Secondly, the Gospel of Matthew has a developed Christology, which suggests a late date towards the end of the first century. Three pieces of evidence have usually been advanced to demonstrate that Matthew wrote after 70 C. First, Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark and Mark is normally dated to the late 60s or early 70s. Generally, one will find that the presuppositions of the scholars greatly influence their dating of the Gospels. This wide range of dates from scholars indicates the subjective nature of the dating process.When the New Testament was written is a significant issue, as one assembles the overall argument for Christianity.
Harnack points to use of always designates 'the Messiah', and is not a proper name for Jesus. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy.
For example, in Matt 22:7: "The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city." That seems like an understatement to describe such a huge and terrible event. Thirdly, the reference to the destruction of a city in Matt 22:7 can and should be taken as a direct reference to the Jewish War and to the destruction of Jerusalem in particular. With respect to Matthew’s use of Mark, the date of Mark is itself not certain. As for Matthew’s developed Christology, it is no more developed than Paul’s and the Pauline letters were written in the 50s.
Is there any evidence this parable was added to a pre-70 C. This leaves the reference to the destruction of the city in the parable of the wedding feast as the final piece of evidence for dating Matthew after the Jewish War.
In fact Eusebius (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history) reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel before he left Israel to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Had the Gospels been edited before being written down, as some liberal scholars contend, then it was a very poor job.
Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as A. The writers left far too many “hard sayings,” and culturally unacceptable and politically incorrect accounts that would need explaining.
Those who hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and then it was later translated into Greek. Even if the Gospels were not written until 30 years after Christ’s death, that would still place the writing of them prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A. Passing on oral traditions and teachings was commonplace in the Jewish culture of that day, and memorization was highly cultivated and practiced.