Many Christians down through the centuries have wondered whether the Gospel of Matthew first appeared in the Hebrew language, later to be issued in Greek. The question often arises because the early church fathers repeatedly referenced a Hebrew form of Matthew’s Gospel, and various scholars throughout history have noted that Matthew’s quotations of the Old Testament more frequently align with the Hebrew text than with the Greek Septuagint. This article endeavors to address whether there is good reason to believe that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, if so, how that might accord with the historical and scriptural context of his day. It will also consider whether Hebrew was truly a “dead” language in the first century, and it will take up the testimonies of prominent early writers who confirm that Matthew’s initial Gospel was directed toward a Hebrew-speaking audience. The focus here is on presenting evidence for the Christian believer who accepts historical testimony and scriptural data as reliable, rather than for those committed to perpetual skepticism.

Was Hebrew Extinct in the First Century?

Some believe that by the days of Jesus and the apostles, the Hebrew language had disappeared from use, being replaced by Aramaic. Those who defend this stance point to Aramaic portions of Daniel, Ezra, or scattered Aramaic words in the Old Testament, as well as references to Aramaic terms in the New Testament. Yet several lines of evidence suggest that Hebrew remained a living language in first-century Judea.

The Gospel of John repeatedly uses the word “Hebrew” in contexts such as “in Hebrew, Gabbatha,” “in Hebrew, Golgotha,” and so forth (John 19:13, 17; 20:16; Revelation 9:11). While some argue that these references might actually point to Aramaic, it is more natural to read “Hebrew” as meaning a Hebrew dialect. Jewish historian Josephus likewise wrote in the late first century that at times he addressed the people in “their own tongue,” which would have been a Hebrew or Hebrew-derived dialect, not necessarily pure biblical Hebrew but still distinct from Aramaic. Philo of Alexandria and other Jewish sources illustrate that among devout Jews, Hebrew study was part of their education, especially in connection with reading the Law in synagogues.

Luke 4:16–21 describes Jesus entering the synagogue in Nazareth and reading from the scroll of Isaiah. The text says he “stood up to read.” This confirms that at least in many synagogues, Hebrew scrolls were used in worship. The ability of the congregation to follow along strongly suggests that Hebrew was still comprehensible to them. Acts 21:40 and 22:2 further mention Paul addressing the crowd in what is literally called “the Hebrew language,” reinforcing that Hebrew was an ongoing means of communication.

Accordingly, it is hardly accurate to call Hebrew a “dead language” in the first century. More precise would be to note that Hebrew existed alongside Aramaic and Greek. To meet the spiritual needs of Jews in Judea, a Hebrew edition of Matthew’s Gospel would have been practical. Early tradition also indicates that from the second century onward, Jewish believers in some regions treasured a Hebrew or Hebrew-like version of Matthew.

Ancient Testimonies About Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel

Beginning with Papias (60–c. 130 C.E.), one of the earliest post-apostolic writers, we find repeated references to Matthew’s original Gospel being composed in Hebrew. Papias stated: “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language.” Eusebius of Caesarea (260–340 C.E.), in his Ecclesiastical History, cites Papias’s words and echoes them, saying: “The evangelist Matthew delivered his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue.” Origen (184–253 C.E.) wrote that Matthew “published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed in the Hebrew language.”

Later, Jerome (c. 342–420 C.E.) said in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers that Matthew “composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed,” and he added that he had seen a copy preserved in the library at Caesarea. Jerome also noted that the community of believers in Beroea (Syria) permitted him to copy that Hebrew Matthew. Irenaeus (c. 130–202 C.E.) said that Matthew “also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.” Thus, from the second century onward, there is consistent testimony that Matthew first wrote his account in Hebrew.

Some scholars and historians prefer to dismiss these statements as unsubstantiated or to speculate that they refer merely to a hypothetical “Q” document. Yet the sheer number of patristic witnesses, combined with the presence of a well-documented Hebrew tradition, argues strongly for an actual Hebrew Matthew. Eusebius, Jerome, and Origen were not isolated or uncritical men, and they attested this claim without any known dissent from the other early Fathers.

Quotations from the Hebrew Old Testament

An interesting internal clue arises from Matthew’s method of citing Old Testament passages. While many Greek-speaking Christians relied on the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), Matthew often employs readings that reflect the Hebrew text more closely than the Septuagint. For instance, in Matthew 2:15, quoting Hosea 11:1, the citation aligns better with the Hebrew reading than with the standard Septuagint version. Matthew 2:6, referencing Micah 5:2, likewise shows some details more consistent with the Hebrew text. This is not airtight proof, but it fits well with the idea that Matthew had firsthand facility in Hebrew and originally wrote his Gospel for Hebrew readers, paraphrasing or translating the Old Testament from the Hebrew.

Such a pattern of OT citations could occur if Matthew’s Greek version was produced by the apostle himself, based on his earlier Hebrew composition, and he faithfully retained a style close to the original Hebrew references. If so, this helps explain why some quotations are more literal from the Hebrew than from the Septuagint. It would have been natural for Matthew, as a tax collector turned disciple, to have command of both languages and to preserve the flavor of the Hebrew text in his Greek writing.

Did Matthew’s Gospel Actually Appear First?

There has also been a longstanding tradition that Matthew’s Gospel preceded Mark, Luke, and John, presumably because he wrote in Hebrew for the Jewish believers before a later expansion to a broader audience demanded Greek versions. Many of the early church fathers affirmed that Matthew wrote the earliest account. Their statements do not always distinguish between Matthew’s Hebrew composition and his Greek edition, but they consistently place Matthew first in the sequence of Gospels. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Origen, and others mention that Matthew wrote first, then Mark, then Luke, then John.

Modern scholarship has widely embraced the “Markan priority” hypothesis, holding that Mark wrote first, followed by Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source. Yet that is not the only perspective. The testimonies from Papias, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome are more ancient than any modern theory. From a conservative perspective, there is good reason to respect the patristic tradition that Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel was the earliest iteration of the life of Christ, published around 50 C.E., if not earlier.

Given that Scripture itself does not explicitly date each Gospel, the question of order is not dogmatically settled. However, for centuries the church functioned under the viewpoint that Matthew wrote first. If that is correct, a strong explanation arises that the earliest believers were primarily Jewish in background and needed a Hebrew record of Jesus’ ministry. When gentile outreach expanded, the Greek text of Matthew would have followed, in line with Paul’s extensive labors among Greek speakers.

Unanimous Early Church Approval

One wonders why, if the claim of a Hebrew Matthew was untrue, no early church father opposed or contradicted it. Many controversies existed in the second and third centuries over various scriptural canons, spurious gospels, and heretical movements. Yet in all that literature, we find no alternate tradition that disputes the early references to a Hebrew Matthew. Instead, the line of testimony from Papias to Jerome stands unbroken. None of the early fathers said, “No, Matthew only wrote in Greek.” In effect, they apparently accepted the Hebrew original as simple fact.

It is also notable that Eusebius of Caesarea, a rigorous compiler of ecclesiastical history, systematically gathered data from earlier Christian writings. His conclusion was firm: “Matthew first preached to Hebrews, delivering his Gospel in Hebrew.” Eusebius had wide access to documents now lost. Jerome likewise made mention of actually seeing the Hebrew manuscript. If these men were in error, it is remarkable that no father of the faith corrected them.

No Contradiction with the Canonical Greek Text

Accepting that Matthew wrote first in Hebrew need not undermine the authority or the inspired character of the canonical Greek Matthew we have today. Rather, it can be seen that Matthew, guided by the Holy Spirit, composed a Greek revision or an expanded edition that served the entire Roman world. The Holy Spirit can inspire a writer’s words in any language. Thus, the Greek Gospel of Matthew that circulated widely in the early congregations was recognized as Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 3:15–16). The Hebrew original seems, by all accounts, to have been used specifically among Jewish believers in Palestine and perhaps other places where Hebrew was still spoken. Once the Greek version spread, the Hebrew edition might have faded from mainstream usage, though it lingered among certain Jewish Christian communities for centuries.

Jerome said that he found a copy of the Hebrew Matthew in the library at Caesarea, originally collected by Pamphilus. Hugh G. Schonfield also wrote that in the fourth century, some in Tiberias claimed to have a Hebrew copy of Matthew. Whatever the precise textual history, it shows that at least some Hebrew manuscripts survived. Over time, the Greek edition overshadowed them because the church’s membership became predominantly gentile. This explains why we now possess the Greek Matthew in the manuscript tradition, while the Hebrew original has vanished from mainstream textual transmission.

Was Hebrew Viable for a Written Gospel?

Skeptics sometimes assert that no one would write an entire gospel in Hebrew in the first century, supposing that few could read it or that only Aramaic was used in daily speech. Yet the biblical and historical accounts, as well as the Talmudic references, show that Hebrew continued in synagogue reading and that devout Jews studied the Law in Hebrew. Literacy in Hebrew among pious Jews was not unusual. Granted, many Judeans were more comfortable in Aramaic or Greek, but a Hebrew text specifically aimed at Jewish believers makes perfect sense in the early years after Jesus’ ascension. This is especially so from 33 to 50 C.E., when the Christian congregation was predominantly Jewish in identity and the good news had not yet gone widely to the gentiles. Matthew’s emphasis on demonstrating Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy would strongly resonate with a Hebrew-speaking audience.

Jesus’ Own Teaching and the Value of Hebrew

Jesus was recognized by many as a rabbi, or teacher, and He interacted frequently in synagogues where Scripture was read in Hebrew. When Jesus read Isaiah’s prophecy (Isaiah 61:1–2) in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16–21), the text would have been in Hebrew. People’s amazement at His gracious words underscores that He was fully able to read and interpret the Hebrew Scriptures. His frequent references to the Law (Matt. 5–7; 19:4–6; 22:41–46) also presume a Hebrew text behind them. He repeatedly asked religious leaders, “Have you not read?” implying that they had encountered the written Hebrew text. Such consistent usage of the Hebrew Old Testament by the Master Himself would have guided the earliest Jewish Christians to produce a Gospel in their revered tongue. Matthew, writing especially for them, would logically do so in Hebrew, at least initially.

Internal Structure That Suggests a Hebrew or Semitic Background

The canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew contains multiple rhetorical patterns consistent with a Semitic mind-set. Scholars note the presence of certain Hebraisms in the Greek. There are formulas reminiscent of the Old Testament style, such as “all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet.” Recurrence of numeric patterns (like the structure of Matthew 1:17, dividing genealogies into three sets of fourteen) often resonates with Hebrew literary approaches. None of these forms alone clinches the argument, but collectively they support the notion that a Hebrew original might lie behind the known Greek text.

Eusebius, Jerome, and the Later Witnesses

In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius describes how Pantaenus (late second century) traveled to India and reportedly found that Matthew’s Gospel in Hebrew was already in the hands of some believers. Eusebius states, “He found that Bartholomew had preached to them and had left the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, which they had preserved.” This story further strengthens the claim that a Hebrew Matthew truly existed and was carried beyond Judea.

Jerome likewise mentioned a group he called “Nazarenes” in Beroea, who used the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Jerome insisted that he personally saw and copied from it. While some modern scholars suspect that the text Jerome found was a sectarian revision, there is no strong basis to doubt that it was in fact close to the original Hebrew version.

The Gap in Modern Manuscript Evidence

Critics sometimes demand an extant manuscript of a Hebrew Matthew to prove it existed. Yet none is known to exist in full today. This absence is not surprising. Ancient works in Hebrew from the first century are extremely rare, especially if the Christian community largely adopted the Greek version to evangelize. Over time, many Jewish believers were absorbed into the mainstream church or merged with gentile Christians, reducing the need for a Hebrew Gospel. Also, Catholic controversies with “Nazarene” or “Ebionite” groups might have led to partial suppression or neglect of their Hebrew texts. Ultimately, ephemeral storage conditions, persecution, or lack of scribal copying could have led to the disappearance of the Hebrew Matthew from broader circulation.

The same phenomenon explains the relative scarcity of early Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament itself. The climate and repeated conflicts in Palestine caused many biblical texts to perish. Those that did survive (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) did so under extremely dry or otherwise favorable conditions. It is entirely plausible that the original Hebrew Matthew simply did not survive the centuries, overshadowed by the widely disseminated Greek version.

Did the Greek Matthew Expand the Original?

Another dimension of the discussion is whether the Greek version of Matthew adds expansions or clarifications that differ from the putative Hebrew original. Some suggest that the Greek Gospel is not merely a translation but a fuller, more polished edition that Matthew composed. Inspiration from the Holy Spirit could easily guide Matthew in reworking his earlier text, ensuring that the final Greek form is accurate and suitable for the broader church. This possibility aligns with the concept that the Holy Spirit can superintend any repeated composition, so that the final product remains authoritative Scripture.

In that sense, the earliest believers who read the Hebrew Matthew had the essential substance of the Gospel’s message, while the Greek edition stands as the canonical text that circulated widely. Either way, the final Greek Gospel is the recognized Word of God. Yet it is historically significant to maintain that behind our Greek text lay an original Hebrew composition from the apostle himself.

Matthew’s Jewish Audience

From 29 to 36 C.E., for about seven years (including Jesus’ earthly ministry and the interval after Pentecost), the Christian congregation was formed almost entirely of Jewish believers. It was not until 36 C.E. that Peter preached to Cornelius, the first recorded gentile convert (Acts 10). Even then, it took time for gentile membership to become substantial. Thus, a Hebrew Gospel by Matthew, completed early, would have proven indispensable. Jewish readers in Judea, Galilee, and beyond could read the testimony in their own sacred language, reinforcing that Jesus was the promised Messiah fulfilling the Law and the Prophets.

Afterwards, as the missionary work of Paul, Barnabas, and others spread the faith into Greek-speaking cities, the necessity arose for a Greek version of Matthew’s Gospel. That Greek edition would soon gain predominance, especially as the gentile believers began to outnumber the Jewish ones. Over time, the canonical Greek Matthew was the form recognized throughout the Roman Empire, overshadowing the Hebrew edition. But in the crucial early years, the Hebrew text served believers who were devoutly attached to the Hebrew Scriptures and worshiped in synagogues where Hebrew reading was normal.

Countering Myths of Illiteracy Among the Apostles

One objection posits that Matthew, who was originally a tax collector, might have been literate in Greek due to his professional dealings, but not necessarily in Hebrew. Another objection notes that Acts 4:13 calls Peter and John “uneducated and untrained men,” implying widespread illiteracy among the disciples. Yet the word “uneducated” in that verse means they had not attended advanced rabbinical schools. It does not demand that they were unable to read or write. Indeed, many references show that first-century Jews placed great emphasis on literacy and the public reading of Scriptures. Even craftsmen and fishermen often learned enough to read Hebrew in the synagogue. Matthew’s tax-collecting profession implies at least a moderate level of literacy, probably in Greek and Aramaic, as well as a knowledge of local forms of Hebrew. The notion that all disciples were illiterate peasants is contradicted by repeated scriptural cues that they read or interpreted passages from the Law.

Widespread Ancient Literacy in the Roman Empire

Secular historians often argue that literacy in the Roman Empire hovered around 10 to 20 percent. Yet that rate varied by region and social group. In Judea, where Torah instruction was central to daily life, rates of rudimentary literacy might have been higher than among pagan areas. Archaeological findings, such as inscriptions, tomb writings, and documents, indicate that reading and writing were common enough to justify producing many texts. The large libraries in Alexandria, Caesarea, Pergamum, and other cities also signal an active reading culture. The wide production of scrolls in the diaspora further demonstrates that publishing in both Hebrew and Greek was worthwhile. In that environment, the existence of a Hebrew Gospel aimed at a specialized population (devout Jews) is not far-fetched.

The Significance of the Question

For believers, whether Matthew’s Gospel was first written in Hebrew or not does not alter the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. Yet it does illuminate how the earliest followers of Jesus addressed the needs of different linguistic communities. It underscores the Jewish matrix in which Christianity was born. Matthew’s distinctive portrayal of Jesus as fulfilling Hebrew prophecy would have spoken powerfully to those who revered the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings in the original Hebrew. Later, the gospel message would expand, prompting Greek versions of the same inspired writings for gentile audiences. The consistency of the Greek Matthew with the testimonies of the early writers assures us that God’s message has been preserved effectively.

Conclusion

Extensive testimony from early church fathers such as Papias, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome consistently says that Matthew wrote first in the Hebrew language. Additionally, the nature of Matthew’s Old Testament citations, the cultural reality of Hebrew usage in first-century Judea, and the unbroken tradition that a Hebrew form of Matthew circulated for centuries all combine to support the idea that he did indeed compose his initial account in Hebrew. The claim that Hebrew was a dead language in the first century cannot be sustained by the available evidence, since Hebrew remained in use in synagogues and was studied by devout Jews. At the same time, the widespread presence of Greek in the Roman Empire explains why Matthew eventually issued his Gospel in Greek, or else revised it in Greek for a broader readership, thus giving rise to the canonical text we know today.

The question “Did Matthew originally compose his Gospel in Hebrew?” thus receives a strong affirmative answer from the chain of early Christian writers who had access to sources or living tradition much closer to the apostolic era than modern scholars do. Their unanimous voice, combined with the scriptural and historical data, is weighty. Ultimately, the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew stands as fully authoritative Scripture, recognized from the early centuries as part of the inspired Word of God. Yet behind that Greek text, it remains highly probable that a Hebrew edition once guided Jewish believers in understanding that Jesus is indeed the promised Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures. For the believer, this knowledge deepens appreciation for how the Holy Spirit guided the composition and transmission of Scripture in a way that perfectly suited both Jewish and gentile believers in the early church.

MANUSCRIPT IMAGES

Gospel Names in P66 [c. 150-175]

Gospel Names P75 Luke and John [c. 175-225 C.E.]

Gospel Names in Vaticanus – Mark [c. 300 – 325 C.E.]

Gospel Names in Sinaiticus – Matthew [c. 330–360 C.E.]

Gospel Names in Alexandrinus – Luke [c. 400 440 C.E.]

Gospel Names in Alexandrinus – John [c. 400 440 C.E.]

You May Also Enjoy

Matthew the Tax Collector

About the Author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION