Matthew Hebrew -‫שם טוב‬

For us as Jews, the existence of the original texts in their

original language is very important. There are no copies of
original Gospels written in the language that Yeshú spoke:
Aramaic/Hebrew . And this is because the first more or
less clear quotations of passages from the Gospel appear
until the end of the 1st century and the beginning of the
2nd century of the Vulgar Era in works such as Didaje, or
in the epistles of Saint Clement, and Ignatius, but we know
nothing about the status of the document they used. Papias
of Hierapolis, around the year 120, mentions the gospels
of Mark and Matthew, and already uses the Epistle of the
Hebrews. But at the same time there are indications that
around that same time not all Christian believers had a
consolidated evangelical text at their disposal.
The passages that Justin cites (160 CE) do not correspond
literally to any of the current gospels, and rather appear to
be a concordance. Basilides, who operated in Egypt during
the time of Emperor Hadrian (until 160) had a Gospel of
Luke different from the one later received. ( Cf. Origen, In
Lucam Homily 31; Ambrose, In Lucam I, 1, Jerome, In
Mathaeum , prologue; In Titum , prologue). Marcion of
Sinope appeared in Rome around the 14th year with his
own edition of Luke, purged, according to him, of
Judaizing contaminations. (Tertulius' Adversus
Marcionem ) This presupposes a text by Luke prior to
Marcion; We do not know, however, what type of text it
was. Putting all these indications together, it could be
conjectured that, towards the third decade of the second
century, the gospels reached their definitive form and were
received in some churches, persisting in others a certain
textual fluidity that was practically eliminated before
Irenaeus.
Regarding the terminus ante quem, it is impossible to
specify more. It is true that the internal criticism of the
gospels makes a period of composition prior to the second
century plausible, but it is impossible to demonstrate that
the state of each writing was the same at the end of the
first century as when the Valentinians (gnostic sect) used
it.
It is presumed that the Gospel of Matthew was written in
Hebrew between the years 40-50 of the Christian era
(although according to other research it was later). And of
this there is the following antecedent, corresponding to the
year 110 of Papias of Hierapolis (near Ephesus), as
mentioned by Eucebius of Caesarea who wrote:

"So Matthew wrote the words in the Hebrew language

and each one interpreted them as he could."
Ecclesiastical History, 3:39:16, Cambridge University
Press, 1898.
For Eusebius regarding the Gospel of Matthew , he
preached first to the Jews, then:
“As he also had to go to others, he entrusted his gospel
to writing, in his mother tongue, thus making up for
the lack of his presence through writing for those from
whom he distanced himself.”
(HE 3,24,6).
In the same way, when specifying the original
environment of the Gospel of Matthew in one form or
another, Eusebius observes:

“Thus, Matthew published among the Hebrews in their

own language, a written form of the Gospel, at the time
when Peter and Paul were evangelizing Rome and
founding the Church there.”
(HE 5, 5, 2)
According to Eusebius, the Gospel of Matthew was
therefore published among the heretical Jews. Now,
modern criticism indicates as the place of formation of this
gospel a bilingual environment marked by Judaism, and
frequently understands it as a reaction against Judaism
that was reorganized after the first Jewish revolt. Although
it is not the proper good of Judeo-Christian, Ebionitic or
Nazarite groups, let us emphasize that Eusebius considers
addressed to the Hebrews a gospel whose proximity to the
Jewish world can hardly be disputed. (See Appendix I ) It
is also important to note that in the Islamic tradition, there
is also the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was written in
Hebrew as can be read with Ibn Khaldùn, in Muqaddima ,
1:476–7:
 ‫ماثيو مذكراته من االنجيل باللغة العبرية في القدس‬
Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew [in the city of]
Jerusalem.

What did the Hebrew gospel of Matthew contain,

according to patristic documentation?
The first example is found with Epiphanius of Salamis,
towards the end of the 4th century; Panarion XXVIII, 5:1
who explains that the Cerinthian sect used the Gospel of
Matthew, which included the geology of Yeshu. On the
other hand, Epiphanius in XXX 3:7 writes that the Judeo-
Christians ( mumarim ) used a version of the Gospel of
Matthew in Hebrew, which adds that both sides used the
same text, however he mentions that both Cerinus and
Carpocrates preserved the genealogy of Yesh”u, while the
Ebionites rejected it because they considered that this was
a later addition. This is because according to the Ebionites
they considered that Yesh”u was the son of Yosef and
Miriam without the intervention of the “holy spirit.” Just
as Eusebius himself says in his work entitled
Demonstratio Evangelica V, 17:
“As for these translators, we must know that
Symmachus was an Ebionite. But the heresy of the
Ebionites, as it is called, is made up of those who say
that Christ was the son of Joseph and Miriam,
considering him a mere man and insisting firmly on
maintaining the Torah in a Jewish way, as we already
know from this story. The treatises of Symmachus are
still extant in which he appears to support this heresy
by attacking the Gospel of Matthew . Origen makes it
clear that he obtained these and other Symmachus
comments on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana
who, he says, received the books from Symmachus
himself.”
Another content of the ancient Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
is that brought to us by Clament of Alexandria, Stromata
II, IX, 45:5, who writes:
“As it is also written in the Gospel according to the
Hebrews: "He who is amazed will reign as a king and
he who reigned as a king will rest. (‫הוא הוא זה שמשתומם‬
‫”)ימלוך כמלך והוא ששלט כמלך ינוח‬
“For similar to these the following is possible: "He who
seeks will not rest until he finds, and he who is found
will be amazed, and he who was amazed will reign as
king and he who reigned as king will rest. (‫מי שמבקש לא‬
‫ והוא שמוצא את תהיה מופתע והוא שנדהם‬,‫אנוח לפני שהוא מוצא‬
‫ימלוך כמלך והוא ששלט כמלך ינוח‬.)”
Another ancient testimony about the Hebrew Gospel is the
reference given to us by Origen, Commentary on the
Gospel of John II, 12:
“If anyone accepts the Gospel according to the
Hebrews , where the Savior Himself says: "My mother
the Holy Spirit took me by one of my hair and led me to
the great hill, Tabor" ‫) לי והביאה אותי לאולם הגדול הר תבור‬
that will call into question how the mother of Christ
can be the Holy Spirit, who saw the light through the
Word.”
Origen on Matthew XV, 14:
It is written in a certain gospel called “Gospel of the
Hebrews” (the following):
 ‫ אדון מה טוב אני‬,‫" אמר לו‬,‫ הוא אומר‬," ‫נוסף של הגברים העשירים‬
‫ לעשות את התורה‬,‫ אדם‬:‫חייב לעשות כדי לחיות? הוא אמר לו‬
‫ למכור את כל‬,‫ ללכת‬:‫ הוא אמר לו‬.‫ אני עשיתי‬:‫ הוא ענה לו‬.‫והנביאים‬
‫ אבל האיש‬.‫ בעקבותיי‬,‫מה שיש ברשותך ולחלק אותו בין העניים ובאו‬
:‫וה 'אמרה לו‬.‫העשיר התחיל לגרד את הראש שלו וזה לא לרצות אותו‬
‫ אני עשיתי את התורה והנביאים? האם זה לא כתוב‬:‫למה אתה אומרים‬
,‫ בני אברהם‬,‫ ואהוב לרעך כמוך? ותראה שרבים מהאחים שלך‬:‫בחוק‬
,‫ והבית שלך מלא בהרבה דברים טובים‬,‫ מתים מרעב‬,‫מכוסים בזבל‬
‫ והוא פנה אל סיימון תלמידו שישב איתו‬.‫ושום דבר לא יוצא מזה להם‬
‫ קל יותר לגמל לעבור דרך הקוף של מחט‬,‫ סיימוןבן יונה‬:‫ואמר לו‬
‫" מאשר לאדם עשיר למלכות שמים‬.
"He replied: I've already been doing it. He said to him:
go and sell everything that is yours, distribute it among
the poor, and come and follow me. But the rich man
began to scratch his head and it did not please him.
The Lord said to him: How dare you say: I have
observed the Torah and the Prophets? Since it is
written in the Torah: you will love your neighbor as
yourself. And behold, many of your brothers, the sons
of Abraham, are clothed in rubbish and are dying of
hunger, while your house is full of abundant goods
without anything coming out of it. And turning, he said
to Shimon, his disciple, who was sitting by him:
Shimon, son of Yochanan, it is easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go
through heaven.
As we can see, the body of evidence we currently possess
about the ancient Hebrew Gospel of Matthew differs from
the canonical Greek or Hebrew version of the Shem Tov .
The divergences between the Hebrew Gospel of Shem-Tov
and the fragments mentioned above conclude with the
following:
a) The original Matthew should not have included any
account of the death of Judas Iscariot.
to. The Greek Matthew has it;
b. the Shem Tov too.

b) The original Matthew must have included the details

preserved by Jerome, Clement and Origen.
to. The Greek Matthew does not have them;
b. Neither did the Shem Tov.

c) The original Matthew should not have included the

account of the birth of Yesh"u.
to. The Greek Matthew has it;
b. the Shem Tov too.

d) The original Matthew should not have included so

many details about the Resurrection.
to. The Greek Matthew has them;
b. the Shem Tov too.

e) The original Matthew should not have included

Yesh"u's words from the Last Supper.
to. The Greek Matthew has them;
b. the Shem Tov too.
Therefore, it is evident that the Matthew known as Shem
Tov, despite presenting special features that place him in a
singular category, is not - but not even remotely - the
original version of Matthew. It is simply a textual variant
in which we find editorial differences, but not structural
differences. And the evidence regarding the differences
between the possible original text and the current one
leave us no room for doubt: they are structural in nature,
not just editorial."

The origin of the Shem-Tov translation of the Hebrew

Gospel of Matthew.

Jewish knowledge of the Christian scriptures appears to

predate the medieval period, whose direct attention to
Christian texts is only found in later centuries. The
discussion of Yesh”u as shown in the Talmud Bavlí,
according to Peter Schäfer , that at that time there was
already a clear knowledge of the four canonical gospels of
the New Testament (2007:123), but the more explicit
references to The New Testament only begins to appear in
medieval works from before the 10th century, such as the
Account of the Priest's Dispute ( Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-
Usquf ) and the History of the Life of Yeshu ( Toldot
Yeshu ). Such quotes and allusions are much more
common in the 12th century. Hebrew texts such as the
Book of the Wars of the Eternal by Ya'acov ben Reuben
(Sefer Miljamot Ha-Shem , from the year 1170) and the
12th century Hebrew translation of the Qiṣṣat as The Book
of Nestor Priest ( Sefer Nestor Ha-Shem) Komer ),
followed by 13th-century texts such as Joseph ben Nathan
's Book of Joseph the Zealot ( Sefer Ha-Yosef Meqanneʾ )
and the Niẓẓaḥon Vetus. What is probably the first
complete translation of the four Gospels into Hebrew is
found in a late 15th-century manuscript written by a
Byzantine, now preserved in the Vatican Library ( Vat.
ebr. 100). This manuscript is clearly a copy of the original
translation, however, unfortunately, there is nothing in the
manuscript by which we can identify the copyist or the
translator himself.
However, there are no complete Hebrew translations of
any of the New Testament books known since before the
14th century, when the Iberian Jewish philosopher Shem
Tov Isaac Ibn Shaprut included a complete translation of
the book of Matthew in Hebrew in his polemic. anti-
Christian work, Piedra de Toque ( Eben Bojan ), from the
years 1380-1385. Curiously, it seems that this Hebrew
version of this gospel was not made from a Latin version,
but from a Catalan translation, as developed by Harvey J.
Hames of the Ben Gurion University of the Negev , Israel
about this manuscript, or as Professor José-VicenteNiclós
of the University of Valencia, Spain assertively explains it
about the Hebrew Gospel text of Shem-Tov .

Other scholars have paid much attention to Ibn Shaprut's

Hebrew version of Matthew, such as Pinchas Lapide , and
Libby Garshowitz who suggest that Ibn Shaprut did the
translation himself, while George Howard argues that he
used a translation done by someone else. ( On Ibn
Shapruṭ's Hebrew Matthew , see Garshowitz 1993; Hewitt
2000; Horbury 1983; Niclós 1999; Rosenthal 1962; and
Lapide 1974. For the edition of the text, see Garshowitz
1974 and Howard 1987.)
HJ Hames explains that Jewish interest in the New
Testament was not a new phenomenon of the 15th century.
Since the period of the early Middle Ages, Jews had taken
an interest in the Gospels and used them in their polemics
against Christianity. While the challenging text of the
Toldot Yeshu , which had been used from the 6th century
to the 9th century, would cease to be used as a means of
attack against attempts to convert the Jewish people to
Christianity, from the 10th century the Gospel stories as a
basis in the creation of the free narrative of Yesh'u's life
story, and would convert his activities as a practitioner of
black magic and a master of lies (Biale 1999: 130-145).
The controversy of Nestor HaKomer (Nestor the Priest)
dates from the 8th to the 9th century, which is why there
are versions in Arabic and Hebrew, the latter in two
different versions, containing the transcription of the
verses in Latin and Greek from the New Testament. ,
particularly from Matthew with Hebrew letters. (Lasker-
Stroumsa 1996).
Other anti-Christian works tend to select verses from the
New Testament , such as that of Yosef Qimchi in his Sefer
HaBrit exposes a series of anti-Christian arguments; his
son Dawid Qimjí collects them in Vicuaj ('Dispute'), as
well as the book Teshuvoth LaNoztrim (Reply to the
Nazarenes) Miljemet Joba' ('Compulsory Battle') or
simply Vicuaj' ('Dispute'), in which the RaMBa ”N argues
against the mumar Pablo de Santamaría, (formerly:
Yehoshúa Halorquí) in the dispute of Tortosa (1414).
Another material is the Kelimath Haceyim (Shame of the
Gentiles) written by Itzjaq Profiat Duron, this text served
as an arsenal for later polemicists; shows knowledge of the
gospels , or the work of Shlomoh ben-Adret of Barcelona;
Jasday Crescas, Simon ben Shemach Duron; Shlomo ben
Shemach Doron; Yosef Albo; Itzjaq ben Yosef Pollegar,
who will use fragments of the gospels, translated from
Romance languages to Hebrew. And there are even
manuscripts that contain translations of the Pater Noster
and the Magnificat in Hebrew, but in Latin characters,
probably the result of the work of the priests (Rosenthal
1962/63: 52-53).
However, the first major translation of large sections of
the Gospel of Matthew was presumably done by Ya'acov
ben Reuven in his polemical work Milamot HaSh-m ( The
Wars of the Eternal ), composed in the 12th century
(Jacob ben Reuven 1963 ). This work, which purports to
be a real record of conversations with Christians, must be
seen as a literary exposition of a Jewish response to
Christian attacks. Such a work is divided into eleven
chapters, of which the first deals with philosophical issues,
which is followed by nine chapters that focus on various
books of the Hebrew Bible ( Tana”j ) used by Christians
as proof texts to justify their “true” faith. However, in the
eleventh section, after having contradicted the claims of
the Mekajed (he who seeks to destroy, that is, the
Christian) about the Jewish reading of the Bible, Ya'acov
ben Reuven attacks the texts authorized by Christians. He
does not cite the texts in a particular order, but translates
them to large sectors in order to express his point of view
regarding Christian claims (Chazan 1989: 157-170;Lasker
1996: 161-173).
The first complete translation of any gospel in Hebrew is
that of Matthew, which is found in the polemical work of
Rabbi Shem Tov ben Yitzchak ibn of Shaprut ZTz"L ,
titled under the name of Even Bochan (Stone of Tique),
written just before the pogroms in the summer of 1391,
whose pogroms spread throughout the Iberian Peninsula,
destroying many Jewish communities and generating
many mass conversions to Christianity. R' Shem Tov was
born in Tudela, in the northern kingdom of Navarra. Ibn
Shaprut ZTz"L (1340 -1405), who was a biblical exegete,
Talmudic scholar, popularizer of the philosophy of
contemporary thought, physician and financier, was the
author of several works, but the work of Even Bojan is his
most important work . When Ibn Shaprut ZTz"L began
this work at the end of the 14th century, the persecution of
the Jews in the Christian kingdoms of the Iberian
Peninsula (northern Spain and Portugal) was already
established and had become a relentless persecution,
ultimately, It culminated in the expulsion of the Jews in
1492. After widespread anti-Jewish riots in 1391 severely
weakened Jewish communities, their efforts to recover
their losses became increasingly desperate. Already in the
year 1375 he participated in a dispute with Cardinal Pedro
de Luna, the future antipope Benedict XIII, in Pamplona.
As a result of the War of Succession in Castile, Shem Tov
moved to Aragon around 1378, where he wrote the Even
Bojan (Trautner-Kromann 1993: 151-152). Although
revised and expanded over a thirty-year period, it is clear
that, even before 1391, Shem Tov was concerned with the
problem of Jewish converts to Christianity and was
seeking to reaffirm his Jewish identity and faith by fishing.
dragging out the Gospels and other Christian sources and
showing their internal contradictions, lack of coherence
and deficiencies. By doing this, Shem Tov hoped that he
could prevent his fellow men from converting to
Christianity and remaining Jews.
The translation is found in the twelfth (or thirteenth,
depending on which manuscript is used) section of this
enormous book and is introduced thus:

‫ספר אבן בוחן‬

.)‫ מעיר תטילה (או תטולה‬,‫אמר שם טוב בר יצחק (או אבן) בן שפרוט‬
.‫בראותי הצעיר (עד כאן) בחכמה ובשנים צרת (צרות) הזמן‬
‫ושבעונותינו רבו ביננו מאנשי בריתנו אשר יצאו מכללינו רודפים‬
‫ להתחנן בעיני (או לעינו) הנוצרים‬.)‫אחרינו‬...‫אחרינו (או ביננו מאנשי‬
,)‫ ושולאים לנו מתוכו פשטי הכתובים והגדות (או ההגדול‬.‫להתוכח עמנו‬
‫ להבאישנו בעיני‬.‫ ומהם מתוך דברי כבושים‬.‫מהם לקיום דתם ואמונתם‬
‫ והם לנו לפח ולמוקש גם יש עמנו רבים מחכמי‬.‫הנוצרים אדוננו‬
‫ ובעומותינו שרבו לסיבית צרות הגלות‬.‫הנוצרים רוצים להתוכח עמנו‬
‫ ואין אנו יכולים‬.‫ אנו הולכים ודלים ותורה משתכחת מישראל‬,‫ומקריו‬
‫ בעסקי מחייתינו אנחנו נשינו‬,‫להשיב להם כדת וכהלכה לסבת טרדותינו‬
)‫ לכן שמתי פני כחלמיש (ישעיה‬.‫וטפינו ועולים (או ועולי) המסים עלינו‬
,‫ואדע (ואדש) כי לא אבוש לחבר ספר "נתן אמרי שפר (בראשית מט‬
‫ וגם‬.‫ ותשובותינו עליהם‬,‫כא) בשאלות הנשאלות מעת הנוצרים לנו‬
‫ראיתי להעתיק ולכתוב הנה ספרי (או ספר) האונגיוש (או האונגילי;או‬
‫ להשיב מתוכם עליהם‬.‫ שלהם‬.‫האנגילו) שלהם‬.
Book Even Bojan
Says Shem Tov Bar Yitzchak (God redeem him and
preserve him) ben Shaprut of the City of Tudela, of little
wisdom and young age: 'Seeing the misery of the times
and that due to our numerous sins the men of our Alliance
increase who They abandon our faith and, to please the
Christians, they persecute us by arguing against us, and
they raise doubts from the Bible and the Haggadah, either
to affirm the Christian faith, or to ridicule us with rebukes
before the Christians, our Kings. With all this they have
become a network and a trap for us. Because there are also
many wise Christians willing to enter into dispute with us,
with the result that, due to our sins increased due to the
exile and its consequences, we become very weak; [With
all this] the Torah is being forgotten in Israel and we do
not know how to respond to them as we should, as we
become overwhelmed by daily concerns, the support of
our wives and children and the burden of taxes that hang
over us. For all this, “I have set my face like flint” (
Yeshayah 50:7) and I will not be ashamed to write a book
that “transmits beautiful words” ( Bereshit 49:21), about
the doubts that Christians and the answers we have to give
them. Likewise I have seen [convenient] to translate and
copy the books of the “Gospel” from them to respond to
them.
Even Bojan , Mss. Marx 15 of the JTS; Cf. Ms. Neophyti
and that of the University of Cambridge.

This is the context of both the mass conversion and the

increased pressure on Jewish communities as is clearly
evident, as is the apologetics adopted by Shem Tov in
which he attempts to explain why he is including the
Gospel of Matthew in his job.
Additionally, George Howard professor emeritus of
religion at the University of Georgia in Athens explains
that for centuries, the Jewish community in Europe
possessed a copy of the Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew
language ( ‫) בשורת מתי‬. The Jews used this document
during the Middle Ages in a fragmented way in various
polemical writings against Christianity. However, in the
14th century, the entire Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
appeared within the polemical work of Evan Bojan . Ibn
Shaprut ZTz"L from the 14th century in Spain, who lived
during the Inquisition. This period was marked by the
Disputatio or in Spanish the disputes. These disputes were
public debates in which Jews were forced to participate by
their Catholic rulers. The Disputes took place when a
Catholic bishop sent his cavalrymen to a nearby
synagogue and dragged the local rabbi into the public
debate. The rabbi was forced to defend the Jewish faith
between a rock and a hard place. If the rabbi lost, the local
Jewish population was forced to convert to Catholicism; If
he won, he would be accused of insulting the Catholic
religion and forced to flee for his life. The dispute was
truly a no-win situation but most Jews would agree that
becoming a refugee was preferable to accepting Yeshu, as
“Messiah,” and the next step was to convert to
Catholicism. Shem-Tov Ibn Shaprut ZTz"L lived through
the harshest of these disputes, more so than Najamanides
himself!

‫ אבן בחן‬,
Folio. 65r-92v, See Marx
Polemical
ms. No. 18;
Library of The Jewish Theological
Seminary, MS 2279 .
On the subject of mass conversions of Jews to
Christianity, there were at first enthusiastic and reluctant
converts. The first were Jews who were never fully
committed to their Judaism; while the latter were Jews
who tried to retain their Jewish practices as crypto-Jews
(or Bene-Anussim ). Among the former group were those
who had achieved fame and fortune in the service of the
courts and had become indifferent and They had distanced
themselves from their ancestral religion.
Some became ardent supporters of Christianity and began
to vilify their former coreligionists in public debates as
well as in literary avenues, arguing the superiority of their
newly adopted religion and its principles. While many
other Jews, who managed to survive these attacks, both in
their faith and their persons, vacillated between conversion
and loyalty to Judaism, not knowing when or how they
would experience some relief. The increase in doubt about
the benefits of loyalty, the intensification of physical
dangers and loss of economic benefits, opportunities and
social status were what motivated Ibn Shaprut ZTz"L to
compose the work of Even Bojan , as well as after a long
line of staunch defenders of the Jewish faith.
Ibn Shaprut ZTz"L , designed a treatise to be a manual of
instruction to other undecided Jews whose knowledge of
Judaism was slowing, and to teach them that Judaism was
a viable, vital and rational religion, and that it was in no
way inferior to the Christianity. Furthermore, Ibn Shaprut
Z"L intends to launch a large-scale attack against the
mumarim (Jewish converts to another religion), and
especially the apostates, in order to defend the Jews and
Judaism.
In order to demonstrate the rationality of Judaism, Ibn
Shaprut ZTz"L prologues in Even Bojan with a
philosophical debate entitled: “The Articles of [Jewish]
Faith", in which he repeats those doctrines formulated two
centuries earlier by the RaMBa.” M (Maimonides) in the
years 1135-1204, and expands on most of the themes that
were part of the repertoire of rationalists and theological
schools, to emphasize thus:

Ibn Shapruṭ, Shem Ṭov, active 1375-1380.

The Library of The Jewish Theological Seminary , MS
2228 .

a) The differences between Jewish and Christian beliefs;

b) Debates about the essence of the soul;
c) His reward in paradise or punishment in hell;
d) Free choice versus determinism;
e) Rewards and punishments;
f) Good and evil;
g) Proof of the existence of G-d;
h) The creation of the world compared to its eternity;
i) The nature of angels;
j) Miracles and prophecy;
k) The existence of demons;
l) and other metaphysical questions.
m) The Pentateuch,
n) The prophecy,
o) The wisdom and rabbinic texts that must be followed,
p) and finally the material of Christian literature and
doctrine.

Even Bojan must surely have enjoyed great popularity,

since the manuscripts exist in many copies over a wide
period of time and space. Scholars who have studied the
work have realized that there are many problems with its
text as well as its historical transmission. At a very simple
level, based on certain colophon evidence in some
manuscripts, Ibn Shaprut ZTz"L may have composed a
draft review of Even Bojan between the months of
November and December 1384, perhaps in twelve "gates"
( ‫שערים‬, based on what the Tehillim / Psalm 118:20 says),
according to some scholars they also relied on the number
of cities, in some of the manuscripts. This critical review
project may have been immediately copied and
distributed, perhaps by an unknown person, if not even by
the author himself.

Then Ibn Shaprut ZTz"L probably expanded and

completed it with the addition of two more gates in
Tarazona in the month of May 1385. Ibn Shaprut ZTz"L
then expanded the Even Bojan with the addition of a 15th
gate around July 1405 in Lucena. In addition to this door,
it deals with the “Refutations of the Apostate Alphonsus”
(written to refute the ancient statements of the apostate
Abner about his theological and philosophical statements
of Burgos against the work titled Miljamot HaSh-m by
Ya'acov ben Reuven, who lived between the years 1270-
1348, the entire work was revised, most likely by Ibn
Shaprut ZTz"L himself, for later editions of the Even
Bojan also has one more door, which is the XVI, which is
titled under the name “The Principles of the [Christian]
Faith”, most likely composed sometime after the year
1397, as it is based on a polemical work written at that
time by Profiat Duran- ‫פרופייט דוראן‬. This originally
independent study by Ibn Shaprut ZTz"L , in the
“Refutations of Alphonsus", which entered the corpus of
the Even Bojan , is still referred to as an independent work
in at least two places in Gate Sixteen.
But the evolution of the Even Bojan does not end here, as
there are factors found among the numerous manuscripts
that transmit at least two distinct recensions, one from
1385 and another from 1405, commonly known as
Recension A and B , respectively, which are complicates
even more. Both of Even Bojan 's recensions incorporate
basically sixteen gates, but in a different order. They both
agree on the order of Gates, one, two and Eleven. The
Eleventh Gate states the “Articles of the [Jewish] Faith,”
as has already been said. Gate Two through Gate Ten
contain controversial material supplied by a Christian (
‫ )משלש‬based on biblical verses used to corroborate the
principles of Christianity, as well as its vilification. These,
in turn, were vigorously refuted by a Jew (‫ )מיחד‬and later
by Ibn Shaprut (‫)מקצר‬, whose summaries and explanations
of the arguments of both sides in the Judeo-Christian
debate are accompanied by the text. Ibn Shaprut ZTz"L
attributes to these prophetic texts the Chumash
(Pentateuch) and the Nevi'im (Prophets) explained by
Ya'acob ben Reuven, a late 12th century treatise writer,
through his work ' Miljamot HaShem ' (The Wars of the
Eternal), which was erroneously rumored to be the work
of his contemporary, Yosef Kimji, the author of another
controversial work, Sefer haBerit . The Eleventh Gate
continues the interfaith debate with aggadic collections of
biblical and midrashic literature that betray the divinity of
Yeshu, his messianism, the virginity of Mary, the stance
on the loss of Jewish election, sovereignty, and divine
rule. In the corresponding Recension A manuscripts, the
Twelfth Gate includes the first complete Hebrew
translation of the entire Gospel of Matthew ; The
Thirteenth Gate contains a series of discussions about
physical resurrection and the immortality of the soul;
Door Four deals with the messianic period and the
possibility of the destruction of the world in “the end of
days”; The Fifteenth Gate , is a refutation of Alfonso's
arguments, such a character defends on behalf of
Christianity who is based on midrashic material and,
finally, an analysis of "The Principles of the [Christian]
Faith", the elaboration of which was composed , in one's
own words sometime after the completion of the Even
Bojan and based, as stated above, on the derision of the
people of Profiat Duran ( Kelimmat ha-Goyim ) written in
1397. If this is so, then Ibn Shaprut wrote The First Gate
of Even Bojan at a time after that date, possibly after his
own revision of his work, as we find the material from
Profiat Duran's polemic also at the same time. It is also
possible, however, that this material can also be found
with Thomas Aquinas (1225 -1274) in his work Summa
Theologiae , which was already part of the polemicist's
arsenal and which Ibn Shaprut drew before him and the
composition. by Profiat Duran.
Both Recension A and the Recension B manuscripts retain
Gate Two as the corpus of the analysis done on the
Chumash (Pentateuch) in the work of Even Bochan , but
the Recension B manuscripts which have a different order
in Gates Three to Gate Ten , which after revision by Even
Bojan , now reflects the order of the prophetic and
rabbinic wisdom books. But there are additional
difficulties in Recensiones B. First, his manuscripts
incorporate the treatise “ The Principles of the [Christian]
Faith ,” as the Twelfth Gate , with the Hebrew translation
of the Gospel of Matthew as the Thirteenth Gate (Twelfth
Gate in Recension A), the Fourteenth Gate , a truncated
version of "the refutations of Alphonsus", and Gates
Fifteen and Sixteen deal with the debates over the
resurrection and the messiah, respectively. There is yet
another hybrid manuscript that is divided into seventeen
chapters comprising both Recensions A and B , whose
problematic relationship is mentioned by the other
manuscripts treated by Niclos who fully describes them.
For those who argue that Even Bojan originally contained
only Twelve Gates , it can be shown that Ibn Shaprut
always intended his work to comprise all fourteen gates ,
including the Gospels (found shortly as Gate Eleven in
Milchamot HaShem of Ya'acov ben Reuven), and
discussions of the messiah, resurrection, and immortality,
all of which are found in Ya'acov ben Reuven's Milchamot
, albeit in a more superficial form. Furthermore when the
entire Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was made available by
Ibn Shaprut, incorporating it into Even Bojan followed by
the midrashic material, which had long been available as
part of the Jewish-Christian debate, but which was missing
from the work of Ya 'acov ben Reuven. Its inclusion was
one of the deficiencies in the Milchamot that Ibn Shaprut
had specifically set out to correct.
It is important to understand the difficulties involved in
editing a composition such as Even Bojan 's work as there
are many different threads that lead to a final version that
must be clarified. It is very likely that Ibn Shaprut revised
his own work at some point after the section on “ The
Principles of the [ Christian ] Faith” and “ The Rebuttals
of Alphonsus ” which were written, and was presented
earlier in Even Bojan as a prologue. to the Gospel of
Matthew and the second as a prelude to his discourse on
the resurrection and the messiah to refute the apostasy
diatribe against the Jews on these matters. It is also almost
certain that it was Ibn Shaprut who changed the order of
Gates Three to Gate Ten , as mentioned above, and this
revised order is found in the Recension B manuscripts.
But Even Bojan underwent another revision, most likely
by a late editor or copyist, since in some manuscripts such
as those of Recension B we find interpolations in the
books of Yeshayah (Isaiah) and Daniel (in the years 1437
1508) as well as the writings of Yitzchak Abravanel, as
well as David Kimji (1160-1235) as well as the
Commentary on the Book of Psalms . Furthermore, in this
recension, in the Puerta de Catorce , the “Refutations of
Alfonso” has been truncated to three sections, while some
of the remainder were inserted into their corresponding
doors from Even Bojan 's versions elsewhere; two,
however, are insufficient. Some Recension B manuscripts,
therefore, represent a later tradition, compiled by many
copyists, and it would be unwise to rely on them unduly.
Gospel of Matthew by Shem Tov Yitzchak Ibn Shaprut .

Ibn Shapruṭ, Shem Ṭov, active 1375-1380

Shem-Tov's writing consisted of going section by section

of the “New Testament” in search of weak points that he
could use against Christianity. Curiously, one of his
frequent tactics was to emphasize verses where Christians
violate Yeshu's direct instructions. At the end of Shem-
Tov's controversial treatise titled Even Bochan (Hard
Stone), he included a Hebrew version of the book of
Matthew as an appendix. Shem-Tov explained to his
fellow regional rabbis and Jews in general that if they
wanted to survive the disputes and prevent the other Jews
from accepting Yeshu as “Messiah” they should read the
text of Matthew and the rest of the “NT”.
The Hebrew text of Matthew translated by Shem-Tov ben
Isaac Ibn Shaprut ZTz"L was written around the years
1380-1385. His original work has been lost, but several
copies of his complete manuscripts dating from between
the 15th and 17th centuries are still preserved. Page 413 of
the thirteenth book of this work dates from the year 1584
and is written in semi-cursive Sephardic writing; You can
see it at the Leiden University Library at:

http://lampje.leidenuniv.nl/digitale-tentoonstellingen-
voor-2007/Judaica/object7.htm

This version is divided into sixteen books and is a

revision of the original. This version includes a discussion
of the articles of Christian belief. The Shem Tov version of
the Gospel of Matthew is found in the following libraries:
 Or. 4766, p. 413.

 British Library, Add. No. 26964 Ms. Heb. 28,

 Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, No. 831
 Rijksuniveriteit Library, LeidenMs. Mich. 119.
 Bodeleian Library, OxfordMs. Opp. Add. 4' 72.
 Bodeleian Library, Oxford Ms. 2426 (Marx 16)
 Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, New York.Ms. 2279 (Marx 18)
 Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, New York.Ms. 2209 (Marx 19)
 Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, New York.Ms. 2234 (Marx 15)
 Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, Ms. 2228.
 Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, New York. Ms. 2451.
 Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, New York. Ms. 2460.
 Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, New York.Ms. Mich. 137. Bodeleian
Library, Oxford
The underlying text reflects its original Hebrew
composition, and contains a series of readings not found in
any other Matthew codex. It retains certain similarities
with the Codex Sinaiticus and some readings have points
in common with the Gospel of John , but it presents
differences with other Gospels. The Shem-Tov text is also
often in agreement with Luke's version. And finally it
contains twenty-two points that are in accordance with the
Gospel of Thomas. There are quite a few features in the
Shem-Tov version, of which I will only mention three:
1.-Preaching to the Gentiles is not mentioned in the
Hebrew Matthew of Shem Tov.
2.-Yesh"u is not identified as the Messiah.
In this version it differs from the other texts, and as
George Howard explains, the Book of Nestor Komer , the
Miljamot HaShem , Sefer Yosef Hamekane ', and the
Nizzahon by Sebastian Münster are NOT a version of
Matthew in Hebrew. They are controversial anti-Christian
medieval treatises written in Hebrew. Furthermore, the
Shem-Tov translation of Matthew is not fragmentary, that
is, it does not include some parts of Matthew's text, but
rather it is translated in its entirety, as presented below:

All chapters of the Matthew-Hebrew text of Shem-Tov-

‫פרקים של שם טוב‬

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 ‫פרק‬ Chapter 4 ‫פרק רביעי‬ Chapter 5

‫פרק ראשון‬ ‫פרק שני‬ ‫שלישי‬ coincides with ‫פרק חמישי‬
 coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 2.13-15 coincides
with with Mt. 2.1-12 with
Mt. 1.1-17 Mt. 1.18-25 Mt. 2.16-23
Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 ‫פרק‬ Chapter 9 ‫פרק‬ Chapter 10
‫פרק ששי‬ ‫פרק שביעי‬ ‫שמיני‬ ‫תשיעי‬ ‫פרק עשירי‬
coincides coincides coincides with coincides with coincides
with with Mt. 3.13-17 Mt. 4.1-11 with
Mt. 3.1-6 Mt. 3.7-12 Mt. 4.12-16
Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 ‫פרק‬ Chapter 15
‫פרק י''א‬ ‫פרק י''ב‬ ‫פרק י''ג‬ ‫י''ד‬ ‫פרק ט''ו‬
coincides coincides coincides with 14b , 14c , 14d coincides
with with Mt. 5.1-12 coincides with with
Mt. 4.17-22 Mt. 4.23-25 Mt. 5.13-19 Mt. 5.20-24
Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Chapter 19 ‫פרק י''ט‬ Chapter 20
‫פרק ט''ז‬ ‫פרק יז‬ ‫פרק י''ח‬ coincides with ‫''פרק כ‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 5.33-42 coincides
with with Mt. 5.31-32 with
Mt. 5.25-26 Mt. 5.27-30 Mt. 5.43-6.1
Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 Chapter 24 ‫פרק כ''ד‬ Chapter 25
‫פרק כ''א‬ ‫פרק כ''ב‬ ‫פרק כ''ג‬ coincides with ‫פרק כ''ה‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 6.19-23 coincides
with with Mt. 6.16-18 with
Mt. 6.2-4 Mt. 6.5-15 Mt. 6.24-34
Chapter 26 Chapter 27 Chapter 28 Chapter 29 ‫פרק כ''ט‬ Chapter 30
‫פרק כ''ו‬ ‫פרק כ''ז‬ ‫פרק כ''ח‬ coincides with ‫פרק שלשים‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 7.15-23 coincides
with with Mt. 7.13-14 with
Mt. 7.1-5 Mt. 7.6-12 Mt. 7.24-29
Chapter 31 Chapter 32 Chapter 33 Chapter 34 ‫פרק ל''ד‬ Chapter 35
‫פרק ל''א‬ ‫פרק ל''ב‬ ‫פרק ל''ג‬ coincides with ‫פרק ל''ה‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 8.18-22 coincides
with with Mt. 8.14-17 with
Mt. 8.1-4 Mt. 8.5-13 Mt. 8.23-27
Chapter 36 Chapter 37 Chapter 38 Chapter 39 ‫פרק ל''ט‬ Chapter 40
‫פרק ל''ו‬ ‫פרק ל''ז‬ ‫פרק ל''ח‬ coincides with ‫פרק ארבעים‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 9.14-17 coincides
with with Mt. 9.9-13 with
Mt. 8.28-34 Mt. 9.1-8 Mt. 9.18-26
Chapter 41 Chapter 42 Chapter 43 Chapter 44 ‫פרק מ''ד‬ Chapter 45
‫פרק מ''א‬ ‫פרק מ''ב‬ ‫פעק מ''ג‬ coincides with ‫פרק מ''ה‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 10.16-22 coincides
with with Mt. 10.1-15 with
Mt. 9.27-31 Mt. 9.32-38 Mt. 10.23-
33
Chapter 46 Chapter 47 Chapter 48 Chapter 49 ‫פרק‬ Chapter 50
‫פרק מ''ו‬ ‫פרק מ''ז‬ ‫פרק מ''ח‬ ‫מ''ט‬ ‫פרק חמשים‬
coincides coincides coincides with coincides with coincides
with with Mt. 11.11-15 Mt. 11.16-19 with
Mt. 10.34- Mt. 11.1-10 Mt. 11.20-
 42 24
Chapter 51 Chapter 52 Chapter 53 Chapter 54 ‫פרק נ''ד‬ Chapter 55
‫פרק נ''א‬ ‫פרק נ''ב‬ ‫פרק נ''ג‬ coincides with ‫פרק נ''ה‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 12.15-21 coincides
with with Mt. 12.9-14 with
Mt. 11.25- Mt. 12.1-8 Mt. 12.22-
30 29
Chapter 56 Chapter 57 Chapter 58 Chapter 59 ‫פרק נ''ט‬ Chapter 60
‫פרק נ''ו‬ ‫פרק נ''ז‬ ‫פרק נ''ח‬ coincides with ‫פרק ששים‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 13.1-23 coincides
with with Mt. 12.46-50 with
Mt. 12.30- Mt. 12.38- Mt. 13.24-
37 45 30
Chapter 61 Chapter 62 Chapter 63 Chapter 64 ‫פרק ס''ד‬ Chapter 65
‫פרק ס''א‬ ‫פרק ס''ב‬ ‫פרק ס''ג‬ coincides with ‫פרק ס''ה‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 13.53-58 coincides
with with Mt. 13.44-52 with
Mt. 13.31- Mt. 13.36- Mt. 14.1-21
35 43
Chapter 66 Chapter 67 Chapter 68 Chapter 69 ‫פרק ס''ט‬ Chapter 70
‫פרק ס''ו‬ ‫פרק ס''ז‬ ‫פרק ס''ח‬ coincides with ‫פרק שבעים‬
coincides 67b coincides with Mt. 15.29-38 coincides
with coincides Mt. 15.21-28 with
Mt. 14.22- with Mt. 15.39-
36 Mt. 15.1-20 16.12
Chapter 71 Chapter 72 Chapter 73 Chapter 74 ‫פרק ע''ד‬ Chapter 75
‫פרק ע''א‬ ‫פרק ע''ב‬ ‫פרק ע''ג‬ coincides with ‫פרק ע''ה‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 17.9-13 coincides
with with Mt. 17.1-8 with
Mt. 16.13- Mt. 16.21- Mt. 17:14-
20 28 21 and Mark
9:20-28
Chapter 76 Chapter 77 Chapter 78 Chapter 79 ‫פרק‬ Chapter 80
‫פרק ע''ו‬ ‫פרק ע''ז‬ ‫פרק ע''ח‬ ‫ע''ט‬ ‫''פרק פ‬
coincides coincides coincides with coincides with coincides
with with Mt. 18.12-14 Mt. 18.15-22 with
Mt. 17.22- Mt. 18.1-11 Mt. 18.23-
27 35
Chapter 81 Chapter 82 Chapter 83 Chapter 84 ‫פרק פ''ד‬ Chapter 85
‫פרק פ''א‬ ‫פרק פ''ב‬ ‫פרק פ''ג‬ coincides with ‫פרק פ''ה‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 20.1-16 coincides
with with Mt. 19.27-30 with
Mt. 19.1-12 Mt. 19.13- Mt. 20.17-
26 28
Chapter 86 Chapter 87 Chapter 88 Chapter 89 ‫פרק פ''ט‬ Chapter 90
‫פרק פ''ו‬ ‫פרק פ''ז‬ ‫פרק פ''ח‬ coincides with ‫''פרק צ‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 21.23-27 coincides
with with Mt. 21.10-22 with
Mt. 20.29- Mt. 21.1-9 Mt. 21.28-
34 32
Chapter 91 Chapter 92 Chapter 93 Chapter 94 ‫פרק צ''ד‬ Chapter 95
‫פרק צ''א‬ ‫פרק צ''ב‬ ‫פרק צ''ג‬ coincides with ‫פרק צ''ה‬
coincides coincides coincides with Mt. 22.23-33 coincides
with with Mt. 22.15-22 with
Mt. 21.33- Mt. 22.1-14 Mt. 22.33-
46 46
Chapter 96 Chapter 97 Chapter 98 Chapter 99 ‫פרק‬ Chapter 100
‫פרק צ''ו‬ ‫פרק צ''ז‬ ‫פרק צ''ח‬ ‫צ''ט‬ ‫'פרק ק‬
coincides coincides coincides with coincides with coincides
with with Mt. 23.23-33 Mt. 23.34-39 with
Mt. 23.1-12 Mt. 23.13- Mt. 24.1-25
22
Chapter 101 Chapter 102 Chapter 103 Chapter 104 ‫פרק‬ Chapter 105
‫פרק ק''א‬ ‫פרק ק''ב‬ ‫פרק ק''ג‬ ‫ק''ד‬ ‫פרק ק''ה‬
coincides coincides coincides with coincides with coincides
with with Mt. 24.37-41 Mt. 25.1-13 with
Mt. Mt. 24.37- Mt. 25.14-
24.26/25-36 41 30
Chapter 106 Chapter 107 Chapter 108 Chapter 109 ‫פרק‬ Chapter 110
‫פרק ק''ו‬ ‫פרק ק''ז‬ ‫פרק ק''ח‬ ‫ק''ט‬ ‫פרק ק''י‬
coincides coincides coincides with 109b coincides
with with Mt. 26.14-25 109c with
Mt. 25.31- Mt. 26.1-13 coincides with Mt. 26.31-
46 Mt. 26.26-30 44
Chapter 111 Chapter 112 Chapter 113 Chapter 114 ‫פרק‬ Chapter 115
‫פרק קי''א‬ ‫פרק קי''ב‬ ‫פרק קי''ג‬ ‫קי''ד‬ ‫פרק קט''ו‬
coincides coincides coincides with coincides with coincides
with with Mt. 27.27-66 Mt. 28.1-7 with
Mt. 26.45- Mt. 27.1-26 Mt. 28.8-15
75
Chapter The Shem-Tov Hebrew Matthew Nehemia
115a ‫פרק‬ dedication Yitzchak Ibn Gordon's
‫קט''ו‬ of Yitzchak Shaprut The Original mistake
coincides Ibn Shaprut Hebrew Matthew
with
Mt. 28.16- The Original
20 Hebrew
Matthew
‫שם טוב ִא ְבן‬ PDF version Shem-Tov in
The Latin ‫ַש ְפרּוט‬ the context
and Greek of the
sources of GRAMMATICAL religious
the ASPECTS IN THE controversie
Hebrew GOSPEL IN s of the
HEBREW OF Spain of the
Gospel of “THE Inquisition.
Shem Tov TOUCHSTONE”
BY IBN
SHAPRUT.
 J.-V. Niclós – M.
Rauret.

The Shem Tob Manuscript: The Original Hebrew Matthew?

There are two ideas that specialists are perfectly clear: the
original text of Matthew must have been written in
Hebrew (or Aramaic, if we stick to the fact that this
language was called “the language of the Hebrews” in
many early Christian sources) , and that is not the text we
have in the New Testament. These ideas emerge clearly
from the documentary evidence we have from the 2nd to
5th centuries.
In this regard, several authors left a record that was too
clear and coherent. Let's look at the classic examples:

"Matthew composed the sayings of the lord in the Hebrew

language, and then each one translated them as he could"
(Papias of Hierapolis, around the year 130; cited by
Eusebius of Caesarea, in Ecclesiastical History III, 39).
"Matthew, who preached to the Hebrews in their own
language, also wrote down the gospel, when Peter and
Paul preached and founded the Church."

Irenaeus of Lyon, around the year 185; Adversus

Haeresses III, 1:1.
"The first gospel was written according to Matthew,
the same one who was first a tax collector, but later
was an apostle of Yeshu the Messiah, who having
published it for the believing Jews, wrote it in
Hebrew"

Origins of Alexandria, at the beginning of the 3rd century;

cited by Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History VI,
25.
"Matthew also, having proclaimed the gospel in
Hebrew, at the time of going to the other nations, wrote
it in their native language, and thus supplied the desire
for his presence among them through his writings."

Eusebius of Caesarea, around the middle of the 4th

century; Ecclesiastical History III, 24.
"The Nazarenes have the gospel of Matthew, very
complete and in Hebrew, because this gospel is,
certainly, still preserved among them as it was written,
in Hebrew letters"
Epiphanius of Salamis, towards the end of the 4th century;
Panarion XXIX, 9:4.
"Matthew, also called Levi, who from being a tax
collector became an apostle and the first of the
evangelists, composed a gospel of the Messiah in Judea,
in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of
those of the circumcision who had believed . Who
translated it into Greek is not sufficiently clear... I was
authorized by the Nazarenes, who use this volume in
the city of Boerea, to copy it..."

Jerónimo de Estridón, towards the end of the 4th century

or the beginning of the 5th century; De Viris Illustribus,
III.

The quotes from Epifanius and Jerome draw powerful

attention, which also echo the contact that the two came to
have with the ancient Nazarenes (who have no connection
with the current ones; the ancient Nazarenes emigrated to
the east and were part of the consolidation of the Nestorian
Christianity; its direct heirs are the current Assyrian
Church, which continues to call itself Nazarene).

These passages are frequently cited by Messianics and

Nazarenes to demonstrate something that, in reality,
specialists have long known and accepted: that there was a
Hebrew original of Matthew. The interesting thing is that
practically no Messianic or Nazarene author goes further
on the subject, and that is their fundamental error, because
documentary sources offer us even more information.
DIVERGENCES BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL
MATTHEW AND THE NEW TESTAMENT
MATTHEW
There is sufficient evidence to know that the New
Testament Matthew is a radically augmented and
corrected version.

Let's start with Papias of Hierapolis, the only one of the

aforementioned authors who could have had contact with a
direct copy of the original, since he wrote his book
“Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord” around the year
130.
Papias tells us clearly that Matthew “put down the sayings
of the Lord in writing in the Hebrew language.” But, in
other paragraphs, Papias shows us something “strange”:
certain data that he knows quite reliably differ from what
the Gospel of Matthew tells us as we know it.
The most striking has to do with Judas Iscariot:
"Judas left this world as a sad example of iniquity, for his
body became so swollen that he could not pass where a
chariot passes easily; he was crushed by a chariot, and his
entrails spilled out."

It's strange: Matthew 27:3-10 is very precise in pointing

out that Judas, overcome with remorse, returned the
money for his betrayal and immediately hanged himself.
The obligatory question is: why, if Papias knew the
original text of Matthew, did he choose to give credibility
to ANOTHER VERSION of the death of Judas?

In fact, this tells us that within the New Testament itself

there is ANOTHER VERSION. In Acts 1:18, Peter
himself says of Judas that “…with the wages of his
iniquity he acquired a field, and falling headlong, he burst
in half, and all his entrails poured out.”
So, it is clear to us that in the first half of the second
century there were THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS of
the death of Judas. Why was Matthew's text simply not
accepted, which would have been the most authoritative if
one assumes that the text had been written by Matthew
perhaps half a century ago?
For a reason as simple as it is obvious: the original text of
Matthew SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE DEATH OF
JUDAS. The paragraph was added later, at a stage in
which many versions (at least three) of the event ran,
which is why not all authors accepted as definitive the
version that was leaked to Matthew's text.
If we do not accept this idea, we are left with only one
other alternative: Matthew did write the account of Judas'
death, but not everyone believed him and considered that
there were more authoritative sources.
If we refer again to Papias, who evidently had in his hands
a copy of the original of Matthew (perhaps a first
generation copy), such behavior is incomprehensible:
having the text of Matthew, reading it, and still saying
“ah , Judas did not die like that; “He got fat and they ran
him over…”
Whichever way you like to see it, the most logical thing is
that Matthew's original text did not have any clarification
on the subject, and that is why Papias was able to accept
another version of the death of Judas as correct.
This already sets a clear precedent for us: the original text
of Matthew received additions, and if we are honest, we
have no way of knowing how many or what they were.
JERONIMO, EPIPHANIO AND THE GOSPEL OF
THE NAZARENES

Jerome and Epiphanius not only recorded that there was a

Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew preserved by the
ancient Nazarenes. They also took the trouble to clarify
that it was a copy OF THE ORIGINAL, just as Mateo had
written it, and - especially Jerome - took the extra trouble
to COPY IT.

The copy that Jerome prepared was irretrievably lost in the

7th century, when the library of Pamphilus of Caesarea -
where it was kept - was destroyed by the Muslim
onslaught. But in the writings of Jerome several fragments
of the Gospel of the Nazarenes are preserved, since THE
OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES with the official Matthew
(which by then was already widely used in Greek, Latin
and Aramaic). Jerome himself recorded several of these
differences in his commentary on Matthew. Let's look at
some examples:
In Matthew 12:13, which narrates the healing of a crippled
man by Yeshu, the Gospel of the Nazarenes includes
words from the crippled man, which do not appear in any
known manuscript of Matthew: "I was a builder and
earned my living with my hands; I beg you, Yeshu, to
restore my health so that I do not have to beg for my food
in shame.
Another interesting case is Matthew 19:20-24. Let's look
at the two versions: the gospel, as we know it, says "I have
kept all these things," said the young man. What else do I
need? Yeshu answered him: if you want to be perfect, go,
sell what you have, and give it to the poor, and you will
have treasure in heaven. Then come and follow me. When
the rich young man heard this, he went away sad, because
he had great wealth. Yeshu said to his disciples: I assure
you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven. I repeat to you that it is easier for a camel to pass
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the
kingdom of G-d."
But in the Gospel of the Nazarenes copied by Jerome there
was an alternative version:
"He replied: I've already been doing it. He said to him: go
and sell everything that is yours, distribute it among the
poor, and come and follow me. But the rich man began to
scratch his head and it did not please him. The Lord said
to him: How dare you say: I have observed the Torah and
the Prophets? Since it is written in the Torah: you will
love your neighbor as yourself. And behold, many of your
brothers, sons of Abraham, are clothed in rubbish and are
dying of hunger, while your house is full of abundant
goods without anything coming out of it. And turning, he
said to Simon, his disciple, who was sitting by him,
"Simon, son of John, it is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go through
heaven."

These two quotes preserved in Jerome put us before a

dilemma similar to that derived from the writings of
Papias, although in the opposite direction: we now have
evidence that certain details contained in the original
Matthew WERE ELIMINATED in the translation into
Greek and other languages. (which agrees quite well with
an observation of Papias: everyone translated them as best
they could).

We have more evidence about these differences. Two

centuries before Jerome and Epiphanius, Clement of
Alexandria and his brilliant disciple, Origen, cited
passages that did not exist in the “official” versions of
Matthew, recovered from what they called “the Gospel of
the Hebrews.” From the references they gave about the
group that preserved it, specialists accept that they were
those ancient Nazarenes with whom Jerónimo and
Epifanio later had contact.
Let's look at some fragments preserved by Clement and
Origen:
"He who has admired himself will reign; and he who
has reigned will rest."

Cited by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata II, 9:45.

"Not long ago my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by
one of my hairs and took me to the great mountain,
Tabor."

Quoted by Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on the

Gospel of John II, 6.
"He who seeks will not rest until he finds; when he
finds, he will be stupefied; stupefied, he will reign;
when he has reigned, he will rest."
cited by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata V, 14:96.

So, at this point, we have a fairly clear set of evidence that

points to the fact that the original text of Matthew in
Hebrew IS NOT THE ONE WE HAVE IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT. The final version, the one we know, is
notably altered: some details were added, and others
eliminated.

Now, the obligatory question is whether these additions or

mutilations affected relevant parts of the content of the
Original Gospel. And the evidence answers us yes.
AN EMBLEMATIC CASE: THE LAST SUPPER

If we continue reviewing the material provided by the

Patristics of the 2nd century, we find another case that
gives us more information on this matter: that of the Last
Supper. This is a core event in the three Synoptic Gospels
(Matthew, Mark and Luke), since it is where Yeshu of
Nazareth declares the New Covenant founded, in obvious
allusion to the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-33.

Integrating the three stories, Yeshu spoke transcendental

words when saying blessings over the bread and wine,
which were something like “take, eat, this is my body that
is broken for you; Take, drink, this is the blood of the New
Covenant that is shed for you; Do this as often as you eat
this bread and drink this cup” (let's leave aside the issue of
interpretation of this and focus only on the philological
issue).
There are controversies about which was the first gospel to
be created. The majority of specialists maintain that it was
Mark, a little after the year 70, although a minority
assumes that it was Matthew perhaps from the year 60.
Regardless of this, it is assumed that Luke - the last of the
three - was written between the years 80 and 85, so by that
time all three must have already been written.
From this it must be deduced that, by the time the three
Synoptic Gospels were already written, the followers of
Yeshu already had as their liturgical and theological
heritage these words pronounced over the bread and wine,
for at least half a century (from the year 30 to
approximately 80).
And this is interesting: in reality, none of the three is
supposed to have been the first to record them in writing.
In the year 54, Paul also recorded them in I Corinthians
11:23-26, and with this he would have been the first to
write them.
Paul's version is consistent with those we find in the three
Synoptics. It goes like this: “...the Lord Yeshu, on the
night he was betrayed, took bread, and having given
thanks, he broke it and said: take, eat, this is my body that
is broken for you; Do this in remembrance of me;
Likewise he also took the cup, after having supped,
saying: This cup is the New Covenant in my blood; Do
this as many times as you drink it in memory of me.”
Up to this point, the panorama is quite logical: around the
year 30, Yeshu pronounces these words and, naturally,
they are consolidated as the liturgical heritage of his
followers. Therefore, Paul can cite them around the year
54 to the Church of Corinth with quite familiarity,
assuming that his readers know the ritual use of these
phrases. Maybe 5 or 6 years later, Matthew puts them back
in his gospel; or perhaps the next to do so is Marcos, 15 or
16 years later. Be that as it may, Lucas is the last to record
them around the year 85 at the latest.
There are minimal differences between all the versions,
but they are understandable and do not affect the
philological situation of the matter.
The problem comes when, supposedly, around the year 90,
John - an eyewitness of the Last Supper - writes his
gospel, and regarding the dinner and the transcendental
words of Yeshu he tells us...
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
In fact, there are several problems raised by the gospel of
John. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, the mention of the
meal and the words of Yeshu are fundamental because the
event is supposed to have occurred during the first
Passover Seder. Juan contradicts that idea. He says that the
event was “a day before the Fiesta”, and therefore it is
logical that he does not pay attention to the dinner.
But it's strange: almost a third of the ENTIRE gospel of
John is dedicated to that particular night. The point is that
dinner IS THE ONLY THING THE Apostle IS NOT
INTERESTED IN.
The only thing he says about it is that “...he arose from
supper, and took off his hand..." (John 13:4), and
continues with the account of the washing of the disciples'
feet (something totally non-existent in the other gospels),
after which he proceeds to announce the betrayals of Judas
and Peter, and then give the LONGEST, MOST
COMPLEX, DEEPEST and, literally speaking, MOST
BEAUTIFUL speech ever recorded in the entire New
Testament. , and which covers chapters 14 to 18.
What do we have in the other gospels about this very
important speech of Yeshu? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The reality is that Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us one
event, and John another. They have tried to solve the
matter through pastiche, saying that Yeshu first ate dinner
and said the important words that he said (and that for
some strange reason John did not want to mention), and
that then he washed the feet of his disciples and gave a
monumental speech (which for some strange reason
Matthew, Mark and Luke did not want to mention). But it
doesn't work because of a simple detail: the announcement
of Judas's betrayal. For Matthew, Mark and Luke it is clear
that Yeshu announced it DURING dinner; Instead, John
records that he announced it AFTER washing the
disciples' feet, when the meal was long over.
The situation is obvious: the whole difference derives
from the fact that for Matthew, Mark and Luke the meal is
during the Passover Seder, and for John it is not. It was a
night before. That's why he doesn't give any importance to
dinner as such.
There has also been an attempt to annul this contradiction
by appealing to many and varied ways of confusing the
information about how days are counted in Judaism, but
the determining point that destroys all justifications is this:
John 19:42 is very precise in pointing out that Yeshu He
was buried on the property of Joseph of Arimathea
BECAUSE IT WAS NEARBY, and it was necessary to
hurry "...because of the preparation of the Passover of the
Jews...". This is in perfect coherence with John 18:28,
where it is explained that the Priests did not want to enter
the praetorium to which Yeshu was taken "so as not to
defile themselves and thus be able to eat the Passover",
which makes it evident that, after Yeshu's arrest THE
FIRST PASSOVER SEDER WAS NOT YET
CELEBRATED.
This blows up any attempt to reconcile John's account
with that of the other gospels, which assume that when
Yeshu was betrayed, judged and crucified, THE
PASSOVER DINNER HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE.
But let's get back to our original point: Yeshu's words
about the bread and wine. Beyond the irreconcilable
contradictions between the gospels, the textual problem is
this: why are such transcendental words of Yeshu
pronounced around the year 30 and compiled by Paul,
Matthew, Mark and Luke between the years 54 and 85
unknown to John in the year 90?
Before speculating on any solution, it is appropriate to
review the documentary sources of Christianity at the
beginning of the second century. Because? Because
beyond how the theology of those sources can be
interpreted, they give us an idea of HOW or HOW MUCH
those words were used at a liturgical level.
And the first source, chronologically speaking, is the
Didache, a catechetical text prepared in various stages
between the years 70 and 110. Regarding what the Greek
calls “eucharist” (literally, thanksgiving), the Didache tells
us the following:
“As for the Eucharist, this is how you should perform it.
First about the chalice: we thank you, our Father, for the
sacred vine of David your servant, which you taught us
through Yeshu, your son and Servant. To you glory in the
centuries. And about the partition: we thank you, our
Father, for life and knowledge, which you taught us
through Yeshu, your son and Servant. To you glory in the
centuries. As this bread was distributed on the mountains,
and gathered and became one, so let your Church be
gathered within the limits of the earth into your kingdom,
for yours is the glory and the power through Yeshu,
throughout the ages” ( Didache , IX ).
The Didache, as a didactic text that explains the essential
details of Christianity, purportedly mentions
EVERYTHING that the new Christian should know. And
in this section he is talking about THE SACRAMENTS.
In fact, the previous paragraphs (VII and VIII) talk about
baptism and prayer (quoting the Lord's Prayer), so if
paragraph IX talks about the Eucharist, it is the place
where Yeshu's words should have been mentioned. at the
Last Supper.
But there is nothing, absolutely nothing.
It has been proposed as a solution to the problem that, in
reality, the author of the Didache here is explaining
ANOTHER ritual, but it doesn't make sense either. In that
case, if he explained this “other” ritual, why didn't he
explain the one related to the Last Supper?
At the end of the day, the only thing that becomes evident
is that the author of the most important catechetical text at
the beginning of the second century DOES NOT KNOW
THE WORDS OF YESHU PRONOUNCED AT THE
LAST SUPPER.
And one thing seems indisputable: he knows the gospel of
Matthew, or at least the sources related to it, because in
paragraph VIII - one before this controversial paragraph
on the Eucharist - he quotes the words of the Lord's
Prayer, and he does so following the Matthew's version
(which, unlike Luke, concludes with the words “for yours
is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever”).
That makes the dilemma more distressing: why does he
show knowledge of Matthew in paragraph VIII, and show
ignorance of him in paragraph IX?
Once again, we are faced with a situation like the one
generated by the texts of Papias: either Matthew did
contain the words of Yeshu about the Last Supper and the
author of the Didache did not consider them important, or
the version of Matthew known around the year 110 IT
DID NOT CONTAIN those words, and the text was more
similar to that of the gospel of John.
By far, and as much as it bothers you, the most reasonable
option is the second.
We have more evidence produced about five years after
the conclusion of the Didache. In the letters of Ignatius of
Antioch there are two brief mentions of the subject of
Yeshu's body and blood as food and drink:
"... I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of
Christ, who was of the lineage of David; and for drink
I desire his blood, which is incorruptible love."

Epistle to the Romans, VII.

"...observing a eucharist, for there is one flesh of our
Lord Yeshu and a cup in union in his blood..."
Epistle to the Philadelphians, IV.

As in the Didache, Ignatius is completely unaware of the

concepts mentioned in the Last Supper. Although it is
supposed to mention a topic related to perhaps the most
important liturgical practice for the followers of Yeshu, it
NEVER mentions that there is a relationship with the Last
Supper. In reality, it develops more in the logic of the
gospel of John, which in chapter 6 presents Yeshu saying
that his flesh is “true food” and his blood “true drink”, but
without any liturgical reference (i.e. , related to a practice
in which those words have to be repeated or at least
remembered, unlike the clarifications that we do find in I
Corinthians 11).

But perhaps the most compelling example is the “Homily

on Easter” by Melitón of Sardis, written around the middle
of the second century. It is an extensive sermon on the
meaning of Easter from a purely Christian perspective
(and with strong anti-Semitic content), but it is interesting
to us for this reason: IT DOES NOT KNOW Yeshu's
words at the Last Supper. Although Melitón makes a
detailed analysis of what, in his opinion, Easter means,
and even appeals to the Hebrew Scriptures to support his
views, he NEVER mentions the content of the gospels in
this regard.
Has no sense. It forces us to assume that Melitón decided
to address one of the most important topics for Christian
theology through a homily (speech that is based on the
direct interpretation of biblical passages), without
resorting to THE MOST IMPORTANT PASSAGES that
talk about that topic.
Again, the most logical thing is to assume that Meliton did
not know a version of the gospels or I Corinthians where
that content was already integrated.
So what we have is this:
a) Towards the beginning of the second century, there is
enough evidence to admit that a text from Matthew was
known, and even to affirm that it had been written in
Hebrew.
b) Around the same time, there is sufficient evidence to
admit that the main authors of Christianity DO NOT
KNOW the words of Yeshu pronounced at the Last
Supper.
This leaves us with two options:
a) Yeshu did speak those words, and Paul, Matthew,
Mark, and Luke recorded them correctly. For some
strange, bizarre, incomprehensible and absurd reason, no
Christian author mentions or uses them until the year 130
or 140, despite the fact that they had been a liturgical
heritage of the followers of Yeshu, Jews or Christians, for
practically a century. To make matters worse, John - a
Jewish author who was present at the Last Supper - also
ignores those words of Yeshu, and even places the event
on a different date than Matthew, Mark and Luke.
b) The words attributed to Yeshu during the Last Supper
are not historical, but the product of a Christian
theological construction that developed during the first
half of the second century, and towards the middle of that
century they were incorporated into I Corinthians,
Matthew, Mark and Luke .
The most basic common sense tells us that although the
second option is debatable, the first is simply impossible.
The only way to alter the panorama and propose another
option would be to locate a Christian source from the first
half of the second century that gives evidence that the
words of the Last Supper were already known. But there
isn't.

All these inconsistencies show that the gospels in general,

and Matthew in particular, AS WE KNOW THEM, had
not yet reached their definitive writing in the middle of the
second century. They even show that the possible original
text of Matthew was radically altered - with additions and
mutilations - in such a way that we have no elements to
imagine what it could have been like.
THE STORIES OF YESHU'S CHILDHOOD AND
THE RESURRECTION

For specialists, it is not a secret or mystery to identify the

most archaic parts of Matthew's text. Given that the
gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are prepared from the
same document (and that is why they are called
Synoptics), the most archaic strata of the text are those
where the three have a higher and better level of
agreement. The parts where each one has exclusive
characteristics are, on the other hand, those that were
added by altering the original.

For this reason, specialists have pointed out that the three
gospels can be divided into four sections each, each one
with better affinities than the other.
The section where the three gospels preserve the best level
of similarity is the Passion story. This shows that it is the
oldest substrate. Second, although much less precisely, are
the accounts of Yeshu's ministry. There we find a lot of
material exclusive to Matthew and, above all, Luke, and
this makes it evident that they are additions to the original.
For this reason, specialists consider that Mark is the gospel
that best reflects what must have been the oldest
document. Then we have the accounts of Yeshu's birth and
childhood, and finally those of the Resurrection. It is in
them where we find the highest level of contradictions,
which shows that they are the last to be elaborated and
annexed to the original story.
How contradictory are the stories of childhood? Let's start
with the difference in dates they offer: Matthew places the
birth of Yeshu "in the days of King Herod", and Luke in
the days of the Quirinus census. Herod died in 4 BCE, and
Quirinus organized a census in 6 CE, ten years after
Herod's death. That makes the two stories totally
incompatible.
There is another significant difference: Matthew assumes
that Yosef and Miriam, Yeshu's parents, live in
Bethlehem, and only later move to Nazareth. Instead,
Luke assumes that they live in Nazareth, and only move to
Bethlehem because of the census. Then they return to
Nazareth, but there are also problems with that
information.
Matthew adds the bloody episode of the massacre of the
children of Bethlehem, before which the family flees to
Egypt, and only until Herod's death do they return to
Judea, but decide to settle in Nazareth. Such an idea does
not fit in Luke: since everything takes place ten years after
Herod's death, the episode of the massacre is ruled out. For
Luke, the events around Yeshu's birth are peaceful: the
family lives in Nazareth, goes to Bethlehem because of the
census (which, by the way, is absurd; that's not how
censuses worked, then or now), they introduce Yeshu in
the Temple, and they return peacefully to their home.
All of this reflects that they are traditions developed late,
and that they were annexed to the original story. A detail
that corroborates this is the fact that Mark, the gospel that
reflects the oldest type of text to the liking of specialists,
ignores any childhood story.
Something similar happens with the stories of the
Resurrection. Although they have more similarities than
those from childhood, they are incompatible. They do not
agree on whether there were one, two or three women who
arrived at the tomb that morning; nor in whether or not the
women entered the tomb; nor whether the women were the
first to enter the tomb, or it was John and Peter; nor
whether the women saw the angel who opened the tomb
come down or found it open; Nor were they one or two
angels; Neither did they obey the order to go and tell the
disciples or they stayed silent out of fear; nor did they all
later move to Galilee or stay in Jerusalem; nor how much
time passed between the resurrection and the ascension of
Yeshu; nor whether the ascension was in Galilee,
Jerusalem or Bethany.
All of this reflects that each story was made
independently, unlike the rest of the passion story, which
is quite similar in the three synoptic gospels. It also
follows that they are stories integrated late into the story
and, therefore, it is known that they were not part of the
original text.
THE MATTHEW OF SHEM TOB BEN ITJZAK BEN
SHAPRUT: IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT IT IS
THE CLOSEST VERSION TO THE ORIGINAL?

Many people in Messianic and Nazarene circles claim that

the Hebrew Matthew identified as Shem Tob - having
been recovered in a copy of the Even Boan text, by Rabbi
Shem Tob ben Yitzchak ben Shaprut - is the oldest
possible version of the Matthew text, and possibly the only
one that preserves the original text.

To affirm this, they are based on certain characteristics

that indicate that it was not translated from the Greek
manuscripts traditionally used by Christianity.
However, what is striking is the fact that NO specialist has
taken it into account as an ancient documentary source to
know what the original Hebrew Matthew was like.
The reason is simple: specialists are aware that the Greek
Matthew of the New Testament IS NOT THE ORIGINAL
MATTHEW, and the Shem Tob is still a variant of that
Matthew. If we take into account the characteristics of the
possible original that we can recover from the
documentary evidence from the 2nd to 4th centuries, it is
evident that at that level of analysis, the Shem Tob and the
Greek Matthew are THE SAME DOCUMENT.
From everything already stated, we can point out some
characteristics that the original Matthew must have had:
a) The original Matthew should not have included any account of the death of
Judas Iscariot. The Greek Matthew has it; the Shem Tob too.
b) The original Matthew must have included the details preserved by Jerome,
Clement and Origen. The Greek Matthew does not have them; Neither did the
Shem Tob.
c) The original Matthew should not have included the account of Yeshu 's
birth. The Greek Matthew has it; the Shem Tob too.
d) The original Matthew should not have included so many details about the
Resurrection. The Greek Matthew has them; the Shem Tob too.
e) The original Matthew should not have included Yeshu
's words from the Last Supper. The Greek Matthew has
them; the Shem Tob too.

Therefore, it is evident that the Matthew known as Shem

Tob, despite presenting special features that place him in a
singular category, is not - but not even remotely - the
original version of Matthew. It is simply a textual variant
in which we find editorial differences, but not structural
differences. And the evidence regarding the differences
between the possible original text and the current one
leave us no room for doubt: they are structural in nature,
not just editorial.