[Mr. M.J.B.]

FYI...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinical_translations_of_Matthew#Christian_Hebrew_versions

"The Rabbinical translations of Matthew are rabbinical versions of the Gospel of Matthew that are written in Hebrew; Shem-Tob's Matthew, the Du Tillet Matthew, and the Münster Matthew, and which were used in polemical debate with Catholics."

"These versions are to be distinguished from the Gospel According to the Hebrews which was one or more works found in the Early Church, but surviving only as fragmentary quotations in Greek and Latin texts."

"Some scholars consider all the rabbinical versions to be translated from the Greek or Latin of the canonical Matthew, for the purpose of Jewish apologetics. This conclusion is not exclusive. Other scholars have provided linguistic and historic evidence of Shem Tov's Matthew coming from a much earlier Hebrew text that was later translated into Greek and other languages. Early Christian author Papias wrote around the year 100: Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able."

Howard is mentioned several places in the wiki article.

George Howard, Associate Professor of Religion and Hebrew at the University of Georgia has argued (1995) that some or all of these three medieval Hebrew versions may have descended (without any intervening translation) from ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew, which may have been used by early Christians in the 1st or 2nd century, but were nearly extinct by the time of Jerome, late in the 4th century.

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Howard_(Hebraist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for this additional information.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't know anything about Hebrew apocryphal writings, nor their redactions of the Gospels, nor have I the time or interest to get deep into the controversies, which I wouldn't have the competence to judge anyhow (I don't read Hebrew or Greek.)

My (one-glance) impression is that such versions are interesting to specialists from a scholarly point of view (particularly the history of medieval Christian-Jewish polemics); but they should not be used by Christians for devotional or liturgical purposes, because they were not and are not used by the Church.

Is this, in your opinion, a fair impression?

`

`

`