When was the Gospel of Matthew really written?

[polonius]

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jewishtemple.htm

The Roman legions surrounded the city and began to slowly squeeze the life out of the Jewish stronghold. By the year 70, the attackers had breached Jerusalem's outer walls and began a systematic ransacking of the city. The assault culminated in the burning and destruction of the Temple that served as the center of Judaism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

The Gospel According to Matthew (Greek: Τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ε�αγγέλιον, translit. Tò katà Matthaīon euangélion; also called the Gospel of Matthew or simply, Matthew) is the first book of the New Testament and one of the three synoptic gospels. It tells how the Messiah, Jesus, rejected by Israel, finally sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the whole world.[1] Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).[2][3] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew,

The gospel we call Matthew's was written anonymously about 80 A.D. In approximately 135 A.D., Papias, an early and not too reliable a Church Father, named it Matthew's and the name stuck.

It claims that Jesus foresaw the destruction of the Temple, but since this gospel was written about 80 AD, or about 10 years after the event, it isn't a convincing prophecy fulfillment.

When compared with the other Gospels and history itself, Matthew's gospel contains a number of contradictions.

[steveb1]

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jewishtemple.htm

The Roman legions surrounded the city and began to slowly squeeze the life out of the Jewish stronghold. By the year 70, the attackers had breached Jerusalem's outer walls and began a systematic ransacking of the city. The assault culminated in the burning and destruction of the Temple that served as the center of Judaism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

The Gospel According to Matthew (Greek: Τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ε�αγγέλιον, translit. Tò katà Matthaīon euangélion; also called the Gospel of Matthew or simply, Matthew) is the first book of the New Testament and one of the three synoptic gospels. It tells how the Messiah, Jesus, rejected by Israel, finally sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the whole world.[1] Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).[2][3] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew,

The gospel we call Matthew's was written anonymously about 80 A.D. In approximately 135 A.D., Papias, an early and not too reliable a Church Father, named it Matthew's and the name stuck.

It claims that Jesus foresaw the destruction of the Temple, but since this gospel was written about 80 AD, or about 10 years after the event, it isn't a convincing prophecy fulfillment.

When compared with the other Gospels and history itself, Matthew's gospel contains a number of contradictions.

If it's a problem, it didn't originate with Matthew, because Matthew was copying Mark, whose Gospel was the first to introduce Jesus's prophecies about the fall of Jerusalem and its possible relation to "God's end-times schedule".
Mark's Jesus, not Matthew's, was the first to announce the coming fall of the capital city.

Nor is this necessarily unhistorical, because we have other records of such prophets and prophecies - even one of a non-Christian "Jesus" who warned that Jerusalem would soon fall, and who, for his efforts, was scourged and then released by the Roman governor of the time. Jesus, if he was not a wholly mythical figure, was by far not the only Jew who predicted Jerusalem's fall. Several Jewish prophets did the same, and Jesus's own contemporaneous religious sect, the "Essenes" of the Dead Sea Scroll community, were preaching a similar dire future for Jerusalem and its (for them) corrupt Temple and priesthood. None of this originated with Matthew, and it is quite plausible that, if he existed, Jesus was one of the Jewish mystics who preached about a near-future fall of Jerusalem.

[polonius]

StevenB1 posted:

If it's a problem, it didn't originate with Matthew, because Matthew was copying Mark, whose Gospel was the first to introduce Jesus's prophecies about the fall of Jerusalem and its possible relation to "God's end-times schedule".
Mark's Jesus, not Matthew's, was the first to announce the coming fall of the capital city.

RESPONSE: You did some good historical research, but the answer to the question of how Mark (c 70) contained a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem remains uncertain.


www.thoughtco.com/the-gospel-according-to-mark...

Jesus Predicts the Destruction of the Temple (Mark 13: 1-4)
Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem is one of the most important features in Mark’s gospel. Scholars have been sharply divided on how to deal with it: was it a genuine prediction, demonstrating Jesus’ power, or is it evidence that Mark was written after the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE?


New American Bible: Footnote to Mark’s gospel

Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.


rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v13/Head2008.pdf

The Greek text of the Gospel of Mark is certainly the worst attested of all the canonical gospels. It is extant in only three papyrus manuscripts, none of which are by any means complete, and of which only one ( 45) is definitely earlier than the fourth century uncials;1 while one other is perhaps contemporary with them ( 88).2 Thus our knowledge of the text of Mark is more dependent on the early uncial texts than is the case with the other gospels, where early papyri and more substantial comments in church fathers supplement the early uncial texts.3

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 3 by polonius.advice]

Sure, if Jesus was a historical figure, he could have made a fairly accurate prophecy about Jerusalem's destruction. Or his "biographers" could have put it on his lips after the Fall had occurred, in order to make it look like Jesus was an accurate prophet.

Without access to time travel, I guess we'll never know for sure!

[polonius]

[Replying to post 3 by polonius.advice]

Sure, if Jesus was a historical figure, he could have made a fairly accurate prophecy about Jerusalem's destruction. Or his "biographers" could have put it on his lips after the Fall had occurred, in order to make it look like Jesus was an accurate prophet.

Without access to time travel, I guess we'll never know for sure!

RESPONSE:

Yes. It's difficult to evaluate early Mark. I understand there are only three fragmentary manuscripts written before 70 AD.

And of course the "longer Mark " ending is thought to have been added in the early second century. So any interpolations and dating will probably remain a mystery.

I'm glad to encounter a fellow (amateur) historian who replies to questions intelligently. If you've followed some of my other posts, you probably can see that I'm hounded by Fundamentalists!

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 3 by polonius.advice]

Sure, if Jesus was a historical figure, he could have made a fairly accurate prophecy about Jerusalem's destruction. Or his "biographers" could have put it on his lips after the Fall had occurred, in order to make it look like Jesus was an accurate prophet.

Without access to time travel, I guess we'll never know for sure!

RESPONSE:

Yes. It's difficult to evaluate early Mark. I understand there are only three fragmentary manuscripts written before 70 AD.

And of course the "longer Mark " ending is thought to have been added in the early second century. So any interpolations and dating will probably remain a mystery.

I'm glad to encounter a fellow (amateur) historian who replies to questions intelligently. If you've followed some of my other posts, you probably can see that I'm hounded by Fundamentalists!

Try not to let 'em get to you! Typically, "the ears have walls" (see what I did there?) but maybe you'll get through to some of them - and keep on honing your thinking and writing. It's a truism, but our opponents help us define ourselves.


Yes, that "longer ending" of Mark seems to be a later scribal addition "to make sure" that Mark's resurrection narrative had a "properly" presented appearances narrative...

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Could you please make a debate question in the OP?

[brianbbs67]

Well Mark 16:9 to the end, was added by a copiest. Probably, about 450. Every priest knew it was what it was but thought it was too beautiful to exclude. Thus goes our new testament. Its sketchy at best.

[dio9]

after reading through these posts I can definitely say , I can't say for sure.
Jesus may very well have said the Temple would be destroyed , or if he didn't a redactor may have said it for him. Anyhow these irregularities are what make studying the New testament so interesting.

[For_The_Kingdom]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

The Gospel According to Matthew (Greek: Τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ε�αγγέλιον, translit. Tò katà Matthaīon euangélion; also called the Gospel of Matthew or simply, Matthew) is the first book of the New Testament and one of the three synoptic gospels. It tells how the Messiah, Jesus, rejected by Israel, finally sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the whole world.[1] Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).

The notion that Jesus never existed is also a minority view.

[2][3] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew

Or it was probably Matthew, disciple of Jesus.

The gospel we call Matthew's was written anonymously about 80 A.D. In approximately 135 A.D., Papias, an early and not too reliable a Church Father, named it Matthew's and the name stuck.

Why would Papias name the Gospel "Matthew"? Why not name it Peter? Why not John? Why not James? Those three names carries more weight than Matthew.

Hmm.

It claims that Jesus foresaw the destruction of the Temple, but since this gospel was written about 80 AD, or about 10 years after the event, it isn't a convincing prophecy fulfillment.[/b]

Right, which is why it is reasonable to conclude that the Gospel of Matthew was written pre-70 AD. Of the four Gospels, Matthew does the most when it comes to exploiting Jesus' fulfillment of prophecies. He was always quick to highlight whenever Jesus fulfilled a prophecy.

So, why wouldn't he mention the fulfillment of a prophecy as it relates to an event that was so significant as the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem?

You wanna know why? Because when the Gospel was written, it didn't happen yet, that's why. An event of that magnitude to the Jewish community would certainly be worthy of mention, especially if Jesus, the central figure of the book, was the one who made the prophecy.

When compared with the other Gospels and history itself, Matthew's gospel contains a number of contradictions.

All of which have been answered.