Gospel of the Hebrews

Last July Jeremiah Coogan wrote about the "Gospel of the Hebrews". Coogan argued that this was a construct of the haeresiologists. Irenaeus didn't see daylight between this and the version of Matthew he owned. Some "Hebrews" variants are also in Old Latin, presumably available to Irenaeus who lived in the Latin town Lyons. Other such variants are noted as scholia on Matthew as from the "Judaicon".

Elsewhere we own a "Western" text of Luke (and Acts... and 1 Corinthians) widely disseminated among Latins at the time; if anything Tertullian blamed the heretics for what differences were found. Coogan concludes that the "Gospel of the Hebrews" is a similarly-wild edition of Matthew; just one that - unlike the Western Luke - did not get flagged as specific to a known "Haeretical" community. (One wonders if Marcion's church, at least, might have come to ascribe Western-Luke to "the Tertullianists".)

Michael Kok at The Jesus Memoirs then offered a (partial) rebuttal. Kok has a book of his own on the topic of Matthew's Gospel which he argues as already a coherent text by the time of Papias.

As for Jerome's "Hebrews", pace Kok I do not see much of Matthew in the post-resurrection to Peter. But... maybe "Synoptic", inasmuch as only John 1-20 has a real problem with Peter. This gives an impression that by Jerome's day, "The Judaicon" was just whatever scholia as a scholar like him might have gleaned, from wherever. Maybe some of it came from some edition of Matthew; for instance, such editions as (discreetly?) omitted the opening genealogy.

But maybe most such edition(s) never got made, at least not in Greek. If so the scholia drifted into Jerome's cognisance (and the Old Latin) from collections of logia such as we read in Papias (who himself only knew "Matthew" as a clutter of logia) or the Gospel-of-Thomas.