only reason he got into the dating of the Gospels in the first place).

Robinson does have a separate chapter on dating the Johannine literature, which we will delve into when we discuss John.

Returning to the quote from aclayjar.net, we can see that he didn’t really follow Robinson in his dating of Matthew (or the other Gospels). And, he did not get his ideas about the Gospels being anonymous from Robinson either, because Robinson states in several places that he isn’t looking at authorship.

Personally, I find Robinson’s ideas outdated and contrived, and the information from aclayjar.net to be without evidence.

“We would date Matthew to the 60s AD. Irenaeus (AD 180) stated that Matthew wrote his Gospel ‘while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome’ (Against Heresies 3.1.1; cf. Church History 5.8.2). This would place the writing of his gospel around the mid-sixties AD (AD 61-68?).”  [evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/historicity-of-the-nt/evidence-for-an-early-dating-of-the-four-gospels/]

Hmmm, so Matthew was martyred ~60AD (or earlier), but wrote his Gospel “around the mid-60s AD.” Let’s look at some more evidence:

“Eusebius of Caesarea [c. 260-339]:’{in the second} year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad {A.D. 42}: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years’ (The Chronicle {A.D. 303}).

“Cyril of Jerusalem [c. 313-386]: ‘{Simon Magus} so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him…While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrive, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church…”     [catholic.com/tract/peters-roman-residency]

While the evidenceunseen.com author decides that Peter and Paul were in Rome in just the 60’s, the first 4th century quote from catholic.com puts at least Peter in Rome in Claudius’ reign (41-54), and in the second quote, both of them are there before 54 AD.

For myself, after reading AGAINST HERESIES, book III, Chapter 1, and spending some time in prayer, a better explanation came to mind. Here is the relevant passage:

“…after our Lord rose from the dead, {the apostles} were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down {upon them}, were filled from all {His gifts}, and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things {sent} from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”   [from earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html]

In this passage, Irenaeus is telescoping all these events into one paragraph. He states that “when the Holy Spirit came down…[they] had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth.” In other words, it sounds like the apostles left Jerusalem almost immediately after the Pentecost. But, that’s not accurate. They stayed on in Jerusalem until the persecution ramped up, and then they left to go their separate ways. We don’t know exactly how long that was, but it wasn’t immediately after Pentecost (indeed, Calvin was sure they would have stayed in Jerusalem: “seeing they see the gospel so mightily resisted at Jerusalem, they dare go to no other place until such time as they have broken that first huge heap of straits” despite the “divers dangers” in Jerusalem) . I point this out, not to denigrate Irenaeus, but to make clear that, while he was writing a chronological account, it was definitely not set within an accurate timeline. So, when he writes that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,” he wasn’t saying that Matthew was writing at exactly the same time that Peter and Paul were in Rome. On the contrary, he was saying that first Matthew wrote his Gospel, then Peter and Paul were in Rome teaching, then Mark wrote his Gospel, etc. 

If you try to read the passage as a timeline, rather than as just chronological, then your conclusion would have to be that it all happened within a few months, and that certainly cannot be true.

I have several other online references that mention the dating of Matthew, but they use arguments that we have already discussed, so we will end it here for today. Next time we will look at Mark, which may take more than one post, because there is a lot written about Mark.