When Was Matthew Written: Dating the First Gospel
Short answer: The Gospel of Matthew does not state when it was written, and no ancient source gives a precise date. Most modern scholars place it somewhere between AD 50 and AD 90, with a common proposal around AD 80 to 90. Some conservative scholars argue for an earlier date, possibly the 50s or 60s, before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70. The key passage in the debate is Matthew 24:1-2, where Jesus predicts the temple's destruction. If that prediction is genuine prophecy, the book could have been written before AD 70. If one assumes it was written after the event, a later date follows. The text itself does not settle the question, so faithful Christians differ.
Why the temple prophecy in Matthew 24:1-2 matters so much
Matthew 24:1-2 records a private moment between Jesus and his disciples: Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way. His disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. Jesus responds by predicting that not one stone will be left upon another. This prediction is the pivot point for dating the Gospel. If Jesus truly foretold the temple's destruction, then Matthew could have recorded it before AD 70. If a scholar assumes Jesus could not predict the future, then the Gospel must be dated after AD 70, when Roman armies destroyed the temple.
The logic is simple but not decisive. A later date does not prove that the prediction was invented; it only shows that a scholar has chosen a different starting assumption about prophecy. An earlier date does not prove the prediction was written beforehand either. The passage tells us what Jesus said, not when Matthew wrote it down.
What the text does give us is a vivid, specific forecast. Jesus points to the actual buildings the disciples admired, and he says they will be thrown down. That specificity is why this verse appears in nearly every discussion of Matthean authorship and date. It is not a vague oracle; it is tied to a real place and a real event that later occurred.
The external evidence: what early Christians said
The earliest surviving traditions about Matthew come from the second century. Papias, writing in the early second century, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language. Irenaeus, writing near the end of the second century, says Matthew published his Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome. That would place it before the mid-60s, since Peter and Paul were martyred around AD 64 to 67.
These traditions are early but not precise. Papias does not give a date, and Irenaeus gives a general era rather than a year. Neither writer explains how the Gospel we have relates to the Hebrew original Papias mentions. Some scholars think Papias refers to a collection of sayings, not the full Gospel. Others think he refers to the Gospel itself.
The external evidence, then, points toward the first century but cannot pin down a year. It also shows that early Christians were not preoccupied with the question in the way modern scholars are. They cared that the Gospel came from the apostolic circle, not that it could be dated to a specific calendar year.
Internal clues that point earlier
Several features inside Matthew have been read as signs of an early date. Matthew 27:6-8 describes the chief priests taking the thirty pieces of silver and buying the potter's field. The text explains that the field was called the Field of Blood to this day. That kind of explanatory note can suggest the author is close to the events, though it can also be a literary convention.
Matthew 28:15 says that the story of the stolen body was spread abroad among the Jews, and continues until today. This verse implies that the counter-narrative was still circulating when Matthew wrote. If the Gospel were written very late, that statement would be harder to explain, though not impossible.
Other clues include the Gospel's Jewish flavor, its frequent use of Old Testament fulfillment formulas, and its attention to Jewish customs and disputes. These features do not date the book by themselves, but they fit well with a setting in the middle of the first century, before the church became predominantly Gentile and before the temple fell.
Internal clues that point later
Other features have been read as signs of a later date. Matthew 22:7 describes a king who sent his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. Many interpreters see this as a veiled reference to Rome's destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. If the parable was written after that event, the Gospel would be later than AD 70. If it was written before, the parable is a prophecy, which is exactly how Jesus' parables often work.
Matthew also reflects tensions between the church and the synagogue that some scholars associate with the period after AD 70, when Jewish-Christian relations changed. The Gospel's strong denunciations of certain Jewish leaders have been read in that light. But these tensions existed before AD 70 as well, so the argument is suggestive rather than conclusive.
The strongest later-date argument is theological and methodological: many critical scholars assume that Jesus did not predict the temple's fall, so they date Matthew after AD 70. This is not a fact discovered in the text; it is a presupposition brought to the text.
What the church fathers and early manuscripts suggest
The early manuscript evidence does not give a date, but it shows the Gospel was circulating widely and was treated as authoritative. Quotations and allusions to Matthew appear in early Christian writings from the late first and early second centuries. Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and the Didache show familiarity with Matthean material, though the direction of dependence is debated.
If Matthew was written in the 50s or 60s, that widespread use is easy to explain. If it was written in the 80s or 90s, its rapid acceptance is still possible, since the church was growing and the Gospel was tied to an apostle. Neither scenario is impossible, and neither proves a date.
The church fathers consistently place Matthew first among the Gospels and connect it to the apostle Matthew. That tradition does not give us a year, but it does anchor the book in the apostolic era rather than in a later anonymous community.
How to weigh the arguments without overclaiming
When Christians ask when Matthew was written, they often want a single date they can defend. The honest answer is that the evidence allows a range. The early tradition, the Jewish character of the Gospel, and the temple prophecy fit a date before AD 70. The Gospel's final form, its polished Greek, and its engagement with post-70 tensions fit a date after AD 70. Both sets of evidence are real.
What no one should do is pretend the question is settled beyond dispute. Scholars who hold to inerrancy and scholars who do not both write on this topic, and they reach different conclusions. The date does not determine whether the Gospel is true. The Gospel's truth rests on whether it faithfully reports the words and works of Jesus, not on whether we can assign it a precise year.
A reasonable position is to say that Matthew was likely written in the second half of the first century, possibly before AD 70 and possibly after. The exact date remains uncertain, and faithful Christians should be free to differ without questioning one another's commitment to Scripture.
Why the date does not change the Gospel's message
The message of Matthew does not depend on the date of its composition. The Gospel presents Jesus as the promised Messiah, the son of David, the teacher of the kingdom, and the risen Lord. It calls readers to repentance, faith, and obedience. Those truths stand whether the book was written in AD 55 or AD 85.
Matthew 5:23-24 shows the kind of ethical teaching the Gospel preserves. Jesus tells his hearers to be reconciled to a brother before offering a gift at the altar. That instruction is not tied to a date; it is tied to the kingdom Jesus announced. The date of writing is a historical question, but the call to reconciliation is a living command.
Readers who fixate on the date can miss the point of the book. Matthew was written so that people would know who Jesus is and what he taught. That purpose is fulfilled whenever the Gospel is read with faith, regardless of when the ink first dried.
Common questions about Matthean authorship and date
Some readers confuse the date of writing with the date of the events. The events of Jesus' life took place roughly between AD 27 and AD 30. The Gospel was written later, after the resurrection and after the church began to grow. The gap between the events and the writing is a normal part of ancient historiography, not a sign of unreliability.
Others wonder whether an early date is required for the Gospel to be trustworthy. It is not. Luke explicitly says he investigated everything carefully, and he wrote after others had already written. A careful later date can still produce a reliable account, especially when the author had access to eyewitness testimony and apostolic teaching.
The important question is not whether Matthew wrote early, but whether he wrote truthfully. The church has always answered yes, and the internal and external evidence supports that confidence.
Biblical fidelity check
Matthew 24:1-2 establishes that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple buildings. It does not state when the Gospel of Matthew was written, who wrote it down, or whether the prediction was recorded before or after AD 70. The passage is a prophecy, not a colophon. Using it to date the book requires assumptions that the text itself does not supply.
A common misreading is to say that because Jesus predicted the temple's fall, Matthew must have been written before AD 70. That conclusion goes beyond the text. The prediction could have been recorded before or after the event. The opposite misreading is to say that because the temple fell in AD 70, Matthew must have been written after that date. That conclusion also goes beyond the text. The passage records what Jesus said; it does not tell us when the record was made. Faithful Christians can hold different dates without denying what the passage says.
Other passages that speak to Matthew 24:1-2
Several related studies help place this prophecy in context. One article addresses Why trust the Bible when it was written by humans? A Biblical Guide. Another explores the ethical teaching of Jesus in The Beatitudes Explained: Matthew 5:1-12 Meaning. For readers wrestling with trust when outcomes are unclear, see Bible Verses About Faith: Trusting God When You Cannot See the Outcome. And for encouragement when life feels heavy, see Bible Verses About Hope: Christian Hope When Life Feels Heavy.
Frequently asked questions
When was the Gospel of Matthew most likely written?
Most scholars place Matthew between AD 50 and AD 90, with a common proposal around AD 80 to 90. Some conservative scholars argue for the 50s or 60s, before the temple's destruction in AD 70. The Gospel does not name a date, and no ancient source gives a precise year. The range reflects genuine uncertainty, not a lack of evidence. Readers should treat the date as an open question on which faithful Christians disagree.
Does Matthew 24:1-2 prove Matthew was written before AD 70?
No. Matthew 24:1-2 records Jesus' prediction that the temple buildings would be thrown down. It does not say when Matthew wrote the Gospel. If Jesus genuinely foretold the event, the book could have been written before AD 70, but it could also have been written after. The verse supports a pre-70 setting only when combined with the assumption that the prophecy was recorded beforehand. The text itself does not make that claim.
Why do some scholars date Matthew after AD 70?
Many critical scholars assume Jesus did not predict the temple's fall, so they conclude the Gospel must have been written after the event. They also point to tensions between church and synagogue that fit the post-70 period. These arguments are plausible but not decisive, since the same tensions existed earlier. The later date rests partly on a theological presupposition about prophecy, not solely on evidence in the text.
