DATING THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
The New Testament’s four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the only real
sources of information about the alleged life of the historical Jesus. They are
also the only accounts of this life that Christians consider divinely inspired.
The other gospels that were excluded from the New Testament were written too
late to be of any value. Considering the fanaticism that marks most forms of
Christianity, it is remarkable that their precious gospels show no indication of
having existed in their present form at least until more than a century after
Jesus died.
The gospels could have been written a year after Jesus died and Jesus might
still not have existed. Selective choice of the readership by the engineers of
the Church could have ensured that Jesus would be believed in. But the longer
the gospels can be proved to have existed after Jesus died the more likely it is
that Christianity is a fake. Had the gospel writers not been ashamed of how late
they wrote they would have given us dates for then as now people did not like
late accounts or accounts that could be late.
Evidence of reasonable publication matters more than the date something was
written. It will matter if you want to argue that society could contradict a
pile of historical lies when it gets a read at them. If the date is late and the
publication is late then we are entitled to refuse to take the gospels as gospel
truth.
Matthew uses Mark, which dates from 70 AD (at the very least) so it is a later
gospel. Mark is more ordinary and shorter and less detailed so it is likely to
be earlier.
In the first chapters of Matthew, we read that the Magi or the magicians were
led by a star to Jesus. This is accepted to be a reference to astrology. Matthew
then makes a link between Jesus and the occult which supports the Jewish
tradition that Jesus was an occultist though Jesus pretended to be anti-occult.
This proves that Matthew which was geared towards Jewish Christians was written
when the Jews had lost their stability and influence after 70 AD and especially
after the Bar Kochba revolution when they got the worst blow. Matthew would not
say such a thing about Jesus unless he thought the Jews were not a threat
anymore.
Matthew 16:1-4 has the Jews asking Jesus for a sign. He tells them about how
they can tell what the next day will be like by observing the sky and that they
cannot read the signs of the times. Then he says they will get no sign but that
of Jonah. The signs of the times can only be the immorality in the world that
will force God to judge the world and visit it with destruction. The sign of
Jonah implies the resurrection of Jesus which will call them to repentance for
Jonah was resurrected or sort of for the purpose of calling the people of
Nineveh to repentance. Matthew would have looked on the destruction of Jerusalem
as the part fulfilment of this prophecy. He was looking back on it after 70AD.
He wouldn't write until he saw evidence in the times that Judaism was perhaps
about to be destroyed which points to a second century date such as during the
Bar Kochba rebellion. He was wrong but he wouldn't have written down the
prophecy unless he thought it was going to be shown to come true.
In Matthew 23, Jesus hysterically accused the Jews of killing all the innocents
who had ever died on the earth from the blood of Abel to that of Zechariah, son
of Barachiah. The author of Matthew was likely to have known that there were no
Jews when Abel son of Adam and Eve was murdered and that Abel was murdered by
his jealous brother Cain. This implies that Matthew was written in a time of
dreadful persecution of the Jews and their scriptures, the Old Testament, which
they pored over like there was no tomorrow. This would explain his wilfully
misinterpreted prophecies and his errors. He was sure that few would see through
him.
Zechariah was not killed until the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus happened and
that was in 70AD. Josephus records that event but, predictably, conservative
Christians choose to believe the Matthew gospel that it happened before Jesus’
time. Small wonder, for it would mean that the gospel was written after 70 AD
after Zechariah’s death and would imply that Matthew or the author was putting
words in Jesus’ mouth. Even 15 years is a long time in a traumatised
country. Israel was tormented during and after the alleged time of Christ. So
why trust the gospels even if they were not composed after long after Christ?
Christians then tell us we believe non-religious records written long after the
times so we shouldn't approach the gospels with the attitude that they may be
spurious if written long after Jesus. But the non-religious records do not ask
for the sacrifice of the intellect and happiness and life and deserve to be
believed. Religion has a bad record when it comes to truth for power is its
priority. It asks us to be biased and unreasonable. We only believe the
non-religious records because they could be right and because it is better to
believe them than to be silent. We are not believing in them despite them being
so late after the event. We are believing in them because we need them. The
Christians are just trying to manipulate us. Supernatural claims written down
long after the event shouldn't be taken seriously even if historical claims to
which there is no objection written down long after the event are taken
seriously.
Anyway, Matthew was written when it was safe to slander the Jews and blame them
for the crucifixion of Jesus – another indication that it was written after the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD which was a terrible blow to Judaism and had
prospects of being lethal for it. Matthew could only blacken the Sanhedrin after
it disbanded at that time. The gospels are all cagey about saying outright that
the Romans took Jesus and crucified him. They say it ambiguously though. Luke
23:25 says that some “they” took Jesus and crucified him. We have to go to the
lines immediately preceding that to find out who “they” are. Only the Jews
baying for Jesus’ execution are mentioned so it is clear that Luke is squarely
stating that the Jews nailed Jesus to the cross. Embarrassed Christians say that
he is ambiguous for they know that the Jews historically cannot be blamed. He is
not. John did the same thing. He blamed the Jews too as the notes to his chapter
19:16 in the NAB admit. The NAB then lies saying that John admitted later that
the Romans were the killers. But when you check this out you find that soldiers
are mentioned but we are not told if they are Roman or what they are. They could
be Temple Guards. The Temple Guards were Jews. The further a gospel goes in
blaming the Jews the younger it is. Luke and John knew they did not have to go
as far as saying the Jews physically crucified Jesus but they did to suit the
rabid anti-semitic climate of the early second century. Otherwise they would not
have stooped so low. They did not care much for Jesus when they slandered his
killers.
Matthew concludes with Jesus telling the disciples meaning them and their
successors to enter every nation to make converts. The author was sure this
could happen so it was not written during the times of savage and death-dealing
persecution for Christianity nor written when it was small and threatened. This
points to a second century date. It could have been written after 70 AD when the
Jews stopped persecuting Christians and after the persecutions carried out under
the auspices of the Romans.
Matthew alleges that all of Syria knew about Jesus and he was famous there
(Matthew 4:24). But no there is absolutely no record of that at all. Jesus was
not mentioned in the writings that country has left us. This suggests that
Matthew knew very little about Palestine and Syria otherwise he would not have
said such a thing. This was suggest the gospel was written in the second century
when it was harder for him to get information.
Despite Jesus saying that the generation he lived in would see the signs in
Heaven indicating that the Son of Man was coming back, Jesus said that the only
sign for his generation would be his resurrection and not that glorious return
(Matthew 12). If Matthew was written before 70 AD he would say the return was
the sign. Thus Matthew is no older than 70 AD.
It is thought that when Matthew said that Jesus made a prophecy that his
apostles will not be finished preaching to all the towns of Israel before he
comes back in the second coming (Matthew 10:23) that Matthew must have been
written before they died because it would not have been put in after its failure
was apparent. But Jesus is just saying that they will never do it until he comes
and gives no hint if this will be sooner or later.
The zany book, The Jesus Papyrus, argues as follows that Matthew was written
before 66 AD. The verse says that Jesus said his followers must flee from one
town to the next if they are persecuted and that they would not be in every
Israelite town before he comes back. The book says that he is saying they will
never flee to non-Israelite towns (page 51). This is a totally nonsensical
deduction. Christians went for refuge to the Gentile town of Pella in 66 AD.
Following its stupid deduction, the book says the verse indicates that Matthew
was written before the flight to Pella for Matthew wouldn't put in a prediction
from Jesus that nobody would go to Gentile towns for refuge unless it hadn't
happened yet.
Jesus meant, “Flee to any SAFE town at all (be it Jewish or Gentile) and you
will not hide in all the towns of Israel until I return”. He would have meant
that for it is hardly a good idea to run to another Jewish town if the Jews hold
your faith against you and you aren’t going to hide your faith.
And how do you know that Matthew cared if Jesus knew the future or not? Matthew
was not a theologian. He said Jesus saw something in a verse of Exodus that is
obviously not there at all (12:18-27). But if Matthew did care then he was
written after 66 AD for he refers to the Christians having to hide in safe
Gentile towns.
Some say that Matthew must have been written late when it was known that Peter
would be the rock the invincible Church was built on (16:18). Others say that it
could have been written in 30 AD as long as there was some kind of a Church.
Church may not mean people of God here but community of believers for the word
for Church ecclesia just means called out. You can be a believer without being
reconciled with God or being one of his and still be called to spread the gospel
and used for that purpose. It probably doesn’t mean people of God when Matthew
never calls the Church the people of God and he says Jesus called Peter Satan a
few minutes later. Peter might have been the rock the Church was built on
meaning that he was the first believer. The first member of your Drama Class
could be called the foundation in the sense that he started it off for there is
no class without members. But the weight seems to be on the view that this was
made up about Peter being rock and the Church being invincible at a time when it
was thought no power now could get rid of the Church.
The Gospel says that the story that the disciples stole Jesus from the tomb was
told among the Jews until the time he was wrote and was told to discredit the
resurrection of Jesus. This gives us a vital clue as to when Matthew was really
written. It was written after the Jewish and secular records, if any, were
destroyed in 70 AD. The soldiers could not accuse without evidence and so
records would have had to be made of suspects and why the tomb must have been
robbed by disciples. But Matthew hints that there was no evidence which tells us
that there was evidence that they were wrong. This latter evidence must have
been ruined enabling the Jews to tell that story. If the Jews were saying that
then why had the Sanhedrin nothing to say when the apostles spoke of the
resurrection in Acts 4 and could not silence them? Even Paul had no bother from
the rumour (Acts 28) in the sixties of the first century. The rumour was a late
one. The guards could not have started it for it was less than their lives were
worth so somebody might have said they said it after their deaths which would
have all transpired by 80 AD.
Maybe Matthew could write what he liked when the gospel was to be secret for a
while? But the devotees of the gospel were waiting until the right time to
inflict it on the world so the book had to be written as ready to go out when
the people were ready.