Here it sounds like 566 and Sinaiticus were being confused.The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition
By James R. Edwards
p. 40-41 is online,
42 is in Amazon, you can put in "scholia" to get to the pages.
In the margins of Codex Sinaiticus are four scholia that attribute textual emendations to “the Jewish (Gospel)”
The scholia may have been added at Caesarea, for Sinaiticus was corrected by a group of editors working there at the time of Pamphilus. It is tempting to imagine that the scholia derived from the hand of Pamphilus himself, the librarian at Caesarea venerated by Eusebius and Jerome. A colophon at the end of the books of Esdras and Esther refers to the “very ancient manuscript that had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus.”142 This is the same Pamphilus who, according to Jerome, “diligently gathered” fragments of the Hebrew Gospel.143 Like the additions to Esdras and Esther, it is quite plausible that the scholia to Matthew also derive from the hand of Pamphilus.
James McGrath messed this up in his review as well.The Gospel according to Luke (2015)
By James R. Edwards
13. Jerome, Pelag. 3.2. A variant of this saying, also attributed to “the Jewish [Gospel],” appears in Tischcndorf s scholia to Codex 566. Constantin von Tischcndorf edited and published 566 in his critical edition of Codex Sinaiticus with the following enthusiastic endorsement of four marginal scholia deriving from the Hebrew Gospel: “But of greatest importance are four notes in our codex, written in the margins of the gospel according to Matthew only. These, indeed, arose from no other source than the Gospel of the Hebrews, and were arranged so as to bring some light to one inquiring regarding what relation there is between the Gospel of Matthew and that celebrated writing” (C. Tischcndorf, Notitia editionis codicis bibliorum, sinaitici [Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 186o|).