The hypothesis of an early composition of the Gospel of Matthew is entirely conceivable and is defended, in various forms, by several historians and exegetes. Although it cannot be demonstrated with certainty, it displays a genuine historical coherence and helps us better understand the desire of the first Christians to preserve the testimony of the eyewitnesses.
1- The apostles were aware of their vulnerability
From the very first chapters of the book of Acts, the opposition of the becomes evident (Acts 4.1-3 ; Acts 5.17-18). Stephen is stoned (Acts 7.54-60), then James, son of Zebedee, is executed on the orders of Herod Agrippa I around the year 44 (Acts 12.1-2). Peter himself narrowly escapes death (Acts 12.3-11), while the other apostles are regularly threatened and imprisoned (Acts 5.40-42).
Under these circumstances, it is quite probable that the first disciples became aware of the fragility of oral testimony and of the need to preserve its content. The eyewitnesses of the life, death and resurrection of the Messiah Jesus were not destined to remain forever within the Church.
2- The apostolic testimony was a precious deposit
The Twelve had received a particular mission: to be witnesses of the resurrection of the Lord (Acts 1.21-22). Their premature disappearance would have represented a considerable loss for the nascent Christian communities. Paul would later use the image of the “deposit” that must be faithfully guarded (1 Timothy 6.20 ; 2 Timothy 1.13-14). For his part, Peter, sensing that his death was near, writes:
“I will take care that after my departure you may always be able to remember these things” (2 Peter 1.15).
This statement hints at the desire to transmit the apostolic teaching in a lasting way.
This concern is probably explained by the apostles' awareness of the exceptional character of their mission. The Twelve were not simply leaders among others; they were the official witnesses of the resurrection of the Messiah Jesus (Acts 1.21-22). Their authority rested on facts that they had personally seen and heard (Acts 4.20 ; 1 John 1.1-3).
By its very nature, this function was limited in time. The appearances of the Risen One already belonged to the past and could not be repeated. Paul himself would later present himself as the last recipient of an appearance of the risen Lord:
“After them all, he appeared also to me, as to one untimely born” (1 Corinthians 15.8).
The first disciples were therefore probably aware of the unique and irreplaceable character of their testimony. From then on there was a natural urgency to transmit faithfully what they had seen and heard before their disappearance.
3- An early composition of Matthew is historically plausible
If one accepts an early dating of Matthew, some authors envisage a composition before the 50s, even before the persecutions of Herod Agrippa I. From this perspective, his Gospel could be understood as an undertaking intended to preserve the testimony of the apostles.
The tradition reported by Papias of Hierapolis and preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea states that Matthew put the sayings of the Lord into writing in the language of the Hebrews. Although this claim is the subject of discussion, it nevertheless attests to an ancient tradition attributing to Matthew a relatively early editorial activity.
Without constituting decisive proof, this ancient tradition agrees with the idea of a desire to safeguard the teaching handed down by the eyewitnesses.
4- A collective work is conceivable
It is also possible that Matthew did not work in isolation. The Twelve still formed a united group in Jerusalem (Acts 1.13-14) and several eyewitnesses were available to verify memories, complete certain accounts and guarantee the faithfulness of the tradition handed down.
Luke himself indicates that he gathered the information handed down by “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses” (Luke 1.2). Nothing therefore prevents us from imagining a similar process for Matthew, in which several apostles would have taken part, directly or indirectly, in preserving the memory of Jesus.
5- The absence of any explicit allusion to the destruction of the Temple
Some authors consider that the absence of an explicit reference to the fulfillment of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 could be an indication in favor of a composition prior to that event. Jesus himself announces this catastrophe (Matthew 24.1-2), but the evangelist never stresses its fulfillment as a fact already accomplished.
This argument nevertheless remains debated and cannot by itself constitute proof in favor of an early dating.
6- A coherent hypothesis
We can therefore envisage the following scenario:
- The growing persecutions make the apostles aware of their vulnerability.
- The eyewitnesses know that their mission is unique and limited in time.
- The need to preserve their testimony becomes a necessity.
- Matthew undertakes a relatively early composition, surely with the collaboration or validation of the other apostles.
- This first document then coexists with other Gospel testimonies, each contributing its own perspective on the person and work of the Messiah Jesus.
- The apostolic writings ultimately ensure the transmission of the testimony to future generations.
Such a hypothesis would explain why the Gospels present both a remarkable unity of substance and differences of detail characteristic of multiple and independent testimonies.
Thus, although it cannot be demonstrated with certainty, the idea of a relatively early composition of Matthew as a safeguard against the risk of a premature disappearance of the apostolic witnesses appears historically plausible. It agrees with the apostles' awareness of the unique character of their mission as well as with the growing pressure of the persecutions that struck the nascent Church.
This hypothesis could also shed light on the decision made by Peter to restore the college of the Twelve by choosing Matthias (Acts 1.15-26). The apostles knew that their mission consisted above all in faithfully transmitting what they had seen and heard (Acts 4.20). The replacement of Judas thus appears as a first measure intended to preserve the integrity of the apostolic testimony.
A few years later, the writing down of the Gospel traditions may have been the natural extension of this same concern. The Gospels and the other writings of the New Testament would then appear as the written continuation of the apostles' testimony, enabling their message to survive the gradual disappearance of the eyewitnesses (Luke 1.1-2 ; John 20.30-31 ; 2 Peter 1.15 ; 2 Timothy 3.16-17).