When Was Matthew Written?
Quick Summary
The Gospel of Matthew was most likely written between 80 and 90 CE, after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE. Most scholars place its composition a decade or more after Mark, which Matthew appears to use as a primary source. The gospel reflects a Jewish-Christian community wrestling with questions of identity, Torah, and continuity after the trauma of the temple’s fall. Understanding when Matthew was written helps explain its emphasis on fulfillment, authority, and the reshaping of Jewish life around Jesus.
Introduction
Matthew does not read like a first attempt. It is careful, structured, and deeply conversant with Israel’s Scriptures. This gospel assumes readers who know the story of Jesus but need help understanding what that story now means.
The world Matthew addresses has changed. Jerusalem has fallen. The temple is gone. Jewish life is being reorganized, and followers of Jesus are increasingly distinct from the synagogue. Matthew writes into that unsettled moment.
Asking when Matthew was written matters because the gospel is not simply recounting events. It is interpreting them for a community trying to survive, remain faithful, and understand its place in God’s ongoing purposes.
Matthew’s Relationship to Mark
One of the strongest indicators for dating Matthew is its relationship to the Gospel of Mark. Most scholars agree that Matthew used Mark as a source.
Nearly all of Mark appears in Matthew, often expanded, reordered, and theologically shaped. Since Mark is usually dated around 65–70 CE, Matthew must have been written later.
This dependence places Matthew after the Roman-Jewish War and the destruction of the temple, events that profoundly shape the gospel’s tone and concerns (Collins, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 147–150).
The Destruction of the Temple and Matthew’s Context
Matthew reflects a world in which the temple has already been destroyed. Jesus’ predictions of the temple’s fall are presented as fulfilled realities rather than speculative warnings (Matthew 24).
The gospel shows no concern for temple restoration. Instead, authority is relocated to Jesus’ teaching, community practice, and interpretation of Torah.
This shift strongly suggests a post-70 CE setting, when Jewish communities were redefining worship, authority, and identity without the temple.
Jewish-Christian Conflict Reflected in Matthew
Matthew contains sharper critiques of scribes and Pharisees than earlier gospels. These disputes are best understood not as Jesus-versus-Judaism polemics, but as internal family conflict.
By the late first century, Pharisaic leadership was emerging as a stabilizing force in post-temple Judaism. Matthew’s community appears to be in tension with this development.
The gospel reflects debates over:
Authority to interpret Torah
The identity of the true people of God
Inclusion of Gentiles within Israel’s story
These debates fit well within an 80–90 CE context.
Use of Scripture and Fulfillment Language
Matthew repeatedly frames Jesus’ life as the fulfillment of Scripture. Formula quotations introduced with “this took place to fulfill what had been spoken” appear throughout the gospel.
This emphasis suggests a community defending its continuity with Israel’s Scriptures while also making bold claims about Jesus’ identity.
Such theological reflection assumes time, distance, and sustained engagement with Jewish interpretive traditions, all consistent with a later first-century date.
Community Structure and Church Language
Matthew is the only gospel to use the term “church” (ekklesia) explicitly (Matthew 16:18; 18:17).
The gospel assumes an organized community with practices of discipline, teaching, and leadership.
This level of communal development points to a period when Jesus-followers had begun forming stable assemblies distinct from synagogue structures.
Possible Place of Composition
Many scholars suggest that Matthew was written in Syria, possibly Antioch, where Jewish and Gentile Christians lived in close proximity.
Such a setting explains the gospel’s concern for Torah, its openness to Gentiles, and its sensitivity to Jewish-Christian tensions.
While the precise location remains uncertain, the social world reflected in Matthew aligns well with an eastern Mediterranean urban center in the late first century.
Language and Style
Matthew was written in Greek, though it preserves Semitic patterns of thought and expression.
Its Greek is more polished than Mark’s, and its narrative structure is carefully organized around teaching blocks and discourses.
This literary refinement suggests time for composition and theological shaping rather than immediate eyewitness reporting.
Relationship to Luke and John
Matthew is commonly dated earlier than Luke and John, though close in time to Luke.
Luke reflects similar post-70 concerns but addresses a broader Gentile audience. John, typically dated later, shows more developed Christological reflection.
Matthew occupies a middle position, deeply rooted in Jewish tradition while articulating a distinct Christian identity.
Why the Date of Matthew Matters
Dating Matthew to the 80s CE helps readers understand why the gospel is both pastoral and polemical.
It is written to teach, to shape identity, and to reassure a community that the story of Jesus is not a departure from Israel’s story but its continuation.
Matthew is not simply preserving memory. It is forming a people.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was Matthew written before the destruction of the temple?
Most scholars say no. The gospel reflects a post-70 CE context.
Did Matthew copy Mark?
Matthew used Mark as a major source, expanding and reshaping it.
Is Matthew anti-Jewish?
No. It reflects internal Jewish debate within a post-temple context.
Could Matthew have been written earlier?
A minority argue for an earlier date, but the evidence favors 80–90 CE.
Does dating affect interpretation?
Yes. It clarifies Matthew’s emphasis on authority, fulfillment, and community.
Works Consulted
John J. Collins, Introduction to the New Testament, Yale University Press. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, Yale University Press. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7, Hermeneia. The New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV.
