This book argues that Mark’s gospel was not written as late as c.65–75 CE, but dates from sometime between the late 30s and early 40s CE.This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. 7): This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original.Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates.Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles.
The destruction of Jerusalem plays some role; but it was not experienced firsthand, and the exodus of Christians from Jerusalem is perceptible only in the tradition borrowed from Mark, not in Matthew himself. He was certainly in Syrian Antioch, as we know from Galatians 2:1 ff.
Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book.