The previous study, where I first brought up about the du Tillet Hebrew Matthew/Mattityahu, included information that looked at the possibility of our present Gospel of Matthew being from a scroll written with errors in it. See link to previous study below:
Matthew 1: The answer to the question is 42 not 41!
I did a search on the du Tillet and found a couple of sites that had researched and presented their information on that manuscript, links will be included below. One site also had available in pdf an old book written and published about the du Tillet including translation in English called, “An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel” by Hugh Schonfield 1927. Link and quote from the book are below.
“When we turn to the New Testament we find that there are reasons for suspecting a Hebrew or Aramaic original for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, and for the Apocalypse.”, from Preface page vii. On the next page, Schonfield goes into information that states he believes the canonical Gospel to be an abridged edition of a larger original work with even more information then we have today of CHRIST and HIS saying and of which only fragments have survived. He further states that he believes the Judaean Christians were going to use it as the last book of the Old Testament canon. It has been referred to by the names “The Gospel”, “The Gospel of the Lord”, “The Gospel of the Twelve, or, of the Apostles”, “The Gospel of the Hebrews”, and “The Hebrew Matthew”. He believed the original to be in Hebrew and possibly Aramaic and that the Greek renderings were from it and could be proven as such. When I was in Israel I met a scholar who stated that he believed the Greek to be secondary to the Aramaic. I found out there is an Aramaic vs Greek primacy dispute between Eastern and Western scholars in regards to the original New Testament manuscripts.
In “Caesar and Christ” by Will Durant, on page 616 is this paragraph which backs up what Schonfield said above:
“The literature of Christianity in the second century abounded in gospels epistles, apocalypses, and “acts.” Christians differed widely in accepting or rejecting these as authoritative expressions of the Christian creed. The Western churches accepted the Book of Revelation, the Eastern churches generally rejected it; these accepted the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Epistles of James, the Western churches discarded them. Clement of Alexandria quotes as sacred scripture a late first-century treatise, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marcion’s publication of a New Testament forced the hand of the Church. We do not know when the books of our present New Testament were determined as canonical-i.e., as authentic and inspired;; we can only say that a Latin fragment discovered by Muratori in 1740, named after him, and generally assigned to ca.180, assumes that the canon had by that time been fixed.”
On page 556 Durant says, “Orthodox tradition placed Matthew’s Gospel first. Irenaeus describes it as originally composed in “Hebrew”-i.e., Aramaic; but it has come down to us only in Greek.” This agrees with what is stated in the preface of the “Holy Bible: Ancient Eastern Text” by George Lamsa:
“With reference to….the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision.”
Mar Eshai Shimun
by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East
April 5, 1957