Was the Gospel of Matthew Originally Written in Hebrew?

Where the text overstates its case

• Papias' statement does not necessarily imply that our canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew was originally a Hebrew document later translated; the sources provided mainly attest to the later traditional attribution, not the full chain of reconstruction.

• The fact that the gospel itself is anonymous is not given sufficient weight in the quoted text.

• The claim that "hardly anyone other than the apostle Matthew is a viable candidate" is stronger than the evidence supports; the tradition is ancient, but it is not a direct claim from the gospel itself.

• Dating a Hebrew version to the 40s AD and a Greek version to the early 50s AD is not secured by the sources provided.

• The assertion that Mark and Luke used the Greek version of Matthew is not the same as Markan priority, which holds that Mark was written first and used by both Matthew and Luke.

The main point of contention: Matthean priority vs. Markan priority

• Early church tradition leans heavily toward Matthean priority—the idea that Matthew was written first.

• Markan priority, by contrast, holds that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source.

• Defenders of Matthean priority still exist, for example in the Augustinian or Griesbach/Farmer traditions; however, an overview describes the Augustinian view as having few adherents, while the Griesbach hypothesis has gained a significant number of supporters.

• The evidence is not simply "Matthew first"—the patristic record favors Matthew first, but in modern discussion Markan priority stands as a competing model.

Mark, Luke, and John

• Regarding Markan priority, the available evidence makes the general point that Markan priority treats Mark as the first synoptic gospel.

• The dating of Mark to AD 64–67, as asserted in the text, is possible but not forced by the sources provided.

• The very early dating of Luke/Acts to ca. AD 57–62 is likewise a conservative reconstruction, not secured by the evidence at hand.

• That John was often considered the last gospel in the early church aligns with the cited summary of the patristic order.

• The claim that historical details in John confirm direct eyewitness testimony by the apostle John is stronger than what the provided evidence supports.

Main problem with the text

• The text conflates three levels:

  • early church tradition,
  • a possible conservative reconstruction,
  • established historical fact.

• In the case of Matthew, the text builds an almost certain historical chain out of an ancient tradition:

  • Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
  • He wrote first.
  • He later translated it himself into Greek.
  • Luke and Mark used his Greek version.
  • Mark wrote after Luke.

• This chain is not impossible, but it is not proven by the cited evidence.

Fair overall assessment

The text is not nonsense—it draws on real patristic testimony. But it downplays or ignores the fact that the gospels are anonymous, that the Matthean tradition—though strong—is not proof, and that Markan priority is a competing model for the synoptic problem.

A more balanced formulation would be:

The early church attributed a major role to Matthew and linked the first gospel to the apostle Matthew. However, this does not securely prove that our Greek Gospel of Matthew is a translation of a Hebrew original or that Mark and Luke used it. That view is a conservative reconstruction, not simply the established scholarly consensus.