Jerome and the Hebrew Matthew - (not canonical Matthew)

Steven Avery

Let's start with a number of Jerome quotes, that I placed on CARM.
And I am putting in bold some references that do not match canonical Matthew (the first three bold.)
(Later we can connect this with the Matthew 28:19 resources.)

Note also that this was a Syriac or Chaldee Gospel in Hebrew letters.
While the thread goes all over the map, much of this was originally placed on CARM

CARM - Biblical Languages
The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew vs the Greek

Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Ch.3 - De Viris Illustribus - 393 AD
translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson

Matthew also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Savior quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” and “for he shall be called a Nazarene.”

The next is from the Commentary on Matthew:

Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, written in Bethlehem - 398 AD
(The Fathers of the Church, Volume 117, 2008)
translated by Thomas P. Scheck

Matthew 12.13. Then he said to the man: “Stretch forth your hand.
”And he stretched it forth, and it was restored to soundness, [to being] just like the other.

In the Gospel that the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which we recently translated into Greek from the Hebrew language, and which many call the authentic Gospel of Matthew, this man who has the withered hand is described as a stonemason. He prays for help with words of this sort: “I was a stone-mason, seeking a livelihood with my hands; I plead with you, Jesus, that you restore soundness to me, that I might not have to beg for my food in base fashion.” Until the coming of the Savior, there was a withered hand in the synagogue of the Jews. The works of God were not being done in it. But after he came to earth, the right hand was given back in the apostles, who believed, and it was restored to its former work.
Jerome, Against the Pelagians, Ch. 3.2 Dialogus contra Pelagianos. - 415 AD
translated by William Henry Fremantle

In the Gospel according to the Hebrews,which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find, ?Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him ? Unless, haply, the very words which I have said are only ignorance.? And in the same volume, ?If thy brother sin against thee in word, and make amends to thee, receive him seven times in a day.? day?? The Lord answered and said to him," I say unto thee until seventy times seven."
There are other shorter excerpts to add to this three, and there are a number of commentaries on the question, and a couple of worthwhile blog studies. Wait, there is a bit in the Vulgate Prologue.

Jerome, Letter to Pope Damasus: Preface to the Gospels, 383 AD

If, however, truth is to be a seeking among many, why do we not now return to the Greek originals to correct those mistakes which either through faulty translators were set forth, or through confident but unskilled were wrongly revised, or through sleeping scribes either were added or were changed? ... . I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea. This (Testament) certainly differs in our language, and is led in the way of different streams; it is necessary to seek the single fountainhead.... Therefore, this present little preface promises only the four Gospels, the order of which is Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, revised in comparison with only old Greek books.


And Edouard Masaeux (below) gives us extracts that show a major difference.
We have some of the pages from 183-200 available online.

The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus: The later Christian writings (1990)
Edouard Massaux

e.g p. 188-189 have sections that talk of the Holy Spirit as the mother of Christ

(e) Jerome, on Ezek. 16:13
In evangelio quoque Hebraeorum, quod lectitant Nazaraei, salvator inducitur dicens: Modo me arripuit mater mea spiritus sanctus.

Also in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which the Nazareans read, the Savior is brought in saying: “Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, snatch me away.” [Editor’s translation.]

This text of the Gospel of the Hebrews, attested to several times, has been linked to the temptation story, notably Mt. 4:1, 8; Mk. 1:12; and Lk. 4:1; but it is too different from the text of the synoptics to support a literary influence: nowhere in the gospels, in fact, is the Holy Spirit called the mother of Christ.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

William Whitaker

William Whitaker (1548-1596)

A disputation on Holy Scripture against the ... especially Bellarmine and Stapleton (1588, 1849 edition)
William Whitaker
edited by William Fitzgerald (1815-1883)

On the Greek Edition of the New Testament

We have next, in the second place, to speak of the Greek edition of the new Testament. It is certain that the whole new Testament was written in Greek, unless, perhaps, we are to except the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hosius of Esmeland (in his book de Sacro Vernac.) says, that it was only the Gospel of Matthew which was written in Hebrew. Jerome affirms the same thing in these words of his Preface to the four evangelists addressed to Damasus : "The new Testament is undoubtedly Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who first published the gospel in Judaea in Hebrew letters 5 ." Nevertheless in the catalogue, under the article Paul, he says that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew. Thus he writes : "He wrote most eloquently as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew, that is, in his own language 6 ." The translation of this epistle into Greek some ascribe to Barnabas, as Theodorus Lector 7 in his second book of Collectanea, some to Luke 8 , and some to Clemens 9 . But, how ever that may be, the Greek edition both of the Gospel according to Matthew and of the Epistle to the Hebrews is authentic. For the Hebrew originals (if any such there were) are now nowhere extant, and the Greek was published in the life-time of the apostles, received in the church, and approved by the apostles themselves. Jerome in the Catalogue (Article MATTHAEUS), tells us : "He first composed a gospel in the Hebrew character and language, in Judaea, for the sake of those of the circumcision who had believed ; but it is not certainly known who translated it into Greek." He adds, that "the Hebrew text itself was preserved in his time in the library of Caesaraea which was built by the martyr Pamphilus" (continues)

[ 5 De novo nunc loquor Testamento, quod Graecum esse non dubium est, excepto apostolo Matthaeo, qui primus in Judaea evangelium Christi Hebraicis literis edidit. Opp. T. i. p. 1426.]
[ 6 Scripserat, ut Hebrseus Hebrseis, Hebraice, id est suo eloquio, disertissime.]
[ 7 I think this is a mistake. At least I can find no such statements in Theodorus.]
[ 8 So Clemens Alex. ap. Euseb. H. Eccl. L. vi. c. 14.]

[ 9 Euseb. H. E. Lib. III. C. 38.
(Grk) ]

And I include this partly to show that the scholarship and commentary in the times of the Reformation era, even with less internet access, was often as good as, or better than, anything today.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Edward Massaux

The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus:
Book 2: The later Christian writings (1990)
Edouard Massaux (1920-2008)

Chapter 4 - The Noncanonical Gospels
Section 2 - The Gospel of the Hebrews
Saint Jerome attests to the existence of the Gospel of the Hebrews, whose date of composition is generally given as before the year 150. He states that he translated the original text into Greek and Latin.50 He points out that this gospel was written in Chaldean, namely, Aramaic, but written in Hebrew letters, and that it was used by the Nazareans. Some people, according to Saint Jerome, thought that this gospel was the gospel of Mt.51 Time has not spared the versions any more than it has the original; only a few fragments survive, preserved in later writings. All the authors emphasize its great affinity with the first gospel.

50 Cf. Jerome, De viris ill. 2: ?Evangelium quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos et a me nuper in graecum sermonem latinumque translatum est..."
51,Cf. Jerome, Contr. Pelag. 3.2; in Mt. 12:13.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

additional references - Johann Michaelis - Ray Pritz - Ben Smith

Some Refs on the web.

This one I reference above:

The Scholarly Speculation of Jerome Concerning Matthew's Original Hebrew Gospel
Ron Jones and the Titus Institute Scholarly Speculation.php


For this one the scholarship is fine, but very limited

The Hebrew gospel of Matthew.
Ben Smith
This next one is uneven, I will try to look it over.

HEBREW MATTHEW - Shem Tob - du Tillet - Munster
Are we to believe and trust these references by Origen and his student Eusebius?
Introduction to the New Testament
Johann Michaelis
p. 145-194 and more, even DuTillet and Muenster on p. 185

Nazarene Jewish Christianity by Ray Pritz has a lot of fine material, but he does not seem to have a clear section just on this topic.

Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century (1988)
Ray Pritz
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Ron Jones website - Five analysis sections

Ron Jones includes five scholars giving their views on the Hebrew Matthew issue, in the section "Evaluations of Jerome’s Comments by Later Scholars".

The Scholarly Speculation of Jerome Concerning Matthew's Original Hebrew Gospel
Ron Jones Scholarly Speculation.php

Here you can see a number of additional sections.

William Lee (1815-1883)
George Whitefield Clark (1831-1911)
James Morison (1816-1893)
Montague Rhodes James (1862–1936),
Richard Charles Henry Lenksi - (1864-1936)

The following is the text from the Ron Jones website, I am adding urls and maybe some comments.

Evaluations of Jerome’s Comments by Later Scholars
These comments are arranged in chronological order.

1. William Lee
“It would appear, too, from many parts of his writings, that he regarded S. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel as agreeing substantially with that received by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, and which he himself had translated… A writer in ‘The Edinburgh Review’ (July, 1851, p. 39) observes: ‘Jerome himself at first thought that it was the authentic Matthew, and translated it into both Greek and Latin from a copy which he obtained at Boroea in Syria. This appears from his Catalogue of Illustrious Men, written in the year 392. Six years later, in his Commentary on Matthew, he spoke more doubtfully about it. Later still, in his book on the Pelagian heresy, written in the year 415, he modifies this account still further.’”

Later on Lee wrote,
On all such statements two remarks are to be made: (1) S. Jerome would surely not have translated this document into Greek, had it not differed considerably from the Canonical Gospel. (2) Whenever S. Jerome refers to the Gospel of S. Matthew, he quotes it according to our present Greek text; and when he introduces diverging statements of the ‘Hebrew Gospel,’ he does so in a manner which proves that he regarded it as of no authority whatsoever.”3

2. George Clark
“That Jerome thought he had discovered the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in the one used by the Nazarenes; but afterward he found reason to doubt it. That although so many of the early writers assert that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, yet we do not find that any of them ever used it or saw it. Hence if there ever was a Hebrew copy, it must have been lost very early, soon after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Jerome, who knew Hebrew, as other Latin and Greek fathers did not, obtained in the fourth century a copy of this Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, and at once asserted that he had found the Hebrew original. But when he looked more closely into the matter, he confined himself to the statement that many supposed that this Hebrew text was the original of Matthew's Gospel. He translated it into Latin and Greek, and made a few observations of his own on it.”4

3. James Morison
“It will be noticed that, in the passage quoted from the book On Illustrious Men, Jerome says that the Nazarenes made use of the Hebrew Matthew. It will also be noticed that he mentions that a copy of the work was preserved in the Pamphilian library at Caesarea. These statements are proof that at the time, at least, when Jerome wrote his Illustrious Men, he was fully convinced that the Gospel, generally known as the Gospel according to the Hebrews, was Matthew's original Hebrew Gospel. This is rendered still more evident, if additional evidence were necessary, by what he says in the third book of his Dialogue against the Pelagians, written in the year 415: ‘In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, written in the Syro-Chaldaic language, but with Hebrew letters, the Gospel which the Nazarenes use to the present day, and which is also the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as most suppose, the, Gospel according to Matthew, and which is preserved in the library of Caesarea, it is narrated, etc.’

It is noteworthy, however, that in this passage, written in his old age, Jerome does not speak so positively regarding his own conviction of the identity of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, used by the Nazarenes, and the Hebrew Gospel according to Matthew, as he did, three and twenty years before, in his Illustrious Men. He now only says that ‘most believe’ that the two works are identical. Indeed, in his Commentary on Matthew, which was written just six years after his Illustrious Men, he speaks with the same bated breath, and makes, in addition, another rather remarkable statement. He says, ‘In the Gospel, which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, and which I lately translated into Greek from the Hebrew tongue, and which is called by most the authentic Gospel of Matthew, the ‘man who had the withered hand is described as a mason,’ etc.

Not only does he here say that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is identified ‘by most’ with the authentic Gospel according to Matthew, he mentions what is very remarkable, that he himself had some time ago translated it into Greek. He had translated it, indeed, more than six years before. For he says in the second chapter of his Illustrious Men, that ‘the Gospel, which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which was lately translated by me both into Greek and into Latin, which also Origen ‘frequently used, relates,’ etc. Jerome had, it seems, translated the Gospel according to the Hebrews both into Greek and into Latin.

It is nothing wonderful that he should have translated it into Latin, but it is certainly remarkable that he should have thought of translating it into Greek, if it was really the case, as so many assumed, that the common Greek Gospel, which was in every one's hands, was but a translation of that original Hebrew text. There is evidence of some confusion here. And the confusion gets worse confounded when we take into account, that, in the last three passages which we have quoted from Jerome, as well as in a good many others, there are quotations made from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which have nothing corresponding to them in our Greek Gospel, as we have it now, and as Jerome had it in his day!”5

4. M.R. James
M.R. James commenting on Jerome’s change in perspective in his later years concerning the Hebrew Matthew writes, “In later years Jerome ceased to regard the Hebrew Gospel as the original Matthew.”6

5. R.C.H. Lenski
“We may add that Jerome (second half of the fourth century) thought that he had discovered Matthew's Hebrew Gospel in the Aramaic ‘Gospel of the Nazarenes,’ or ‘Gospel of the Hebrews,’ a Jewish Christian sect, but he himself later discovered his mistake.”7

For more information Jerome’s and others’ views specifically on the Gospel of the Hebrews see the article entitled “Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel and The Gospel of the Hebrews.”


References are given without use of abbreviations such as “ibid.” to make it simpler to understand and follow the references for those unfamiliar with reading the various abbreviations.

1. Metzger, Bruce, Ehrman, Bart, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2005, 100-101

2. Metzger, Bruce, Ehrman, Bart, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2005, 105

3. Lee, William, The Inspiration of Holy Scripture: Its Nature and Proof: Eight Discourses, Preached Before the University of Dublin, R. Carter & Brothers, 1860, 470-471

William Lee - (1815-1883)
1882 - Appendix P - p. 585-595 Lecture VIII - p. 289

4. Clark, George W., Notes on the Gospel of Matthew; Explanatory and Practical, Sheldon and Company, 1870, X

5. Morison, James, A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Hodder and Stoughton, 1902, xxxv-xxxvii

6. James, Montague Rhode, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1924), pp. 1-8.

7. Lenski, R.C.H., Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Augsburg Publishing House, 1964, 11

Missing is Johann David Michaelis, who wrote a lot about this c. 1790. Ron Jones does have a smidgen on another page.

There is also a fine analysis by William Whitaker, in 1588!, who was involved in the battle of the Bible defending the Received Text against the Jesuit opposition. Extracts from the 1849 edition are in the earlier post.


The Disappearance of Matthew's Original Hebrew Gospel
Ron Jones Hebrew Matthew Gospel.php

William Smith,

J. W. McGarvey

Johann David Michaelis
Louis Berkhof
Joseph Benson
Archibald Alexander
Thomas Horne
Henry Thiessen

Matthew's Authorship of a Hebrew and Greek Gospel: Main Evidence

Matthew's Authorship of a Hebrew and Greek Gospel: More Evidence

Scholarly Support for Matthew's Authorship of a Hebrew and Greek Gospel

Jerome's Scholarly Speculation About Matthew's Hebrew Gospel

The Disappearance of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel

Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of the Hebrews
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Evangelical Textual Criticism
A Hebrew Vorlage of Matthew
Christian Askeland

Eusebius refers via Papias twice to an original Hebrew autograph for St. Matthew's Gospel (Adv.Haer. 3.1.1; Hist.Eccl. 3.39). Is there any evidence for (or against) this in the sphere of textual-criticism?

The Schøyen Collection boasts that it has a Middle Egyptian copy of Matthew (MS 2560) which differs from the NA27 text and can be attributed to an alternate Greek Vorlage of Matthew. If you scroll down the page, you can find a picture here.


Although I have no a priori bias against an original Hebrew Matthew, I tend to agree with J. Kuerzinger (Biblische Zeitschrift 4 [1960] 19-38; cf. New Testament Studies 10 [1963] 108-15) that hebraidi dialekto means "in a Hebrew style" and not "in [the] Hebrew language." In the context of the Papiaszeugnis, the Elder had been explaining some problems in the style and/or content of Mark, since it had neither the Jewish style of Matthew nor the normal literary style of a Greek biography such as Luke's. As I argue in my book Why Four Gospels?, Origen mistakenly thought that Papias was referring to the language of Matthew and stated that "Matthew was composed in Hebrew characters," thus introducing an error that was perpetuated by later writers.

My view is that this theory is unimpressive, as pointed out by
This is David Alan Black, his book was 2001, 2nd edition 2010l

Why Four Gospels? (2010, 2001 is first edition)
David Alan Black


Eric Rowe
Craig Evans makes several of his studies available online in pdf here: Matthew.pdf
Mishkan 38 (2003) 70-79.
Jewish Versions of the Gospel of Matthew: Observations on Three Recent Publications Craig A. Evans*

One of them is a study of Jewish editions/revisions of the Gospel of Matthew. He addresses the Medieval commentary of Shem Tov and makes a tentative case that his Hebrew text of Matthew is ancient. Although, if I remember correctly, he does not go so far as to imply that it is likely the original version.


Tjitze Baarda has issued important methodological criticism towards the claim (made by the late Hans Martin Schenke) that Schøjen 2560 represents a radically different Greek text of Matthew's gospel. See his article "Mt. 17:1-9 in 'Codex Schøjen'" in NovTest 2004, pp. 265-287, and also his review of Hans Martin Schenke, Das Matthäus-Evangelium im mittelägyptischen Dialekt des Koptischen (Codex Schøyen), Manuscripts in Schøyen Collection II, Coptic Papyri, Vol. I (Oslo, Hermes Publishing, 2001), also in NovTest 2004, pp. 302-306.


Jim Leonard

For a substantial discussion in Wieland Willker's forum,
mae-2 is thought to represent the oldest substantial manuscript of Matthew's Gospel in any language.

William L. Petersen wrote an article reputed to be quite devastating to Howard's argument that Shem Tob is ancient.
See Howard's response:
Notwithstanding the criticism, I see Howard's original volume has gone into a new revision.
Prof. Evans article does not reference Petersen's.


J. B. Hood
In my mind, the single greatest argument against an original Heb/Aramaic is that Matthew used [Greek] Mark. Why use a Koine text to write a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospel? That makes no sense. .... (continues) ... Also, while we're throwing out biblio on Hebrew Matt, don't forget the material (maybe from Horbury?) at the end of Davies-Allison vol. III.

Eric Rowe
If that is the greatest argument, then the case against Hebrew Matthew is weak indeed. (SA agreed, continues) I don't have a problem in principle with the view of Markan priority. But when it is taken up as an axiom upon which all further Gospels study must proceed, as it too often is, then it becomes clear that scholars studying the Gospels are proceeding with far too much uncritical reliance on the prevailing opinion.

While there may be an ancient Hebrew version of Matthew, a stronger argument against such a version having been original is that it would force us to posit that two Gospels of Matthew existed in circulation prior to the formation of the 4-Gospel codex early in the 2nd century. One of these Gospels is our received Greek text, which went on to become well-known and widespread having completely escaped the notice of Papias and others. The other was Hebrew version known to them as an apostolic book that has since disappeared and completely escaped the notice of everyone else. The simplest explanation is that these two books are one and the same, with the best interpretation of the Papias quote being that given already here by Dr. Black, to wit, Matthew's Gospel was written in a Hebrew style (and was written before Mark).

(SA: no difficulty with the two edition theory, and seems to match Jerome to a T.)

P.J. Williams 5/08/2006
I have less difficulty than some believing in a Hebrew edition of Matthew provided one can maintain a real authorial connection between Matthew and the Greek Gospel that bears his name. There is no firm linguistic evidence for a Hebrew edition, but translated texts often don't give us adequate evidence of their original language.

Eric Rowe 5/08/2006
I agree with that Pete, but I would have to wonder how close the relationship between the two versions could be. It is not just that Matthew does not have signs of being translated, it also has positive signs of being originally Greek. For example, Jesus' argument in Mat 22:32, when he quotes God saying, "I am the God of Abraham..." depends on the Greek version of Exod 3:6. It seems that Jesus (at least as portrayed in our received Greek edition of Matthew) is drawing a point from the present tense "eimi." But in the Hebrew, it is a verbless clause, from which no such argument about tense could be made, at least not one that would be as plain to the readers of a Hebrew Matthew as those of this Greek version.

P.J. Williams 5/08/2006
I have a vivid imagination and therefore imagine that the argument with the Sadducees could have been clinched with a Hebrew or Aramaic verbless clause. After all, they were scarcely going to adopt the position that God was not at that moment the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Nevertheless, you certainly would not have to persuade me that the present text of Matthew shows traits for which it would be hard even for my imagination to imagine a Semitic original.


Tommy Wasserman 5/08/2006 8:24 am
...and there was a lot of discussion on this matter on the old TC-list.
Search the archives (SA: gone, only in personal email archives)
BTW: I remember there was a fellow, James Trimm, trying to defend this position on the TC-list in endless threads, to the annoyance of several listmembers.


T 5/08/2006
Interestingly, Jerome, De Vir. Illus. 3, claims that the library of Pamphilus and Eusebius @ Caesarea had a copy of the original text of Matthew’s gospel “Hebraicis litteris verbisque composuit.”

P.J. Williams 5/08/2006
TML, I like this reference. It is clear that Papias was early understood really to mean Hebrew/Aramaic not some Hebraising style of Greek. Moreover, being a lover of testimony I'd like to accept this one as true unless there are strong historical reasons for not doing so. One might go further to say that this text could be used to illustrate how the Matthew in Hebrew letters was never widely circulated. Pamphilus, of course, had a very impressive library, and this would not be the only important book of which he might have possessed the only copy then available!

T 5/09/2006
PJW: Indeed, I would like to find more info on the library, but I don't think there has ever been a published study, bringing together all of these testimonies in ancient and modern sources. The lists by Eusebius and Jerome of Origen's library (which served as the foundation for the library) are impressive, but I wonder how many other significant materials were in the collection. I suppose the Arab invasion in the 7th cent. did away with all that is precious, but it would be a wonderful bit of news to hear of a discovery in the sands of Palestine.

P.J. Williams 5/09/2006
I doubt whether there has been any systematic attempt to bring such sources together. One of the reasons for this is that important material is found not merely in patristic works but also in colophons of manuscripts.

T 5/12/2006
Isidore of Seville: "Hic enim in bibliotheca sua prope triginta voluminum milia habuit.” But, cf. Jose Oroz Reta, Manuel-A. Marcos Casquero, and Manuel C. Diaz y Diaz, Etimologías: Edicion Bilingüe, vol. 1 (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1982), 580: here the editors suggest that the 30,000 volumes were the combined number from two libraries: “¿Es la misma la biblioteca de Pánfilo, a que se refiere Isidoro, que la de que nos habla Sudas (s.v. Epaphroditus)? Las dos son bibliotecas privadas y las dos reúnen unos 30.000 volúmenes.”

P.J. Williams 5/12/2006
Anyone care to calculate how many 'person hours' it takes to produce 30,000 average volumina?


Unknown 5/21/2021
Who among you here uphold the idea that Matthew's gospel wrote first in Hebrew language?


May 23, 2021


Very fine comments on this thread.

"Who among you here uphold the idea that Matthew's gospel wrote first in Hebrew language?" - Unknown

And I believe that Luke wrote to the high priest Theophilus c. 40-41 AD.

Mark came later, and has many evidences of being post-Luke, and could have had a Latin contribution, two editions, or a Graeco-Latin dialect.

And I do believe that the evidence is that Matthew wrote two editions, one Hebrew (less likely, Aramaic) and one Greek, and the Hebrew one came first and is no longer extant. Jerome points out specific aspects of Hebrew Matthew that do not match our Greek canonical Matthew.

It is possible that Matthew was around the time of Luke, although the Lukan Prologue, to the high priest, would be difficult if there was a circulating Hebrew Matthew.

Here is a page where I give some references,

Jerome and the Hebrew Matthew - (not canonical Matthew)

And I placed now on the bottom (4th) post much from the discussions above! Also placed the order in an easier dialog format. Also added some referencing, like David Alan Black Why Four Gospels? Peter Williams calls T, who has good posts, TML - not sure who that would be.


Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
Last edited: