The authorship and timeline of the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Matthew, have long been subjects of scholarly debate and investigation. Understanding when the Gospel of Matthew was written is key to comprehending its historical context and the motivations behind its composition. Through meticulous analysis of ancient historical records, textual evidence, and theological themes, scholars have attempted to unravel the timeline and shed light on the authorship of this significant Gospel.
The Gospel of Matthew, one of the four canonical Gospels in the New Testament, holds a central position in Christian tradition and theology. It is revered for its portrayal of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, questions have persisted regarding when this Gospel was actually composed and written. Scholars have embarked on a quest to uncover the exact timeframe in which Matthew penned his account, unveiling potential connections to the life and ministry of Jesus as well as the broader social and political climate of that era. By delving into the intricacies of this timeline, we can gain valuable insights into the composition of Matthew’s Gospel and its significance in early Christianity.
Determining the Timeline of Matthew’s Writing
The internal evidence within the Gospel itself
To unravel the timeline of the Gospel of Matthew, scholars have extensively examined the internal evidence within the text itself. Within the Gospel, there are multiple instances that hint towards the timing of its writing. For example, Matthew 24:2 mentions the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, which took place in 70 CE. This suggests that the Gospel must have been written after this event. Additionally, Matthew 22:7 references the burning of the city, possibly alluding to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE as well.
Comparison with other New Testament texts
Another approach to determine the timeline of Matthew’s writing involves comparing it with other New Testament texts. Scholars have identified several similarities between Matthew and the Gospel of Mark. Since Mark is generally believed to be the earliest gospel, the similarities between the two suggest that Matthew was written after Mark. Furthermore, Matthew and Luke share additional similarities, particularly in their use of the Q source, a hypothetical document containing the sayings of Jesus. These parallels suggest that both Matthew and Luke drew from Mark and Q as sources, placing their writings after these earlier texts.
Analysis of External Sources
To further establish the timeline of Matthew’s writing, scholars have examined references to the gospel made by early Church Fathers and its inclusion in canonical lists. Early Christian writers such as Papias and Irenaeus referenced and attributed the Gospel of Matthew to the apostle Matthew, reinforcing the idea of early authorship. Additionally, Matthew’s inclusion in early canonical lists, such as the Muratorian Fragment and the Codex Sinaiticus, further support its early composition.
The Role of Oral Tradition
Considering the oral nature of teaching in ancient times, the influence of oral tradition on the writing of Matthew cannot be overlooked. Oral tradition played a crucial role in preserving and transmitting Jesus’ teachings, and it is possible that Matthew incorporated these oral traditions into his written account. This suggests that Matthew’s writing may have been influenced by both his personal experiences as a disciple and the collective memory of the early Christian community.
The Importance of Eyewitness Accounts
The possibility of eyewitnesses contributing to the writing of Matthew is also a topic of discussion in determining the timeline. If Matthew was indeed written by the apostle Matthew, who is traditionally believed to have been an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, it lends credibility to the early authorship of the Gospel. Additionally, research on the reliability of eyewitness testimony in biblical texts supports the idea that Matthew’s firsthand experiences would have shaped the content and narrative of his gospel.
In the next section, we will further explore the implications of dating Matthew’s writing and how it relates to understanding the historical context of Jesus’ teachings.
IDetermining the Timeline of Matthew’s Writing
A. The internal evidence within the Gospel itself
In order to establish a timeline for when the Gospel of Matthew was written, scholars often dive into the internal evidence found within the text itself. This evidence can provide insights into the historical and cultural context in which the Gospel was written.
One important aspect to consider is the use of language and style in Matthew’s Gospel. By examining the Greek language used by the author, scholars can determine the linguistic characteristics of the text and compare it to other New Testament writings. This analysis can offer clues about the time period in which Matthew was composed.
Additionally, scholars examine the content and themes presented in Matthew’s Gospel. The inclusion of certain events, teachings, or references to historical events can shed light on the timeframe of the Gospel’s authorship. For example, if Matthew includes specific events or prophecies that took place before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, it can be inferred that the Gospel was written prior to or following that event.
B. Comparison with other New Testament texts
Another avenue for determining the timeline of Matthew’s writing is by comparing it to other New Testament texts. By examining the similarities and differences in language, style, and content between Matthew and other writings, scholars can gain insights into chronological relationships.
For instance, if it is discovered that Matthew shares passages or phrases with the Gospel of Mark, it can indicate that Matthew was written after Mark. On the other hand, if Matthew contains unique material that is not present in the other Gospels, it may suggest an earlier composition date for Matthew.
Moreover, studying the developing theology and understanding of Jesus’ teachings within the New Testament can provide a broader picture of when Matthew could have been written. If Matthew’s theology exhibits more advanced ideas or a more mature understanding of Jesus’ divinity compared to earlier writings, it can hint at a later date of authorship.
By scrutinizing the internal evidence within the Gospel itself and comparing it to other New Testament texts, scholars aim to unravel the timeline of Matthew’s writing. These analyses can offer valuable insights into the historical and cultural context in which the Gospel was composed, helping to paint a clearer picture of the timeline of the Gospel authorship.
RecommendedAnalysis of External Sources
A. Early Church Fathers’ references to Matthew
In unraveling the timeline of Matthew’s writing, it is crucial to examine the references made by the Early Church Fathers. These early Christian leaders, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna, provide valuable insights into the origins and authorship of the Gospel.
One of the earliest references to Matthew as the author of the Gospel comes from Papias of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of the apostle John. Papias mentions Matthew’s name and his role in compiling the sayings of Jesus, indicating that Matthew was indeed the author of the Gospel that bears his name.
Other early church fathers, such as Irenaeus and Origen, also attributed the Gospel to Matthew. Not only do they identify Matthew as the author, but they also attest to the preservation of Matthew’s writings in the early Christian community.
Scholars analyze these references to Matthew by the Early Church Fathers and consider them as evidence for the early dating of the Gospel. The consensus among scholars is that Matthew was written within the first century, possibly around 70-80 CE.
B. Canonical list development and Matthew’s inclusion
Another important aspect to consider in determining the timeline of Matthew’s writing is the development of the New Testament canon. Canonical lists, which were compiled by early Christian communities, provide insights into the inclusion of Matthew’s Gospel.
The first known canon list to explicitly include the Gospel of Matthew is the Muratorian Fragment, dating back to the late second century. This suggests that Matthew’s Gospel was already established as a canonical text by that time.
Furthermore, the inclusion of Matthew’s Gospel in the canon may indicate its early composition. The process of establishing the New Testament canon was a gradual one, and the inclusion of Matthew among the earliest accepted Gospels suggests that it was written at an early stage of Christian development.
Overall, the analysis of external sources, including references by the Early Church Fathers and the inclusion of Matthew in early canonical lists, supports the conclusion that Matthew’s Gospel was likely written in the first century. These external sources provide valuable evidence for understanding the timeline and authorship of Matthew, shedding light on the development of the early Christian tradition.
The Role of Oral Tradition
Discussion on the role of oral tradition in preserving Jesus’ teachings
In order to unravel the timeline of the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew, it is crucial to consider the role of oral tradition in preserving Jesus’ teachings. Oral tradition played a significant role in ancient societies, where the majority of people were illiterate, and information was transmitted through spoken words rather than written texts.
During the time of Jesus and the early Christian community, the oral tradition was the primary means of passing down teachings and stories. Jesus himself relied heavily on oral communication, often teaching through parables and engaging in dialogue with his disciples and followers. These teachings were memorized and repeated by those who heard them, ensuring their preservation and transmission.
Possible influence of oral tradition on the writing of Matthew
The influence of oral tradition on the writing of the Gospel of Matthew is a topic of scholarly debate. Some scholars argue that Matthew, being one of the twelve apostles and an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, would have relied heavily on his own memory and the oral traditions circulating within the early Christian community when composing his Gospel.
According to this perspective, Matthew likely drew upon the oral teachings and stories he had heard during his time with Jesus and incorporated them into the written text. This would mean that the Gospel of Matthew represents a compilation of both the author’s personal recollections and the oral traditions preserved by the early Christian community.
On the other hand, some scholars suggest that Matthew may have used existing written sources, such as the hypothetical “Q” document or the Gospel of Mark, as the primary basis for his Gospel. They argue that while oral tradition may have played a role in the transmission of Jesus’ teachings and stories, the author of Matthew relied more on written sources rather than personal recollections or the direct influence of the oral tradition.
The question of the influence of oral tradition on the writing of Matthew ultimately contributes to the larger discussion of the authorship and dating of the Gospel. Understanding the role of oral tradition helps scholars evaluate the reliability and authenticity of the Gospel of Matthew and provides insights into the early Christian tradition and its development. Further research and analysis are necessary to determine the extent and impact of oral tradition in the writing of Matthew and its subsequent transmission to the present day.
The Importance of Eyewitness Accounts
Examination of the possibility of eyewitnesses contributing to Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew is widely regarded as one of the four canonical Gospels that provide an account of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In order to determine the timeline of its writing, it is crucial to consider the role of eyewitness accounts in shaping its content.
Eyewitness testimony holds immense significance in historical investigations, particularly when studying the life of Jesus. It is plausible to suggest that Matthew, one of the Twelve Apostles, was an eyewitness to many of the events he describes in his Gospel. As a former tax collector called by Jesus to be one of his disciples, Matthew would have had the opportunity to witness and interact directly with Jesus during his ministry.
Matthew’s firsthand experiences and interactions with Jesus would have allowed him to recall and document specific details and teachings with a level of accuracy that would be difficult for someone who did not witness these events. This eyewitness perspective grants credibility and reliability to the Gospel of Matthew.
Furthermore, Matthew’s unique perspective as a former tax collector adds depth to the narrative. His familiarity with Jewish customs and practices, as well as his understanding of Roman rule, allowed him to provide insightful commentary and bridge the gap between Jewish and Gentile audiences. This suggests that Matthew’s account was influenced not only by his firsthand experiences but also by his encounters with various communities that shaped his understanding of Jesus’ teachings.
Research on the reliability of eyewitness testimony in biblical texts
Scholars and researchers have carried out extensive studies on the reliability of eyewitness testimony in biblical texts, including the Gospels. While some critics argue that the Gospels were written several decades after the events they describe, recent research supports the idea that the Gospels, including Matthew, were written closer in time to the events they chronicle.
Studies on eyewitness memory and the transmission of oral traditions indicate that accurate and detailed recollection is possible, especially for significant events that leave a lasting impact on individuals. This supports the possibility that Matthew, as an eyewitness, could accurately recall and document the teachings and actions of Jesus.
Additionally, the presence of multiple accounts of the same events in the four Gospels provides an opportunity for cross-referencing and comparison, further enhancing their historical reliability. The consistency and coherence of these accounts reinforce the significance of eyewitness testimony in shaping the Gospel narratives.
Considering the importance ascribed to eyewitness testimony in historical research and the unique perspective that Matthew, an apostle and eyewitness, brings to his Gospel, it can be concluded that his firsthand experiences and interactions with Jesus greatly influenced the content and reliability of the Gospel of Matthew. Thus, the inclusion of eyewitness accounts supports the argument for an early dating of Matthew’s writing, reinforcing its significance in understanding the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Comparisons with Other Gospel Accounts
Examination of similarities and differences between Matthew and Mark, Luke, and John
In order to determine the timeline of the writing of the Gospel of Matthew, it is crucial to compare it with the other three canonical gospels: Mark, Luke, and John. These comparisons can shed light on the relationships between the gospels and provide clues about when Matthew might have been written.
The first comparison is between Matthew and Mark. Scholars have long recognized a significant overlap between these two gospels, with nearly 90% of Mark’s content finding its way into Matthew’s gospel. Not only do these two gospels share similar stories and teachings, but they also follow a similar narrative structure. This has led many scholars to conclude that Matthew used Mark as one of his primary sources when composing his own gospel. Based on this dependence on Mark, it is generally agreed upon that Matthew was written after Mark.
The second comparison involves examining the relationship between Matthew and Luke. While there are similarities between the two gospels, such as the inclusion of the birth narratives and Sermon on the Mount, there are also significant differences. For instance, Matthew includes five distinct discourses of Jesus, while Luke omits them. This suggests that Matthew and Luke had access to different sources and had different theological emphases. As a result, the relationship between Matthew and Luke is more complex. Some scholars propose the existence of a hypothetical document known as “Q,” which both Matthew and Luke drew upon for their gospels. If Q existed, Matthew’s use of it would place the writing of his gospel after this hypothetical document was circulating.
The comparison between Matthew and John reveals fewer similarities and more divergences. John’s gospel has a unique style and theological focus that sets it apart from the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The differences between Matthew and John suggest that they were not directly dependent on each other and were written independently. This comparison does not provide as much evidence for dating the writing of Matthew, but it does indicate that Matthew was likely written before John.
Implications for determining the timeline of Matthew’s writing
Based on the comparisons with Mark, Luke, and John, it can be inferred that Matthew was written after Mark and before John. The dependence on Mark’s gospel and the hypothetical Q document would suggest that Matthew was written in the late first century or possibly the early second century. Additionally, the independent nature of Matthew and John supports the idea that Matthew predates John, placing it within the first century.
These findings have implications for understanding the development of the early Christian tradition. The similarities between Matthew and Mark indicate a familiarity with Mark’s gospel within the early Christian community. The use of Q as a source suggests that there were written or oral traditions circulating among early Christians. Furthermore, the independence of Matthew from John suggests that there was already a diversity of theological perspectives within the early Christian movement.
By comparing Matthew with the other gospel accounts, scholars can gain a better understanding of when Matthew might have been written and how it fits into the larger context of the early Christian tradition. However, further research and analysis are still necessary to arrive at a more precise dating of the Gospel of Matthew.
# Dating Matthew through References to Historical Events
## A. Identification of historical events mentioned in Matthew
In order to determine the timeline of Matthew’s writing, it is important to analyze the historical events that are mentioned within the Gospel itself. Matthew includes several references to well-known historical events that can help us establish a timeframe for its composition.
One significant historical event mentioned in Matthew is the destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. In Matthew 24:1-2, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple, which historically took place in 70 AD. This provides a clue that Matthew was likely written after this event.
Another event mentioned in Matthew is the martyrdom of John the Baptist. According to Matthew 14:1-12, John the Baptist was executed by Herod Antipas. This event is also recorded by the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, placing it around 30 AD. This suggests that Matthew was written sometime after this period.
## B. Analysis of their relevance in dating the Gospel
By examining the historical events mentioned in Matthew and comparing them to known historical dates, scholars can make educated guesses about the timeframe in which the Gospel was written. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD serves as a critical marker, indicating that Matthew was likely composed after this event.
Additionally, the mention of John the Baptist’s execution provides further evidence for a post-30 AD dating of Matthew. The inclusion of this event suggests that the author was aware of and drawing from historical accounts of the time.
It is worth noting that while the historical events mentioned in Matthew can help establish a general dating timeframe, they do not provide an exact date for when the Gospel was written. The composition of biblical texts often involves a complex process of oral tradition, redaction, and editing, making it difficult to pinpoint an exact date.
Furthermore, it is important to consider that the Gospel of Matthew may have undergone revisions or edits throughout its transmission history. These revisions could have included updating references to historical events or incorporating new information. Therefore, while historical events referenced within Matthew offer valuable insights, they should be considered in conjunction with other evidence and scholarly conclusions.
In the next section, we will examine various scholarly opinions on the dating of Matthew, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented by experts in the field.
Scholarly Conclusions
Overview of various scholarly opinions on the dating of Matthew
The dating of the Gospel of Matthew has been a subject of considerable debate among scholars. While pinpointing an exact date is challenging, various scholarly opinions have emerged based on the analysis of internal and external evidence.
One school of thought suggests an early composition for the Gospel of Matthew, arguing that it was written within a few years of Jesus’ death, possibly between 40-65 AD. Proponents of this view emphasize the importance of eyewitness testimony and argue that Matthew, being one of the Twelve Apostles and a witness to Jesus’ ministry, would have been motivated to record the events soon after they occurred.
Another group of scholars propose a later dating for Matthew, placing its composition in the second half of the first century, around 70-100 AD. They argue that the Gospel reflects a period of significant theological and cultural development within the early Christian community, including the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD. Proponents of this view point to the Gospel’s emphasis on Jewish-Christian tensions and the inclusion of certain traditions that developed later in the first century.
Additionally, some scholars suggest an intermediate date for the writing of Matthew, proposing that it was composed between 65-85 AD. They argue that the Gospel shows a transitional stage in early Christian theology and reflects the ongoing inclusivity of Jewish traditions along with emerging Gentile influences.
Evaluation of the arguments presented
The arguments put forth by scholars regarding the dating of Matthew are based on a range of factors, including textual analysis, historical context, and theological developments. However, it is important to note that definitive evidence is scarce, and each argument has its strengths and weaknesses.
Those favoring an early dating emphasize the Gospel’s perceived connections to Jesus’ original teachings and its immediate relevance to the early Christian community. However, their case relies heavily on assumptions about the reliability of the Gospel’s authorship and the preservation of oral tradition.
Supporters of a later date emphasize the Gospel’s theological and cultural context, suggesting that it reflects a period of evolving Christian thought. However, this argument relies on the interpretation of specific verses and the assumption that the Gospel’s writer had access to post-70 AD traditions.
Scholars advocating for an intermediate dating seek to strike a balance between these two positions, acknowledging both the early origins of certain traditions and the later developments within the early Christian movement. However, their argument is based on conjecture to some extent, as they attempt to find a middle ground between contrasting viewpoints.
Overall, while scholarly opinions vary, it is clear that the exact dating of Matthew remains uncertain. However, the ongoing discussion and examination of the Gospel’s timeline provide valuable insights into the development of the early Christian tradition and the context in which Jesus’ teachings were recorded and transmitted.
The Implications of Dating Matthew
Possible impact on the authority and authenticity of the Gospel
The dating of the Gospel of Matthew has significant implications for its authority and authenticity. If Matthew was written within a few decades of Jesus’ death, it would lend credibility to the Gospel as a firsthand account or based on eyewitness testimony. This would bolster the belief that the teachings and actions attributed to Jesus in Matthew are reliable and accurate.
On the other hand, if Matthew was written at a later date, skepticism would arise regarding its reliability. Critics might argue that it was influenced by subsequent events, community beliefs, or theological agendas. The authority of the Gospel would be called into question, and its teachings might be considered less trustworthy.
Relevance to understanding the historical context of Jesus’ teachings
Dating the Gospel of Matthew is crucial for understanding the historical context in which Jesus’ teachings were recorded. If Matthew was written close to the time of Jesus, it provides valuable insight into the beliefs, practices, and events of the early Christian community. It offers a window into the religious and social climate in which Jesus lived and preached.
Conversely, if Matthew was written many years later, it would reflect the beliefs and practices of a more developed Christian community. The Gospel may be influenced by evolving theological perspectives, the experiences of subsequent generations of Christians, and external factors like persecution or political events. Understanding the date of Matthew’s writing allows scholars to discern between the original teachings of Jesus and the later interpretations and developments of the Christian tradition.
Additionally, the dating of Matthew can shed light on the historical accuracy of the Gospel. If it aligns with known historical events and references, it enhances our confidence in the Gospel’s reliability as a historical source. Conversely, discrepancies or anachronisms between Matthew and the historical context suggest later authorship or editorial changes.
In conclusion, the dating of the Gospel of Matthew has significant implications for its authority, authenticity, and historical relevance. Determining when Matthew was written helps validate its reliability as a firsthand or eyewitness account of Jesus’ teachings, and it provides crucial insights into the historical context in which Jesus lived and preached. Ultimately, understanding the timeline of Matthew’s writing contributes to our understanding of the development of the early Christian tradition.
Alternative Theories and Counterarguments
A. Discussion on alternative theories proposing later authorship of Matthew
In exploring the timeline of Matthew’s writing, alternative theories proposing later authorship have emerged, challenging the traditional understanding of the Gospel. These theories offer different perspectives on the authorship and composition of Matthew, suggesting that it may have been written at a later date than traditionally believed.
One alternative theory suggests that Matthew was composed in the second century, long after the death of Jesus. Advocates of this theory argue that the inclusion of elements that reflect the concerns and conflicts of the early church, such as references to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, point to a later authorship. They also point out stylistic differences between Matthew and other synoptic Gospels, arguing that these differences indicate a later period of authorship.
Another alternative theory proposes that Matthew was not written by a single author but was a compilation of various written sources commonly available in the early Christian communities. Advocates of this theory argue that the Gospel shows signs of redaction and editing, suggesting that it may have been the result of collating and editing existing written material. They point to the presence of doublets and variations within the text as evidence for this theory.
B. Counterarguments against these theories
Despite the alternative theories proposing later authorship of Matthew, scholars have presented counterarguments that support the traditional understanding of its early authorship.
Counterarguments against the theory of second-century authorship emphasize the early attestation of Matthew in early Christian literature. Early Church Fathers such as Papias and Irenaeus explicitly attribute the Gospel to Matthew, reinforcing the belief that it was written by an apostle. These early references suggest that the Gospel of Matthew was circulating within the Christian community not long after Jesus’ death.
Regarding the theory of multiple sources, counterarguments emphasize the coherent and unified structure of the Gospel. The Gospel of Matthew exhibits a clear narrative development, suggesting an intentional composition rather than a mere compilation of various sources. Furthermore, the Gospel’s consistent focus on presenting Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies supports the idea of a single author with a theological purpose.
Counterarguments also draw attention to the absence of any other viable candidate for authorship of Matthew. While the Gospel does not explicitly identify the author as Matthew the apostle, no other credible alternatives with sufficient supporting evidence have been proposed. The traditional attribution to Matthew as the author remains the most reasonable and widely accepted explanation.
In conclusion, while alternative theories proposing later authorship of Matthew have been presented, counterarguments based on early Christian tradition, the coherence of the Gospel’s structure, and the absence of alternative candidates support the traditional understanding of its authorship. The debates surrounding the timeline of Matthew’s writing continue to spark scholarly discussion, but the prevailing consensus maintains that it was composed during the first century, ensuring its unique place in understanding the development of the early Christian tradition.
Conclusion
A. Summary of the main findings and conclusions on the dating of Matthew
Throughout this investigation into the dating of the Gospel of Matthew, multiple lines of evidence have been explored. Internal evidence within the Gospel itself, comparison with other New Testament texts, analysis of external sources such as Early Church Fathers’ references and canonical list development, the role of oral tradition, the importance of eyewitness accounts, comparisons with other Gospel accounts, and references to historical events mentioned in Matthew have all contributed to our understanding of the timeline of Matthew’s writing.
Based on the analysis of these various factors, scholars have proposed different dating possibilities for the Gospel of Matthew. Some argue for an early authorship, placing it as early as within a decade of Jesus’ death, while others suggest a later date, possibly in the second half of the first century.
The main findings suggest that while it is challenging to pinpoint an exact date for the composition of Matthew, there is strong evidence to support its early authorship. The presence of eyewitness accounts and the reliance on oral tradition indicate that the Gospel was likely written in close proximity to the events it narrates. Additionally, similarities and differences between Matthew and other Gospel accounts provide insights into the development of the early Christian tradition.
B. Overall significance of the timeline in understanding the development of the early Christian tradition
The timeline of Matthew’s writing is of great significance in understanding the development of the early Christian tradition. It provides crucial insights into how the teachings and ministry of Jesus were preserved and transmitted to future generations.
If Matthew was written shortly after Jesus’ death, as some argue, it would strengthen the case for the Gospel’s authenticity and reliability. It would suggest that the early Christian community had a strong commitment to accurately recording the life and teachings of Jesus. This would enhance the authority and credibility of the Gospel, reinforcing its status as a primary source for understanding Jesus’ message.
Furthermore, the dating of Matthew has implications for understanding the historical context in which Jesus’ teachings were received and interpreted. By knowing when the Gospel was composed, scholars can better understand the social, political, and religious landscape in which the early Christian community operated. This can shed light on their motivations, challenges, and theological developments.
In conclusion, while the precise dating of the Gospel of Matthew remains somewhat elusive, the evidence points to an early authorship and affirms the historical reliability of this important text. Understanding the timeline of Matthew’s writing contributes to our overall understanding of the development of the early Christian tradition and enriches our knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus.