Post to the TRC by James Tabor on 10/12/2026. He is responding to a lot of posts and misinformation in threads at the TRC about the Cochin Matthew from India. He does not see any way it was written before the gMatthew or neither could have been written by an eyewitness. He provides a lot of info about that and how misinformation has been used by certain contemporary denominations. His closing comment is:
But the assertions at this point about this text, Greek or Hebrew, being written in the 40s, independent of Mark—and carried to India, then to Cambridge—and now we have the “real” story, is in my estimation, wishful thinking without any academic foundation.
The Gospel of Matthew–Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, or Latin
Nb: I am posting this in response to _____, who has proven himself to be more than a diligent researcher into Christian origins since we met and linked up on Patreon. His work on the tombs and ossuaries of the Necropiolis in late 2nd Temple—pre 70 CE— Jerusalem, in particular, and many other areas, has been of great help to me and others working in these areas. So nothing I say here is intended to naysay any of the valuable work he has done—along with so many others in our group. Yesterday, Terry wrote to me—”if you think this is all a waste of time, tell me, and I will drop it.” I would never make such a request of any of you. I don’t work like that. So here is what I want to clarify. No time to proof, but I trust you can read through any typos…I have an article due at midnight tonight…
I want to make general point here, and then apply it specifically to any theory of the dating and provenance of the Cochin text of Hebrew Matthew (please look at Cambridge MS Oo.1.32, Oo.1.16.1, Oo.1.16.2).
The text that is first in our Greek N.T. that has the Greek title “probably based on the references in Papias that were mistakenly taken to refer to it, has taken priority now for centuries with the Church. And understandably so, after all it was written by an eyewitness to everything—none other than the Apostle Matthew. And it is the only text to introduce into his overwrite of Mark’s narrative the Church itself—with Peter as the “Papa,” binding and losing as the Catholic Church claims to be able to do. [Bullet formating and emphasis below is mine. Tabor had one very long paragraph.]
- His interpolation in Matthew 16:17-19 is as obvious as the nose on your face. I grew up in the Churches of Christ, as did Marcus Blue and others in our TRC (he even graduated from Harding College, where my wife went for one unhappy year, decades before, more or less pressured by her parents). CofC preachers aways quoted Matthew! I never heard Mark, his main source even referred to.
- The author/editors blatant overwriting and destroying of Mark 8—along with Matt 18:16-18—take disputes to the elders of the Church. And then Matt 28:18-20 with its baptism “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” (Which Shem Tov Hebrew lacks!) and mission of the Church, tacked to Mark’s very important ending in 16:9 that evangelicals hate so much—even though it agrees with the Gospel of Peter—see last verse.
- These are total “forgeries” in my view and that of about 90% of scholars who have devoted their career to working on the Synoptic relationships. These verses were pretty much enough for the entire CofC to build its foundation.
- And Matthew’s total overwriting of the so-called Beatitudes, considered so beautiful by millions, destroying the earlier Q version that Luke preserves, thank God, and then liturgically recasting the so called “Lord’s Prayer,” even adding in some later ms. that bogus final line we all know by heart—And thine is the kingdom, power, and glory…” so not one in a million even knows the more original version Luke preserves.
- He even removes the tiny precious snippet of John’s ethical teaching—too much like Jesus—and adds the silly protest of John to Jesus’ being baptized—and obvious late theological “wart” on Matthew’s Christology of the perfect sacrifice for sins—so why would be baptized for the remission of sins? Matthew does this constantly. “Why do you call me good, there is One good, that is God”—is changed to why do you ask me about the good.” Blah blah blah. I have an entire course on this, “Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel was Forgotten” with dozens of videos on Youtube and blog post, that goes through Mark, the narrative source of Matt and Luke, and shows how each of them overwrites or just edits out—anything in Mark that does not fit their later theology and purposes. This does not mean Mark is historically accurate—it means it is an earlier text totally overwritten by two subsequent writers with their own later theological agenda. I studied Mark with Norman Perrin. Enough said.
So there are just a few examples. There are literally many dozens more. But we can be quite sure that the historical apostle Matthew—before Thomas took his text to India—did not compose this text as an eyewitness. That is just foolishness.
So bottom line, ANY version of so-called “Matthew,” clearly has zero connection to the historical apostle. Matthew is a polemical post-70 CE overwrite of Mark with blatant theological and yes “ecclesiastical” additions. That also does not mean that Matthew’s “M” material is of no value. In fact, it might be some of the most valuable we have, snippits here and there. For example, Matt 23:1-in Shem Tov’s Hebrew, has a totally different—and I think more original phrasing that Ross Nichols discovered and published, see his paper on academia.edu—and while there, you will see the amazing work Ross has shared with everyone in dozens of very responsible academic studies.
Now to Cochin Hebrew. I have not spent the months and years on this version of Hebrew Matthew that I have on George Howard’s work on Rabbi Ibn Shaprut’s Shem Tov taken from his polemical work Even Bohan—the Smooth Stone. And for good reason. It has the same bogus readings later Byzantine texts contain, now excluded from any scholarly edition of the Greek text—see Metzger for a commentary on all these—and their are many more: 1:25; 6:13 17:21; 18:11; 20:16b; 20:22–23; 23:14: 28:19. But more important, some, not all, of its main advocates have as their core the basic ideas they are restoring the “original” gospel of Matthew! The very words of Jesus. Look at this web site—the name alone: Project Truth Ministries—and the opening statement. “The Cochin Hebrew Matthew is a copy of the Hebrew gospel (MS Oo.1.32) written by the Apostle Matthew.” Terry texted me last night that I don’t understand what he is arguing. But his latest posts, to which I have already posted comments, seems to reflect a bit of this. Thomas took it right from the good apostle Matthew…etc.
First, in defense of the historical Matthew, of which we know nothing other than the name Levi of Alphaeus, and his role at the Capernaum toll booth for tariff collection, this is pure slander. Putting on him the direct authorship of this late first century document! Why? Because of a third century title slapped on our earliest copy of the Greek text (see Bart Ehrman’s excellent post here: https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-the-gospels-get-their-names/, (1) a misreading of Papias, and the Church loving the Book that gave it its power! And I won’t go into where that led. But some of my ancestors, the Taborites, were burned at the stake—including John Huss.
My TRC Circle site is free and open—for Ali and her Marcion priority tag she proudly wears, Terry and his many gifts and contributions, and everyone else. It is just that the Cochin Hebrew seems to have kind of overwhelmed the site. Not sure how many posts have been focused on this text, but a lot, in multiple versions. That too is fine. But those of us who have little to no interest in this text—me included—can just skip them. But the assertions at this point about this text, Greek or Hebrew, being written in the 40s, independent of Mark—and carried to India, then to Cambridge—and now we have the “real” story, is in my estimation, wishful thinking without any academic foundation. ‘
Finally, even if it were true—that TC Hebrew is earlier than our Greek Matthew, it would have nothing to do with the good apostle. Maybe Jesus’ brother. So I want to stand up for him—and his possible final resting place with his brothers at the Arimathea “two hills” property.
If any of you are not familiar with the evidence that “Matthew” overwrote his source Mark and Q, here is a video that will go through some of it, mostly with the two source materials. Just ask yourself, what are the BIG things that Matt edits out of Mark—here I give just a few examples…
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5RFU8eNSlVU?rel=0
(1) See docx file in Bart’s directory titled When Did the Gospels Get Their Names – Compiled posts.docx for this post and a long thread of many posts about the issue of naming.
