Trusting the Church Fathers

Chapter 3
Matthew, who is Jupiter, the publican apostle (Matt. 9: 9; Mk. 2, 14; Lk. 5, 27) , first published in Judea of them who believed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew, composed who later on Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself until today Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, in this book, that those who make use of, are to be described have the capacity of. For he of whom it should 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 as the Hebrew, these two forms are as follows: Out of Egypt have I called my son; and:He shall be called .

Chapter 36
Pantænus, the Stoic, the sect of the philosopher, according to some old Alexandrian custom, where, from the of Mark the evangelist the ecclesiastics were always doctors, of so great prudence and erudition both in scripture and secular literature that, as stated in the Indians as well, at the request of that nation's envoys were dismissed, by Demetrius of Alexandria, bishop neck. Where it finds, Bartholomew, of the twelve disciples together, and our Lord Jesus Christ according to Matthew's Gospel, preached the coming of the Lord, that it is written in Hebrew letters, when he went back he brought with him to Alexandria. Many of the holy scripture is extant, but rather orally benefit to the churches. He taught in the under the emperor Severus and Antoninus, surnamed Caracalla.

http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/hieronym/viris_l.htm

Jerome also gives the possibility, that the greek gospel was transliterated into hebrew letters. We were not there and can only speculate.

"(3) Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

does dialektos mean dialot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem_Tob's_Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Howard_(Hebraist)
https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4147/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3261110

Thanks, it does not deal with the fact that we do not have the original gospel of Matthew.

The Hebrew gospel of Matthew that George Howard restored is from an anti christian jewish tract.

Let's entertain this idea for a moment from the writings of Jerome: library at Caesarea. Jerome claims this book of Matthew written in the Hebrew Language was located at the library at Caesarea during Jerome's lifetime and that Jerome had seen it first hand.

What happened to the library at Caesarea?

It was noted in the 6th century that it probably did not long survive the capture of Caesarea by the Saracens in 638, and this claim is repeated, without citation, in a modern reference: the “large library survived at Caesarea until destroyed by the Arabs in the 7th cent.”[9]

So, let's say the Hebrew written Version of Matthew was factually stored in the library at Caesarea as mentioned by Jerome. But as history explains, in the 7th Century when the Arabs attacked Israel, they destroyed the library at Caesarea along with the others artifacts we know of. That would explain why there is no copy for us to observe. The Arabs would have destroyed anything Hebrew because they as we know from our own Bibles, are not God's Chosen and despise the Hebrew materials.

I'm beginning to rethink this.

My biggest objection has always been the fact that the Greek version has no indicators of being translated from Hebrew (Aramaic probably). if Matthew didn't translate the Aramaic into Greek, but used the Aramaic version as a source for his Greek version, it wouldn't have any signs of being translated because it wasn't. It would be a fresh version in Greek using the Aramaic document as a guide.

I'm not going all out and saying I trust the church "fathers," but in this case I can see how it might be possible.