The gospel in Hebrew is a very boring NT Gospel of Matthew. Sorry.John2 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 2:30 pm Church writers cite things from the Hebrew Matthew that stood out to them in contrast to the NT Matthew so I assume it was otherwise more or less in line with the NT Matthew.
It was also said to have been shorter than the NT Matthew (I always forget the source for that, but they counted all the lines), and since I am unaware of anything Markan in Church writer citations of the Hebrew Matthew (though I need to investigate this further and could be wrong, and if so, then that would be fine and I'll let it go), and since it was written in Hebrew and I am unaware of anyone writing or translating Mark in Hebrew, I imagine that the Hebrew Matthew was "sans Mark." And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but that's how it looks to me right now.
I also assume it promoted Nazarene beliefs because it was used by Nazarenes and it's what the NT Matthew does (and Mark and Luke and Acts, for that matter). And Jerome says he translated it and that it was available in the library in Caesarea.
Dialogue against Pelagius, iii.2. In the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is indeed in the Chaldaean and Syrian speech but is written in Hebrew letters, which the Nazarenes use to this day, called 'according to the apostles', or, as most term it, according to Matthew', which also is to be seen in the library of Caesarea,
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/ ... s-ogg.html