Though no copies are extant, there is good historical evidence that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in Hebrew. Around 130 A.D., Church father Papias (a former student of the Apostle John) explained:
So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and everyone interpreted them as he was able. (Recorded by Eusebius in Church History, 3:39)
Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John. Around 170 A.D., Irenaeus confirms and elaborates upon Papias’ report:
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies, 3:1)
Not only did Irenaeus teach that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in the Hebrew dialect, he also provided the order in which all four of the Gospels were written. Note that the order is in harmony with how the Gospels are arranged in the Canon and not in line with modern liberal theories.
Origen Adamantius was a highly influential theologian who produced many works covering several areas of Christian thought, including textual criticism. Around the middle of the third century, Origen wrote:
Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language. (Recorded by Eusebius in Church History, 6:25)
Origen affirmed both the canonical order of the Gospels and that Matthew’s was first written in Hebrew. He says that he came to learn this through tradition. In combination with the other material provided it seems that this tradition was one that was consistently taught from the time of the Apostles.
During the early fourth century, preeminent church historian Eusebius of Caesarea wrote:
For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. (Eusebius, Church History, 3:24)
Matthew first made disciples out of his fellow Hebrews. He later fulfilled the Great Commission by serving other races. According to Eusebius, before Matthew left his own people he wrote his Gospel in their native language. This was done out of necessity because an actual witness to the ministry of Jesus would no longer be with them. This makes sense given that Matthew has the greatest Jewish emphasis among the Gospels.
The historical evidence and the tradition of the Church strongly indicate that Matthew’s Gospel was indeed first written in Hebrew. This being the case, the question as to where the Greek version came from arises. The Greek copies of Matthew’s Gospel do not bear the marks of being a translation and were therefore written separately. Matthew was responsible enough to leave the first group of people he witnessed to a copy of his Gospel in their own language. It only follows that he did the same with a subsequent group (or groups) who read Greek.
Some desire to ignore or question the scholarship of the men quoted here out of a fear that a Hebrew copy of Matthew would undermine the reliability of Scripture. This fear is unfounded, for the Greek copy of Matthew was still written by an apostle. And it is the Greek rendition which God chose to preserve through the ages. While the once existence of a Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel changes nothing in regards to the Canon, it is nevertheless a fascinating thing to ponder.
I have heard this before but lost the references. I really appreciate this article, and not just because it confirms my suspicions. I have also heard from those who minister primarily to and among Jewish people that the gospel of Matthew resonates particularly with them.
Thank you. Yes, Matthew’s Gospel certainly seems to be the most influential among the Jews. I don’t think I’ve met a Messianic Jewish believer who preferred a different one.
Hello Ervin,
Thank for recording all of this information here. I have also read that Mark, Luke and the first 15 chapters of Luke written in Hebrew, Have you ever heard or read this? Thanks
Scott Whittle
I have heard several theories regarding New Testament books first being written in Hebrew. But I cannot find any solid early evidence that this was the case aside from what supports the Hebrew Matthew. Of course it’s certainly possible and even makes sense that at least some Hebrew copies of books existed.
In Christ,
Matt Ervin
Hello Erwin. I really appreciated this article. I also would like to point out certain things about Luke’s gospel. He spends a lot of time giving details of thebirth of John the baptist, then how Jesus’ was received at the temple, he also points out about the destruction of the temple in clearest terms. Obviously,he pays a lot of attention to the temple and Jesus activities related to it. I do think Luke’s gospel might have been in Hebrew as well. It obviously sounds very Jewish.
Could the existence of both a Greek and Hebrew original (possibly both from Matthew’s own hand) explain some of the variants found within the extant Greek MSS? Related to that, do any of the Greek MSS of Matthew appear to be translation Greek, as if translated from Hebrew?
Brother,
That’s entirely possible. In regards to your other question; some people do speculate that Greek Matthew or parts of it was translated from the Hebrew version. Parts of of it coming from the Hebrew is much more likely than the entire Gospel. I cannot think of any solid passage that comes off as having been translated from Hebrew. So I could not speculate myself much in either direction.
Read the birth of the synoptics by jean carmignac. He claims mt mk and parts of luke were all translations from hebrew originals based on his linguistic studies.
Since the earliest Christians were themselves Jewish, this seems quite logical. I suspect that Aramaic Matthew may in fact be the answer to the supposed “synoptic problem” and was likely used as a resource by Mark and Luke.
Copy of Matthew 1, in Hebrew/Aramaic found at https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/, under Miscellany, check it out for yourself, cheers
Thank you sir. Connecting the oldest extant manuscript we have to a first century original is problematic. Regardless, it can be a fascinating read.
I need more info to find this.
Since no copies of Matthew’s Gospel in Hebrew apparently exist, where can I get a copy of his Gospel in Greek. It must be the very oldest possible. Thank you!
The Nestle Aland 28th edition is the standard text scholars use today.
Bruce Metzger and friends are wrong about the oldest extant Bibles representing how the New Testament originally read.
Take for example, Matthew 5:44 (KJV) “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
One can read the same words, (albeit not in the same order), found about 1/2 way thru in First Apology by Justin Martyr.
But in the supposedly “older is better” text-type promoted by scholars, Matthew 5:44 is “Love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you.”
Besides that, the Eastern Orthodox Church issued a statement in an encyclical to the Pope in the beginning of the 19th century which states that they have the original divine Scripture, the Old and the New Testaments, handed to them by the Apostles.
These the Easterns have been using in uninterrupted use and no amount of sales pitch by rabbis can get them to switch to the current Hebrew text, (but that’s beside the point but a very poignant point): they use a NT text that reads like a cross between the TR (which in KJV) and the Majority Text of Farstad and Hodges (and friends.)
How did your comment arise from reading the article?
Justin Martyr wrote in 140 AD. Long after Matthew had been written.
You may have found it already but its said that there has been 28 Hebrew MSS found in the vatican library and the Jewish archives. A man by the name of Nehemia Gordan and another man Keith Johnson, they have something on the hebrew matthew also. I think there is not even an translation out for it.
I think this video speaks on it. I havent watched it yet myself but just looking up those men being associated with the Hebrew Matthew, I found this https://www.nehemiaswall.com/hebrew-gospel-matthew-nehemia-gordon
Thank you Brice. I’m skeptical that modern Hebrew versions of Matthew are copies of what is reported to be the original. I suspect they are later versions translated from the Greek. But, I’m certainly happy to be wrong. I’ll check the video out.
I am inclined to agree. It should be possible to do the analysis – albeit in reverse – by which it is determined that the Greek Gospel of Matthew is not a translation of a Hebrew original. That would be interesting.
I believe that Matthew is a composition in Greek written by Matthew who was bilingual and capable of composing fluently in both Hebrew and Greek. The limited Hebraisms in Matthew’s narrative suggest someone who is well accomplished in Greek, unlike Peter’s narrative in Mark where there are many Hebraisms. It may parallel the Hebrew Matthew, but written later and for a slightly different audience it is likely to be in many parts different from the presumed original Hebrew Matthew. Almost any writer would revise and update if he had a chance, and Matthew had that chance.
Interesting. Thank you.
Very helpful information. It compelled me to even order the book: “Eusebius, the Church History” from amazon.com
I heard that there are Hebrew puns in the text that make more sense of the text’s meaning in certain places, such as the words of Jesus about the man-made teachings of the Pharisees versus the teaching of Moses in the Torah.
There are. Quite a few of them, in fact. I spent 2022 pulling together my notes on Hebrew Matthew, and I noted a bunch of them.
Matthew 25:31-46 is poetic in Hebrew.
This is examined in more detail by C. F. Burney in an article in The Journal of Theological Studies Volume XIV starting on page 414.
Matthew 21:12 has the statement that Jesus overthrew the tables. This is rendered in Hebrew as שֻׁלְחָנוֹת הַשֻּׁלְחָנִיִים (Shelchanot haShelchanayim)
Matthew 12:14-16 starts with the Pharisees (פְּרוֹשִים – Peroshim) holding a council to plan Jesus’s execution. This sounds very similar to the word used at the end of the passage (פִּרְסֵם – Pirsem) where Jesus forbids those he heals to spread the word about him.
The last four words of the Hebrew of Matthew for 3:9 reads, “בְּנִי אַבְרָהָם מֵהַאבָנִים הָאֵלֶּה,” which is translated as “sons of Abraham from these stones.”
The Hebrew of this verse reads, “עַל־מוֹשָׁב־מֹשֶׁה יָשְׁבוּ סוֹפְרִים וּפֵרוּשִׁים.” That translates to “Upon the seat of Moses sit the Scribes and Pharisees.”
Matthew 5:14 has a wordplay. “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid,” as the King James has it, comes from the Hebrew “אַתֶּם הֵם אוֹר הָעוֹלָם לֹא־תוּכַל לְהִיסָּתֵר עִיר שֶׁהוּשְׁבָה עַל־הָהָר.” The Hebrew for “light” is אוֹר (or) and the Hebrew for city is עִיר (ir.)
Matthew 5:44 has a wordplay. In this verse, Jesus commands us “אֶהֱבוּ אֵת אוֹיְבֵיכֶם.” This is the classic “love your enemies.”
Matthew 6:22 has an interesting pun that is only in the Hebrew. The verse starts with “נֵר־גּוּפְךָ הֵם עֵינְךָ” (The light of your body is your eye.” But it’s only one letter off from being “נָהָר־גּוּפְךָ הֵם עֵינְךָ” (The river of your body is your spring.) Here, Jesus is playing on the fact that the word for “eye” and the word for “spring” are the same word, and words for “river” and “candle” are also very close to each other. This pun is strengthened by the word תְמִימוֹת (“single” in the King James, “honest” would be a more literal translation) that comes in a few words later. The middle three letters are מים, the Hebrew word for water.
In Matthew 7:9 we see a couple wordplays. The verse starts with “וּמִי בֵּינֵיכֶם שֶׁיִשְׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ בְנוֹ.” This is “and who among you that is asked by his son.”
Matthew 7:13 plays on the similarity between “broad” (רָחָב, rachab) and “many” (רַבִּים, rabim.) Verse 14 does something similar between “straight” (צַר, tsar) and find (מָצָא, matsa.) In Matthew 7:14, Matthew uses two meanings of the word צַר to tell us that the gate is straight (צַר) and the path is narrow (צָרָה.)
And there are a bunch more. If you want to see my whole take on that, it’s up on my blog: https://wordpress.com/post/shaunckennedy.wordpress.com/783