1606 | Introduction to Matthew
destruction of the temple and the holy city. In possible contrast to Mark’ s more ambiguous relationship between Jesus’ warning of the temple’ s destruction and the promise of his return, Matthew seems to distinguish the two events( compare 24:2 – 3 with Mk 13:2 – 4).( Some also point to Mt 22:7.) Such features could well suggest a post-70 date. Nevertheless, it seems clear from the earliest sources( including some shared by and thus earlier than Matthew and Luke) that Jesus himself did predict impending judgment on the temple( 23:38; Mk 13:2,14; Lk 13:35; cf. Mk 11:15 – 17).
In the end, the specific question of date may be a moot point.( Indeed, some scholars think that Matthew and / or his assistants expanded the Gospel in subsequent editions at different times.) Because the Gospels are primarily concerned with events that have already occurred in the past, the time they describe is more crucial than the time in which they wrote, although the latter is helpful for considering why the different writers emphasized some particular themes.
Background
Only rarely can scholars studying ancient documents pinpoint precise dates for those documents. One does not need to know exact dates or locations to reconstruct the general setting of such works, however.
As will be clear from the following study notes on Matthew’ s Gospel, Matthew addresses an audience comfortable with traditional Jewish forms of speech. For example, one need only compare Mark’ s pervasive“ kingdom of God” with Matthew’ s usual“ kingdom of heaven” to see that Matthew prefers traditional( and emphatically) Jewish formulations.
Because Jewish thinking took many forms in different parts of the ancient world, it is valuable to be more precise in this case. Whereas Jewish people who liked apocalyptic literature would particularly appreciate Revelation, Jews in the Diaspora would appreciate Hebrews, and groups such as the Essenes might appreciate John’ s Gospel, Matthew often moves in a more“ rabbinic” world. That is, the views and arguments of teachers and interpreters of the law, who came to be called rabbis, are very relevant to Matthew’ s Gospel. Most of the sources from which we know rabbinic thought are later, but they offer numerous parallels to Matthew’ s ways of handling Scripture and intimate understanding of Pharisaic debates with Jesus( e. g., see notes on 19:3; 23:25 – 26). Because Jesus was himself a sage and engaged in discussion, and often debate, with Pharisaic teachers, Matthew continues to engage a world within which Jesus himself moved. ◆