Gospel Collaboration

Catholics left out the word firstborn from Matthew 1:25. I guess it may create a distraction from the fact the word firstborn was used in another Gospel account.

The Diatessron used the word firstborn showing the thought was very much in the mind of the early church.

Jerome admits the word is in the text but argues the implications. Since Jerome and those he argued with concerning Matthew 1:25 all admitted it was present in their text, and the argument was in Rome, we know the texts used in Rome contained it.

Perhaps the best argument the word was part of the original teaching and very much in the mind of the Church is Luke's usage in Luke 2.

Luk 2:7  And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Luke's usage is nowhere questioned and Luke says he got his information from multiple eye witnesses and ministers of the word.

Luk 1:1  Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Luk 1:2  Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Luke's wording was attested by all the Apostles and were part of the mainstream belief of the Church. The idea of "firstborn" was doctrine before Luke wrote, so it likely was in Matthew, even though some African manuscripts don't have it, the Textus Receptus does. Since the diatessaron has it and Jerome's version had it, we can't consider it a later edition into the 9th century manuscripts.

The Catholic deception concerning Matthew 1:25 doesn't diminish the Churches belief that Jesus was Mary's firstborn, and that Mary gave birth naturally by tearing the hymen. Since some manuscripts leave out firstborn in Matthew, we can simply turn to Luke for collaboration.