Nazarene Space


Hebrew Matthew

A place to discuss the various texts of Matthew in the Hebrew: Shem Tob; DuTillet and Munster.

Members: 59
Latest Activity: Apr 9, 2018

Discussion Forum

Quinquarboreus Marginal notes

Started by James Trimm Sep 13, 2011. 0 Replies

 The first marginal note unique to Quin. is to 2:1 מהנים א גם אנשים השובים ק "believers, also men of repentance"  Continue

What is the True Nature of the Quinquarboreus Marginal Notes?

Started by James Trimm Aug 25, 2011. 0 Replies

 What is the true nature of the Quinquarboreus marginal notes?  They do not seem to present alternate translations of any known Greek or Latin version...  Continue

Quinquarboreus - Translation of Latin Preface

Started by James Trimm. Last reply by Wayne Ingalls Aug 18, 2011. 3 Replies

All, I have gotten an English translation of the Latin Preface of the Hebrew Matthew edition published by John Quinquarboreus of Avrila and have gotten permission to post it: Attached is my…Continue

New info about Jean Cinqarbres and Jean Mercier

Started by James Trimm. Last reply by James Trimm Aug 17, 2011. 2 Replies

Just recently discovered something about Jean Cinqarbres (Quinquarboreus) who published a Hebrew Matthew in 1551 which was essentially identical to the text published by Sebastian Munster in 1537…Continue

Comment Wall

Comment by James Trimm on February 23, 2011 at 9:48pm
Comment by James Trimm on February 23, 2011 at 11:26pm

From DuTillet Matthew (just from Chapter 1)


16 Ya'akov begat Yosef--Yosef who was betrothed to Miriam the virgin, who begat Yeshua, who is called Messiah.

17 And all the generations from Avraham to David are fourteen generations, [and from David to the Babylonian exile are fourteen generations], and from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah are fourteen generations.

18  And the birth of Yeshua the Messiah was this way:...

Comment by James Trimm on February 24, 2011 at 1:10am

You should read my book

the Hebrew ad Aramaic Origin of the New Testament


You might be surprised.

Comment by James Trimm on April 10, 2011 at 2:36pm

From my book The Goodnews According to the Hebrews


The version of GH which was 300 lines shorter than canonical Mattew must have been the Ebionite version.  There were two distinct versions of the Gospel according to the Hebrews:

The Nazarene Version (GH-n) which Epiphanius says was "quite complete... as it was first written." (Pan. 29:9:4)

The Ebionite Version (GH-e) which Epiphanius says was "not wholly complete but falsified and mutilated." (Pan. 30:13:2)

The so-called “Church Fathers” do not hesitate in hinting to us that
Matthew’s source document was the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Jerome writes of GH:

In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use which
I have lately translated into Greek from the Hebrew and
which is called by many people the original of Matthew…
(Jerome; On Matt. 12:13)

Jerome is not the only “Church Father” to identify GH with Matthew.
Irenaeus says that the Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew (Heresies
1:26:2), Eusebius says they “used only the Gospel called according to the
Hebrews” (Eccl. Hist. 3:27:4) while Epiphanius says that the Ebionite
“Gospel” “…is called "Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel according to the Hebrews” (Panarion 30:16:4-5). Moreover Jerome seems to refer to the original Hebrew of Matthew and GH interchangeably.

This led Hugh Schonfield to conclude:

My own opinion is that the canonical Gospel [of Matthew]
is an abridged edition of a larger work, of which fragments
still survive,… I believe that this Protevangel was written in
Hebrew, not in Aramaic,…Whatever may have been its
original title, we have early allusions to it under the name of
“the Gospel” “the Gospel of the Lord,” “the Gospel of the
Twelve, or of the Apostles,” “the Gospel of the Hebrews”
and “the Hebrew Matthew.”
- Hugh J. Schonfield
(An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel; 1927 p. viii)

However ten years later Schonfield writes:

The only difficulty in fact that stands in the way of accepting
the Greek [of Matthew] as really translated from the Hebrew
[of Matthew], instead of vice versa, is undoubtedly the
irrefutable evidence that Greek Matthew has largely
used Mark.
- Hugh J. Schonfield
(According to the Hebrews; 1937; p.248)

Schonfield finally comes to the conclusion of…

…the strong probability that Hebrews was one of the
sources of canonical Matthew.
(ibid p. 254)

The pseudo-fact that Matthew used Mark as one of his sources (a theory
Lindsey has since disproved) is the only thing which held Schonfield back
from concluding that Greek Matthew is a translation of Hebrew Matthew and that Hebrew Matthew was an abridgement of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. With the barrier of presumed Markan priority being removed we may now adopt the logical conclusion that Schonfield hesitated from.

Comment by James Trimm on April 10, 2011 at 2:38pm

Another extract from my book The Goodnews According to the Hebrews


There has been much debate about the original language of the Gospel

according to the Hebrews. Eusebius refers to GH as “the Gospel that is spread abroad among the Jews in the Hebrew tongue” (Theophina 4:12 on Mt. 10:34-36) and “the Gospel [written] in Hebrew letters” (ibid on Mt. 25:14f). Jerome refers to GH as “written in the Chaldee and Syrian language but in Hebrew letters” (Against Pelagius III.2) but seems to refer to the same

document in another passage as “in the Hebrew language and letters” (Of

Illustrious Men 3). In context however Jerome seems to say that GH was

originally written in “the Hebrew language and letters” but that the copy in

the library at Caesarea is “written in the Chaldee and Syrian language but in

Hebrew letters” (i.e. Aramaic). Thus Schonfield is correct in writing:


The original language of the Gospel was Hebrew. It has

generally been assumed on insufficient grounds that this

Hebrew was in fact Aramaic (commonly called Hebrew).

(According to the Hebrews p. 241)

Comment by James Trimm on April 10, 2011 at 2:44pm

The Nazarene Version clearly contained an account of the genealogy of Messiah and the nativity. 


The Toldot Yeshu appears to be a hostile rabbinic parody based on GH and while it does not begin with the words Toldot Yeshu, but the document it parodied (GH) must have opened with those words (since it was the custom to name Hebrew books from the opening words of the book).  Thus GH must have begun with "[Eleh] Toldot Yeshua" as does Hebrew Matthew. 


Some of the references to the content of GH in the "Church Fathers" and other sources reference the nativity portion.



Comment by James Trimm on April 10, 2011 at 3:30pm

The conclusion to Chapter 8 (On Hebrew Matthew) of my book

The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament


A review of all of the facts presented herein establishes a number of
important points. Most important of these is that the DuTillet Hebrew
Matthew is not a translation of any known Greek or Latin Version.
The DuTillet text is certainly not a translation of either the Greek
Byzantine text or the Latin Vulgate, though any translation made in the
Middle Ages would certainly be such. DuTillet contains a great variety
of textual agreements with a variety of textual versions and
manuscripts, generally of the so-called “Western” text type. Among
these are agreements with the Old Latin, the Old Syriac and Codex D.
There are also a great many agreements with ancient apocryphal
Gospels, with the other synoptic Gospels, and with other canonical
New Testament books. Moreover DuTillet Matthew has a tendency to
follow the Masoretic Text in its Tanak quotes even where Greek
Matthew follows the LXX. In addition DuTillet Matthew makes use of
the tetragrammaton. None of these characteristics would be the case
were DuTillet merely a translation from Greek or Latin. Moreover the
agreements between DuTillet and the other synoptic Gospels may
point to an earlier, more primitive text, which is closer to the synoptic
source. Certainly, while the paper and the ink of the DuTillet
manuscript may date only to the Middle Ages, the text contained on
the paper reaches back to the most ancient times.
The close relationship between the Old Syriac and DuTillet coupled
with the lack of correspondence between definite articles in the Greek
and Hebrew would imply that the base Hebrew text at the core of
DuTillet was either a translation from an Old Syriac Aramaic text, or
more likely served as the source for the Aramaic Old Syriac Version,
and for the original Greek text to have been a translation from the
Aramaic (an issue we will cover in later chapters).
Certainly the hand of late revision is still apparent in the DuTillet
Hebrew text. Some of DuTillet’s grammatical difficulties may also be
due to such revisions, or even to attempts by scribes to supply missing
Hebrew text to a damaged manuscript at some point in the History of
this complex text. These revisions however lie on the surface and do
not change the clear fact that at the core of DuTillet Matthew is an ancient
Hebrew text of Matthew which may well approach the original
Hebrew text of that Gospel.

Comment by James Trimm on April 10, 2011 at 3:37pm
Comment by James Trimm on April 10, 2011 at 3:39pm
Comment by James Trimm on April 10, 2011 at 3:41pm


You need to be a member of Hebrew Matthew to add comments!


Members (58)













© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service