The Gospel According To The Hebrews

[Ismael]

I think we must make some points here;

1- The Gospel of Matthew is with little doubt a Gospel translated from Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic) into Greek, as it appears from the language used>

2- It is possible that our Matthew is the Greed translation of the ‘lost Gospel To the Hebrews’
Hence the fact that some early fathers refer to a ‘hebrew gospel’ does not really mean that Greek Matthew is not the real gospel of Matthew. It only indicates that Matthew wrote in hebrew and such text was later on translated into Greek.

3- Greek Matthew is clearly a gospel meant for the Hebrews. Greek Matthew contains a lot of references to the Old testament (more than the other synoptic gospels anyway) and especially the fullfillment of the prophecies regarding the Messiah.
Clearly these references to the Hebrew Bible were meant for people who knew the Bible, i.e. Jews, since pagans had little to no knowledge of the Jewish sacred scriptures.

4- Jerome does not seem to defy the idea that Greek Matthew is the real Matthew… on the other hand he seems indeed to imply that Hebrew Matthew was translated into Greek.

He write as you quote:

Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, 3: “Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. It should be noted that wherever the Evangelist (whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord and Saviour) quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the language of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Therefore these two forms exist, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son,’ and, ‘For He will be called a Nazarene.’”

Jerome claimes that “the Greek has been lost”, but that might be a mistake on his part, or perhaps multiple translations have been done over the years, so our Greek Matthew is a translation made after Jerome wrote this text or a translation Jerome did not know about.

5- Greek Matthew might be an extended version of Hebrew Matthew, ie a translation of the Hebrew text with perhaps some additions from other sources.

6-

The earliest followers of Yahshua believed that Yahshua was empowered by the Holy Spirit at his immersion, not at his birth (thus they did not include the later birth narratives in their gospel). The important point in using the word “rest” above is that it refers to the Jewish belief that the Messiah’s name will be called “Menachem”, or “rest”. You will also notice that while our present Matthew does not include the idea of the “firstborn” son (implying that there will be others), they use also the second phrase as quoted in Psalm 2:7 as well: “this day have I begotten thee”. You will note that John 1:14 is translated as the “only begotten”, but the word “only” there is an addition to the text. It should read “the begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He (the Father) hath declared.” The word “begotten” here implies only that he was in the Father’s bosom before the creation of the world. In the Hebrew, as used in Zechariah 12:10, the word for “only” is yachid meaning “beloved” and implying the “firstborn” son, and as the book of Hebrews states, that Yahvah would use Yahshua, His Firstborn, for “bringing many sons to glory” [Hebrews 2:10] as an “elder brother”. Please note that this gospel was written first in Hebrew by the testimony of several of the “church fathers.”

This ‘conclusions’ are highly questionable. There was such heresy (which now persists in the Jehova’s Witnesses) in the early church but all Church Fathers have rejected it… the same Early Fathers that also must have read Hebrew Matthew, by the way.

Also the term ‘firstborn’ in Hebrew did not necessarely imply that other children would follow, but simply meant the firstborned, including, of course the ‘only children’. (eg when the Angel of Gos kills the ‘first born of Egypt’ it does not mean he killed only in families with more than 1 child…)

7- Several quotation from the early fathers from a ‘Gospel of Matthew’ seem to be quoted literally out of ‘Greek Matthew’: eg in the Epistle of Polycarp (110-117), which was written at the very beginning of the II century.
The same goes for the Didaché (end of I century). Hence this indicates that Greek Matthew is an authentic gospel

=========

Regarding origin, canonicity and authenticity of the Gospel of Matthew I refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has some interesting things to say:
newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm