Trusting the Church Fathers

"Was the Book of Matthew first written in the Aramaic/Hebrew Language first before it was later translated into the Greek?"

It's come to my attention that some find the Church Fathers writings to not be credible sources to rely upon. Grant it, there are possible reasons to always question, look into deeper, and to proceed with caution from what we read concerning the Church Fathers. But for the most part, I personally believe they give us a deeper understanding of many things we read from our Bible. Look at the Didache, this is not connected to the Bible, but there are several written notations that help clarify Scripture when Scripture itself seems vague. I look at the Didache in the same light as I do the Church Fathers. And on one particular issue specifically, I believe they are correct even if [Modern Scholars] try to deny their claims. That issue is of course, "Was the Book of Matthew first written in the Aramaic/Hebrew Language first before it was later translated into the Greek?"

Here are some quotes that I believe are factual and answer this question:

Quotes by Church Fathers
Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.
— Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]


He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.
— Jerome, 382 CE, On Illustrious Men, Book V


Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]


First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers.
— Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4[8][9]


Didache
This version of the Lord’s Prayer is different from the one found in the Canonical Gospels. For this reason, some believe it is ‘possibly’ from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . It is interesting to compare this fragment with GHeb-47, which confirms that this Lord’s Prayer was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.


Ignatius
This fragment from Ignatius has caused much controversy among scholars because the term “bodiless demon” is used. We know that this excerpt is not from the Canonical Gospels, nor would this term be used in Hebrew. Thus, some have argued that this fragment was written in Syriac but with Hebrew letters.

Jerome affirms “bodiless demon” is in the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Polycarp
Born some thirty years after the crucifixion, Polycarp is an important link to the Apostolic Age. A strong defender of Orthodoxy, he seems to have been aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew.


Justin
The Church Fathers explain that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. Justin cites as his authority the “Apostles of our Christ” and the “Gospel of the Apostles.” (See GHeb-55) Also, Jesus being ‘begotten’ at His baptism is unique to the Hebrew Gospel.


Irenaeus
GHeb-11 Here Irenaeus states that the Ebionite community uses only the Gospel of Matthew! Other Church Fathers confirm what he writes, but say the Ebionites only use the Gospel of the Hebrews, making it ‘probable’ that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew. It is highly unlikely than he is referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel (see Epiphanius and Eusebius).

GHeb-12 Irenaeus states that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect. Biblical scholars agree that Irenaeus cannot be referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which has been shown to be composed in Greek by a person other than Matthew. This raises the ‘probability’ that Irenaeus is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Pantaenus
GHeb-14 This excerpt explains why those who were associated with the school of Alexandria had such extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Tertullian
GHeb-15 Scholars say that this quote is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.


Hegesippus
A contemporary of Irenaeus, Hegesippus was a master of Syriac and Hebrew. He was familiar with Jewish oral tradition as well as Hebrew Christianity, and, more particularly, the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-16 This fragment directly cites the Gospel of the Hebrews.


Clement of Alexandria
GHeb-17 and 18 and 19

These refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews. From Clements’s text it would appear that these teachings are familiar to Clements’s readers. ‘Seeking until one finds’ and ‘seeing God in your brother’ are themes developed in the Canonical New Testament. Also, it is clear that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .


Epiphanius
GHeb-31 Epiphanius was probably the first to write of the Hebrew Christian community called the Nazarenes. They had a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews, written by “Matthew quite complete in Hebrew


Didymus
Didymus was a disciple of Origen. He was also the Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Therefore, he had access to the scholarly works collected by his predecessors, Pantaenus, Clement and Origen. Thus he was familiar with and had access to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.




I believe there are more than enough sources to believe the Book of Matthew was originally written in the Hebrew/Aramaic Language.


I am sure this Issue and other issues with the Church Fathers writings are not new, but i would be interested in how others view this:

There is no actual evidence of this other than conjecture (which is not evidence). What we do have is Matthew in Greek.

Again, if you learn to let scripture interpret itself in context, the writing of the 'church fathers' you can take some of it as sound, but compare it with scripture itself.

It's come to my attention that some find the Church Fathers writings to not be credible sources to rely upon. Grant it, there are possible reasons to always question, look into deeper, and to proceed with caution from what we read concerning the Church Fathers. But for the most part, I personally believe they give us a deeper understanding of many things we read from our Bible. Look at the Didache, this is not connected to the Bible, but there are several written notations that help clarify Scripture when Scripture itself seems vague. I look at the Didache in the same light as I do the Church Fathers. And on one particular issue specifically, I believe they are correct even if [Modern Scholars] try to deny their claims. That issue is of course, "Was the Book of Matthew first written in the Aramaic/Hebrew Language first before it was later translated into the Greek?"

Here are some quotes that I believe are factual and answer this question:

Quotes by Church Fathers
Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.
— Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]


He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.
— Jerome, 382 CE, On Illustrious Men, Book V


Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]


First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers.
— Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4[8][9]


Didache
This version of the Lord’s Prayer is different from the one found in the Canonical Gospels. For this reason, some believe it is ‘possibly’ from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . It is interesting to compare this fragment with GHeb-47, which confirms that this Lord’s Prayer was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.


Ignatius
This fragment from Ignatius has caused much controversy among scholars because the term “bodiless demon” is used. We know that this excerpt is not from the Canonical Gospels, nor would this term be used in Hebrew. Thus, some have argued that this fragment was written in Syriac but with Hebrew letters.

Jerome affirms “bodiless demon” is in the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Polycarp
Born some thirty years after the crucifixion, Polycarp is an important link to the Apostolic Age. A strong defender of Orthodoxy, he seems to have been aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew.


Justin
The Church Fathers explain that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. Justin cites as his authority the “Apostles of our Christ” and the “Gospel of the Apostles.” (See GHeb-55) Also, Jesus being ‘begotten’ at His baptism is unique to the Hebrew Gospel.


Irenaeus
GHeb-11 Here Irenaeus states that the Ebionite community uses only the Gospel of Matthew! Other Church Fathers confirm what he writes, but say the Ebionites only use the Gospel of the Hebrews, making it ‘probable’ that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew. It is highly unlikely than he is referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel (see Epiphanius and Eusebius).

GHeb-12 Irenaeus states that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect. Biblical scholars agree that Irenaeus cannot be referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which has been shown to be composed in Greek by a person other than Matthew. This raises the ‘probability’ that Irenaeus is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Pantaenus
GHeb-14 This excerpt explains why those who were associated with the school of Alexandria had such extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Tertullian
GHeb-15 Scholars say that this quote is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.


Hegesippus
A contemporary of Irenaeus, Hegesippus was a master of Syriac and Hebrew. He was familiar with Jewish oral tradition as well as Hebrew Christianity, and, more particularly, the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-16 This fragment directly cites the Gospel of the Hebrews.


Clement of Alexandria
GHeb-17 and 18 and 19

These refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews. From Clements’s text it would appear that these teachings are familiar to Clements’s readers. ‘Seeking until one finds’ and ‘seeing God in your brother’ are themes developed in the Canonical New Testament. Also, it is clear that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .


Epiphanius
GHeb-31 Epiphanius was probably the first to write of the Hebrew Christian community called the Nazarenes. They had a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews, written by “Matthew quite complete in Hebrew


Didymus
Didymus was a disciple of Origen. He was also the Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Therefore, he had access to the scholarly works collected by his predecessors, Pantaenus, Clement and Origen. Thus he was familiar with and had access to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.




I believe there are more than enough sources to believe the Book of Matthew was originally written in the Hebrew/Aramaic Language.


I am sure this Issue and other issues with the Church Fathers writings are not new, but i would be interested in how others view this:

So, do you believe the Church Fathers, the ancient historians in their writings plus the Didache are all lying?

If we use the oldest known Greek Bibles [Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus], look at what's missing in their Copies that we have in our current Bibles.

Mark 16 ends at Verse 8 and 1 John 5:6-8 does not state anything about the Father-Son-Holy Spirit:

6 This is he that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ: not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood; and it is the Spirit that testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7 For they that testify are three,

8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.


So, why couldn't a Hebrew Matthew existed and blotted out like Mark 16 and 1 John 5:6-8 were added to later?

I don't see why it wouldn't be or Mark or John but we do not have the originals what we have is the Greek translations.

I did not say that. What I meant is that there are no Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of Matthew. Here is a note from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"The Gospel According to Matthew, first of the four New Testament Gospels (narratives recounting the life and death of Jesus Christ) and, with The Gospels According to Mark and Luke, one of the three so-called Synoptic Gospels (i.e., those presenting a common view). It has traditionally been attributed to St. Matthew the Evangelist, one of the 12 Apostles, described in the text as a tax collector (10:3). The Gospel According to Matthew was composed in Greek, probably sometime after 70 CE [Note: this is FALSE. Matthew was written around 45-65 AD], with evident dependence on the earlier Gospel According to Mark. There has, however, been extended discussion about the possibility of an earlier version in Aramaic." There's a big difference between "possibility" and actuality.

Well for a start I know the additions are consistent with the rest of scripture teaching in regards to the trinity

Not denying anything of the such, but rather pointing out if it is an add on and not the literal words of the Apostle John, then the add-on's are not truly Inspired by God. They are the opinions of the one who added them.

It's come to my attention that some find the Church Fathers writings to not be credible sources to rely upon. Grant it, there are possible reasons to always question, look into deeper, and to proceed with caution from what we read concerning the Church Fathers. But for the most part, I personally believe they give us a deeper understanding of many things we read from our Bible. Look at the Didache, this is not connected to the Bible, but there are several written notations that help clarify Scripture when Scripture itself seems vague. I look at the Didache in the same light as I do the Church Fathers. And on one particular issue specifically, I believe they are correct even if [Modern Scholars] try to deny their claims. That issue is of course, "Was the Book of Matthew first written in the Aramaic/Hebrew Language first before it was later translated into the Greek?"

Here are some quotes that I believe are factual and answer this question:

Quotes by Church Fathers
Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.
— Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]


He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.
— Jerome, 382 CE, On Illustrious Men, Book V


Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]


First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers.
— Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4[8][9]


Didache
This version of the Lord’s Prayer is different from the one found in the Canonical Gospels. For this reason, some believe it is ‘possibly’ from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . It is interesting to compare this fragment with GHeb-47, which confirms that this Lord’s Prayer was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.


Ignatius
This fragment from Ignatius has caused much controversy among scholars because the term “bodiless demon” is used. We know that this excerpt is not from the Canonical Gospels, nor would this term be used in Hebrew. Thus, some have argued that this fragment was written in Syriac but with Hebrew letters.

Jerome affirms “bodiless demon” is in the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Polycarp
Born some thirty years after the crucifixion, Polycarp is an important link to the Apostolic Age. A strong defender of Orthodoxy, he seems to have been aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew.


Justin
The Church Fathers explain that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. Justin cites as his authority the “Apostles of our Christ” and the “Gospel of the Apostles.” (See GHeb-55) Also, Jesus being ‘begotten’ at His baptism is unique to the Hebrew Gospel.


Irenaeus
GHeb-11 Here Irenaeus states that the Ebionite community uses only the Gospel of Matthew! Other Church Fathers confirm what he writes, but say the Ebionites only use the Gospel of the Hebrews, making it ‘probable’ that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew. It is highly unlikely than he is referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel (see Epiphanius and Eusebius).

GHeb-12 Irenaeus states that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect. Biblical scholars agree that Irenaeus cannot be referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which has been shown to be composed in Greek by a person other than Matthew. This raises the ‘probability’ that Irenaeus is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Pantaenus
GHeb-14 This excerpt explains why those who were associated with the school of Alexandria had such extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Tertullian
GHeb-15 Scholars say that this quote is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.


Hegesippus
A contemporary of Irenaeus, Hegesippus was a master of Syriac and Hebrew. He was familiar with Jewish oral tradition as well as Hebrew Christianity, and, more particularly, the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-16 This fragment directly cites the Gospel of the Hebrews.


Clement of Alexandria
GHeb-17 and 18 and 19

These refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews. From Clements’s text it would appear that these teachings are familiar to Clements’s readers. ‘Seeking until one finds’ and ‘seeing God in your brother’ are themes developed in the Canonical New Testament. Also, it is clear that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .


Epiphanius
GHeb-31 Epiphanius was probably the first to write of the Hebrew Christian community called the Nazarenes. They had a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews, written by “Matthew quite complete in Hebrew


Didymus
Didymus was a disciple of Origen. He was also the Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Therefore, he had access to the scholarly works collected by his predecessors, Pantaenus, Clement and Origen. Thus he was familiar with and had access to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.




I believe there are more than enough sources to believe the Book of Matthew was originally written in the Hebrew/Aramaic Language.


I am sure this Issue and other issues with the Church Fathers writings are not new, but i would be interested in how others view this:

I think we should look at the early Church as being like toddlers . They are still not quite maturing into understanding yet . Its early and they say say good and bad things. The main issue is when we assume ,because they were ' closer ' that this means they must have been more correct and as time goes things get worse . This isn't always the case .

The primitive or apostolic church was even younger than the so called fathers but they were perfect in understanding so we must look upon the church of the fathers as having fallen away and backslidden. all the seeds which developed into Roman Catholicism were sown by so called fathers.

Even in Acts there not perfect in understanding. We shouldn't want to try to get back to the time of Acts either .

Okay, yes I see what you mean. Fair enough to say the addition isn't inspired, but I'm thinking tho, if it is consistent with scripture and accepted by scholars that way, is it a big deal?

Wouldn't it be a lot more serious if it were an additional that warps what the rest of scripture teach?