Trusting the Church Fathers

AandW, when do you propose the Hebrew version would have been written?

When is the earliest record from one of the "fathers," stating its existence?

Is it possible the Hebrew version was actually written by someone other than Matthew, at a later date?

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 believe that God preserved truth within the 1611 KJV well enough so that The Spirit can use it alone to guide us into a clear understanding of our Lord's Word.

I believe that God preserved truth within the 1611 KJV well enough so that The Spirit can use it alone to guide us into a clear understanding of our Lord's Word.

It does matter that the church today has the attitude toward the Hebrew language that is expressed here. In order to understand the word you need to understand the culture and ways of the people told of in that word. By having such a negative attitude toward that language, they are simply asking to misunderstand scripture. Thank heavens, there are men who study Hebrew in its many different forms in order to better understand scripture.

Because much was written in Greek, if the church had the attitude toward that language they have toward Hebrew, it would result in the same misunderstandings refusing to look at the Hebrew is having.

That translation, with its faults, was used by the Lord for a mighty work.

If people would use it right, that work could still be as mighty and its faults could be minimized. To use it properly they would need to rely on Hebrew without being prejudiced against it. As a result, as an example, the word Easter would read Passover instead.

Primary source of your claim is what? produce it. with link

I believe that God preserved truth within the 1611 KJV well enough so that The Spirit can use it alone to guide us into a clear understanding of our Lord's Word.

Did Papias himself say this? Is it a direct quote from his work Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord? As I understand it, this work hasn't survived and is only known by excerpts by later authors.

Besides, this work by Papias is dated to 95-110.

Papias, [Papias (Greek: Παπίας) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60 – c. 130 AD.[2][3]] (flourished 2nd century), bishop of Hierapolis, Phrygia (now in Turkey), whose work “Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord,” although extant only in fragments, provides important apostolic oral source accounts of the history of primitive Christianity and of the origins of the Gospels.

It's from his own writings.

If such fragments do exist, what do you say about the 95-110 dating of Papias' original work. Is this date wrong?

That translation, with its faults, was used by the Lord for a mighty work.

If people would use it right, that work could still be as mighty and its faults could be minimized. To use it properly they would need to rely on Hebrew without being prejudiced against it. As a result, as an example, the word Easter would read Passover instead.

This is the FIRST proof of the proofs listed from page 1 of my opening Thread post.
This can be found in jerome's book titled [De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]]

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]

This is the FIRST proof of the proofs listed from page 1 of my opening Thread post.
This can be found in jerome's book titled [De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]]

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]

Notice how the left has been slipping in socialism into the US a little at a time for years? The catholic heresy didnt just pop into existance one day. It was incremented a little at a time over the years. Thats how the takeovers work. So. When did it start creeping in? My reading I fully trust stopped after the book of Revelation. Were all the early fathers heretics? I dunno thats the problem.

They reflect what the Apostles taught them.

Maybe.