Authorship and Dating

Who wrote the First Gospel, and when? The unanimous tradition of the Church ascribes it to the apostle Matthew; the dominant modern view holds that canonical Greek Matthew was composed somewhat later by an evangelist who drew on Mark. The dating ranges from before 70 to the 80s or 90s, turning chiefly on the synoptic relationship and on the reading of Matthew 22:7. This file sets out the positions with their grounds and marks what the Orthodox tradition holds and what it leaves open.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox (Apostle and Evangelist)

The Traditional Authorship

The early Church is unanimous in ascribing the First Gospel to the apostle Matthew. The title “according to Matthew” (kata Matthaion) is attached to the Gospel in every manuscript that preserves a title, and the heading is early — there is no trace of the Gospel ever circulating anonymously or under another name. The patristic chain is consistent: Papias (in Eusebius, HE 3.39.16) says Matthew compiled the logia; Irenaeus (AH 3.1.1) names Matthew as the author of the Gospel “among the Hebrews”; Origen and Eusebius (HE 6.25; 3.24) repeat the ascription; and no ancient writer assigns the Gospel to anyone else. The internal detail that the First Gospel alone, in the list of the Twelve, brands the apostle “Matthew the tax collector” (Matt. 9:9; 10:3) — and that it alone, in the call narrative, names the publican “Matthew” rather than “Levi” — was read by the Fathers as the signature of the apostle-author’s humility (Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 30; NPNF I/10). On the traditional view, then, the Gospel is the apostolic memoir of one of the Twelve, an eyewitness of the ministry.

The Modern Critical View

The dominant modern critical view accepts the early and unanimous association of the Gospel with Matthew but holds that canonical Greek Matthew, in the form we have it, was composed somewhat later than the apostle’s lifetime, by an author (or in a community) that drew on earlier sources — above all the Gospel of Mark. The principal argument is the synoptic one: if Matthew incorporates Mark, often verbatim and in Mark’s order (the case for Markan priority; see The Question of Priority), then an eyewitness apostle would not normally be expected to base his account so heavily on the Gospel of Mark, who was not of the Twelve. On this reading the canonical Gospel is the work of a later evangelist standing in the “Matthean” tradition — perhaps incorporating an authentic collection of the Lord’s sayings genuinely going back to the apostle (the logia of Papias), to which the apostle’s name properly attached and was then extended to the whole Gospel. Some hold the ascription a pseudonym or a community attribution; others, that the apostle’s sayings-source is the kernel around which the Gospel grew. [Disputed: the authorship of canonical Matthew. (a) The traditional view holds the apostle Matthew the author of the Gospel as it stands (the unanimous patristic ascription; the titles). (b) The dominant modern view holds that canonical Greek Matthew was composed later by an evangelist dependent on Mark, the apostle's name attaching properly to an underlying sayings-source (Papias's *logia*) and thence to the whole (Davies–Allison, *Matthew* ICC I, Introduction; W. G. Kümmel, *Introduction to the New Testament*). The Orthodox tradition affirms the Gospel's apostolic authority and inspiration; the precise relation of the canonical Greek text to the apostle's own hand is a historical question no council has defined.]

The Dating

The date of the Gospel is bound up with the authorship and the synoptic questions, and the proposals fall into two broad ranges.

A pre-70 date is held by those who maintain apostolic authorship and/or take the Gospel’s references to the Temple as written before its destruction. On this view the Gospel was composed in the 50s or 60s, while the Temple still stood; the prophecies of its fall (Matt. 24) are read as genuine prediction, and the apostle is alive to write. Irenaeus’s notice that Matthew wrote “while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome” (AH 3.1.1) is taken to point to the early 60s.

An 80s–90s date is held by the majority of modern critics. The principal internal argument is Matthew 22:7, where, in the parable of the wedding feast, the king “sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city” — widely read as an allusion to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70, and so as evidence that the Gospel was written after that event. Combined with the dependence on Mark (usually dated c. 65–70) and the Gospel’s apparent reflection of a sharpened conflict between church and synagogue in the post-70 period, this yields the common dating of roughly 80–90. [Disputed: the date of canonical Matthew. (a) A pre-70 date (50s–60s) is held by those affirming apostolic authorship and reading Matt. 24 as genuine prophecy (and following Irenaeus, *AH* 3.1.1, on Matthew writing in the time of Peter and Paul at Rome). (b) The majority modern view dates the Gospel to c. 80–90, after the fall of Jerusalem, reading Matt. 22:7 as an allusion to the destruction of 70 and following the dependence on Mark (Davies–Allison, *Matthew* ICC I; R. T. France, *The Gospel of Matthew*, NICNT, 2007, who is somewhat more open to an earlier date). The range turns on the synoptic relationship and the reading of Matt. 22:7 and 24.]

What the Church Holds and Leaves Open

The Orthodox tradition affirms without reservation that the Gospel according to Matthew is inspired Scripture and apostolic in authority — received from the apostolic age, attached to the apostle Matthew by the unbroken witness of the Church, read as the Word of God in the assembly, and standing first in the canon of the four. These are the matters the Church confesses. The questions of whether the canonical Greek text issued directly from the apostle’s hand or grew from his sayings-source in a later evangelist’s redaction, and of whether it was written before or after the fall of Jerusalem, are historical questions on which no ecumenical council has defined, and on which the Church grants liberty. The Fathers held apostolic authorship and (mostly) an early date; this is honored as the tradition’s own reading and weighs heavily, but it was a historical judgment, not a dogmatic definition. The honest position is therefore the one the methodology requires: state the patristic ascription and its weight, set out the modern alternatives with their grounds, mark the disputes, and distinguish the inspiration and apostolicity the Church confesses from the reconstructions it leaves open.

See Also

• Reception and Legacy — the Gospel’s standing and use in the Church
• Papias and the Logia — the logia and the question of the underlying source
• The Question of Priority — the synoptic argument behind the dating
• The Call of Matthew — the apostle named as author
• Holy Scripture — inspiration, canon, and apostolicity

References

• Eusebius of Caesarea. The Ecclesiastical History 3.24; 3.39.16; 6.25. Trans. McGiffert. NPNF II/1.
• Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies 3.1.1. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1.
• John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 30. NPNF I/10.
• Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. ICC. Vol. 1, Introduction. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.
• France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
• Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Rev. ed. Trans. H. C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975.