Replies

Simply, Eusebius and Papuas knew more than you.

Your argument is invalid, considering a similar case made against the Masoretic Text until the discovery of the DSS. The absence of Hebrew texts does not negate the possibility, unless you are arguing for the “inspired” KJV or Duay-Rheims.

Bottom, line, only a fool argues against an ancient attribution unless there is archeological evidence to prove conclusively the opposite.

"I can say that relying upon the quotations in Eusebius (please note that most of these quotations are from Eusebius, fourth century, and/or go back to Papias whose work has not survived except in rough quotation, mostly in Eusebius) is a very questionable practice, no matter what point one is trying to prove. This is evident just from the Smorgasbord of quotes your correspondent provides.
http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Matthew%20in%20Hebrew.htm

Unless you have a manuscript of an earlier Matthew , you are walking on shaky ground.. By the time of Jesus most jews were using Aramaic and greek for their daily dealings

First of all, Eusebius and others were simply repeating a claim by Papias. Also the passage by Papias per all scholars was "notoriously difficult to translate" which cause even greater doubt.

Then we have this.

an independent examination of our present Greek Gospel by Matthew, and especially of the independent form of his quotations from the Old Testament as compared with the Septuagint, leaves the impression of an original work, whether it was written by Matthew himself, or by some other person clothed with apostolic authority. Papias relates that this Gospel was repeatedly interpreted, and the apostolic Church undoubtedly retained its most trustworthy rendering. This translation was preserved in its purity, and obtained canonical authority; while the Hebrew original was afterwards corrupted and interpolated by the Jewish-Christian sects, and in this heretical form called the Gospel of the Hebrews, which lost or rather never enjoyed canonical authority (p.42) [ John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Matthew, 1879 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008)]

So what you are left with is simply speculation as to an original Hebrew text relying on a questionable statement by Papias which by all accounts was "difficult to translate". And the fact that even your church has only considered the Greek version to be canonical.

Now maybe you should get together with the Hebrew roots people and hope something turns up and your church approves it as canonical. Until then you are stuck with the Greek only.