The Apostle Matthew wrote Matthew’s Gospel. But do you know when Matthew was written, and what the historical evidence is for Matthew’s date? Was Matthew the first, second, third, or last gospel written? Did Matthew copy from another gospel? These, and similar questions, are answered in my written study on the evidence for the New Testament here. But if you want a video on Matthew which answers the questions above, click here to view “Historical Evidence for Matthew’s Gospel: Apostolic Authorship, Early Date, God’s Infallible Word on YouTube (from the last Word of Truth Conference at Bethel Baptist Church), or click here to view the video on Rumble, or view the embedded video below:
Sadly, in relation to the date question, not only theological modernists but too many theological conservatives and evangelicals ignore the actual ancient historical data to adopt dates significantly later than the data support, unnecessarily weakening the case for Christ. This video does not do that, but argues for the date for Matthew, c. A. D. 40, actually supported by history.
–TDR
Brother Ross, I’m sorry, but my personal circumstances right now simply do not permit me to take an hour to watch a video. But I do have a question, which I recognize may have already been answered in the video. If so, I ask your forgiveness in advance.
Is it your position that the date of Matthew’s Gospel is actually important? Or is it more that the absurd Markan Priority idea must be rejected?
Obviously an early date for Matthew seriously undercuts the Markan Priority error. But it’s hard for me to see how being wrong on Matthew’s date is a particularly serious error. One could be wrong on the date and still see Matthew as an obviously independent and authoritative witness. Is it your view that someone in that category is in serious error, and if so, why?
Mostly what I’m after here is clarification on exactly where the serious error lies, in your view. My view is that the real error is Markan Priority and that if the date were particularly important, we’d have been given much more substantive direct Scriptural evidence as to the date of writing. It’s entirely appropriate to look at evidence for the date, but I’m wondering if the focus on it is supportable.
Dear Bro Gleason,
Thanks for writing.
I think rejecting the independence of the synoptic gospels ends up undermining inerrancy:
https://faithsaves.net/synoptic-gospels/
If one is wrong on the date of Matthew it is not heresy. I do think it is unfortunate that many books on NT Introduction entirely ignore the early date that is supplied by the ancient sources.
Shalom!
Thank you. I agree. Being right on the date supports the independence of Matthew, certainly, and the early date evidence should be a buttress to the faith of young students when they encounter challenges to orthodoxy. I certainly think it is worth teaching.
Bro. Ross, thank you for supplying much needed information about ancient sources supporting very early Matthew.
What do you think though, about some sources saying that Matthew wrote in Hebrew? Papias for instance.
Thanks.
I believe Matthew wrote an uninspired record of Christ’s life in Hebrew, and the inspired Greek gospel under inspiration. Matthew in Greek does not read like a translation from Hebrew.
Thanks.
I tend to agree, that seems likely.
One thing we know: from the earliest days, believers have known by the attestation of the Holy Spirit that Matthew in Greek was apostolic, authoritative, accepted by all as inspired Scripture, and preserved.
Matthew in Hebrew, if it ever truly did exist, never had that attestation, acceptance, and preservation. So its existence is really only an interesting academic question, but should never be used (as some do) to try to undercut the authority of Matthew’s Greek Gospel.
Thank you Bro. Ross. I agree, that is a position that reveres the Word of God.
Thanks, Bro Gleason and Tenrin.