Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:15 pm

If Zakkai can be connected with zaddiq and this zacchaeus was portrayed as a 'tax-gatherer' one might see a window in terms of a spiritual understanding of the traditional priesthood 'collecting' the dues owed to the planetary watchers past whom the early sects imagined Christians ascending by means of 'redemption' baptism. Of course Zacchaeus being portrayed as a proselyte by Clement is problematic for this interpretation.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:18 pm

More from Neusner:

The sons of Zakkai were a clan of commoners, “the men of the people of Israel.” They were not among those distinguished as priests, Levites, Temple servants, sons of Solomon's servants, singers, or gatekeepers. Yet the clan amounted to something. In a group of less than forty-five thousand, a family of more than seven hundred fifty members must have been prominent.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:23 pm

On a circle of 'sons of Zakkai' active in eastern Christianity https://books.google.com/books?id=YhYQA ... 22&f=false An idol in a monastery named 'Zakkai' (there is also a monastery call Mar Zakkai near the former capitol of ISIS) which purified its devotees https://books.google.com/books?id=Z8dBA ... &q&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:31 pm

An interesting example of how we can reach the limits of knowledge with respect to 'Zacchaeus' is found in Sanhedrin 41:

ותניא ארבעים שנה קודם חורבן הבית גלתה סנהדרי וישבה לה בחנות ואמר ר' יצחק בר אבודימי לומר שלא דנו דיני קנסות דיני קנסות ס"ד אלא שלא דנו דיני נפשות

The Gemara continues its question: And it is taught in a baraita: Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone and sat in the store near the Temple Mount. And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: The intent of the statement concerning the relocation of the Sanhedrin is to say that they no longer judged laws of fines. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind to say that they no longer judged laws of fines? It is known that the Sanhedrin would judge laws of fines for hundreds of years after the destruction of the Temple. Rather, he must have said that the Sanhedrin no longer judged cases of capital law. Once the Sanhedrin left the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the court’s power to judge capital cases was nullified.

ותנן משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי

The Gemara concludes its question: And since as we learned in a mishna (Sukka 41a): Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted an ordinance that the mitzva of lulav should be performed even in the rest of the country for seven days in commemoration of the Temple, it is clear that he was in a position of prominence after the destruction of the Temple. Since the Sanhedrin ceased judging cases of capital law forty years before the destruction of the Temple, and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was in a position of prominence for only forty years, he could not have been a judge in a capital case.

אלא בן זכאי דעלמא הכי נמי מסתברא דאי ס"ד רבן יוחנן בן זכאי קרי ליה ר' בן זכאי

The Gemara suggests: Rather, one can say that it was merely a different person named ben Zakkai, not the well-known Sage of that name. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say this, as if it enters your mind that this was Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, would Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi call him ben Zakkai, without any title? He must have been referring to someone else.

והתניא מעשה ובדק רבן יוחנן בן זכאי בעוקצי תאנים אלא תלמיד היושב לפני רבו הוה ואמר מילתא ומסתבר להו טעמיה

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita explicitly: An incident occurred, and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai examined the witnesses with regard to the stems of figs? This proves that the Sage in question is Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. Rather, one can say that at that time, when this incident occurred, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was a student sitting before his teacher, and in those years the Sanhedrin was in its place and judged cases of capital law. And he said a matter in the course of examining the witnesses, and his reasoning was logical to them, and the judges asked his question,

41B
וקבעוה בשמיה כי הוה למד בן זכאי הוה קרי ליה כתלמיד היושב לפני רבו כי הוה לימד הוה קרי ליה רבן יוחנן בן זכאי כי קרי ליה בן זכאי על שם דמעיקרא וכי קרי ליה רבן יוחנן בן זכאי על שם דהשתא:

and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi established it in the mishna in his name. When he was studying, they called him ben Zakkai, in the manner that they would call a student sitting before his teacher, and when he was teaching others they called him Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. In terms of the baraita and the mishna, when they called him ben Zakkai in the Mishna, that was based on the name that he was called initially. And when they called him Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai in the other baraita, that was based on the name that he was called now.

מעשה ובדק כו' מה בין חקירות כו': מאי אפילו שנים אומרים פשיטא כי אמר אחד איני יודע עדותן קיימת כי אמרי בי תרי נמי עדותן קיימת

§ The mishna teaches: An incident occurred, and ben Zakkai examined the witnesses about the stems of figs. What is the difference between interrogations and examinations? In the case of interrogations, if one of the witnesses says: I do not know the answer, their testimony is void immediately. In the case of examinations, if one says: I do not know the answer, and even if two witnesses say: We do not know the answer, their testimony still stands. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Even if two say? Isn’t it obvious? The mishna already stated that when one witness says: I do not know, their testimony stands, indicating that knowledge of the answers to these types of questions is not required. Accordingly, when two witnesses say that they do not know, their testimony stands as well. What is the novelty of this ruling?

א"ר ששת ארישא קאי והכי קאמר בחקירות אפילו שנים אומרים ידענו ואחד אומר איני יודע עדותן בטילה כמאן כר"ע דמקיש שלשה לשנים

Rav Sheshet said: This clause is referring to the first clause of the mishna, and this is what it is saying: With regard to the interrogations, even if two witnesses say: We know, and one additional witness says: I do not know, their testimony is void. In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna written? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who compares in all court proceedings three witnesses to two, holding that just as two witnesses must testify a fully valid testimony, so it is with three. Therefore, if the third witness does not know the answer to an interrogation, the testimony of all three is void.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1348
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Got To Pay Your Dues If You Want To Be "The Jews"

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:46 pm

JW:
Mark 2
14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the [son] of Alphaeus sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.
It looks to me that "Mark" (author) is the original author of this story and playing his usual contrived name games:

Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Names Use As Evidence of Fiction

"Levi" just represents the Levites from the Jewish Bible who were the tax collectors (Priests).

"Alphaeus" refers to the Greek "alpha" = the first. An illustration of the key Parable of the Sower:
Mark 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; and when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the word which hath been sown in them.
Levi of Alphaeus is straightaway replaced by James of Alphaeus.

Ben, I fear you still don't fully appreciate that the most significant difference between GMark and GMatthew is that GMark does not want historical witness to promote his Jesus and GMatthew does want supposed historical witness to promote GMatthew's Jesus. By replacing Levi with Matthew as the taxman, "Matthew" can than have the same supposed person follow and witness his Jesus all The Way through.

My guess is the path for Levi's replacement went like this:
  • 1) A disciple wrote Q.

    2) Christianity converts the Greek word for disciple, Mathe*, into the proper name Matthias as the author of Q (as evidenced by Papias).

    3) GMark is the original Gospel narrative with Levi the taxman. GMark deliberately avoids Q since it is historical witness (again, evidenced by Papias, a book that he knows is fiction).

    4) GMatthew is written to replace GMark and claim historical witness. GMatthew wants and uses Q.

    5) The author of GMatthew thinks that a Matthew wrote Q and therefore also wrote GMark.

    6) GMatthew replaces Levi the taxman with Matthew the taxman to create a supposed historical witness all the way through. GMatthew's source GMark already has a Matthew in the list of disciples so he needs to replace one of the first callings in GMark and "Matthew" is available while "Levi of Alphaeus" is not in GMark's list of disciples.

    7) orthodox Christianity claims GMatthew was the original Gospel.

    8) The author of GMatthew knows that he wrote GMatthew and Matthew did not. But subsequent Christianity does not and claims "Matthew" wrote GMatthew.
Alternatively, the author of GMatthew may have simply replaced "Levi" with "Matthew" because he considered Levi "too Jewish".


Joseph

Book review of Gilad Atzmon's The Wandering Who?

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:26 pm

I wonder whether the disciple Zacchaeus might go back to the famous Nakkai disciple of Talmudic literature

(אתיוהו לנקאי אמר להו נקאי יהרג הכתיב (שמות כג, ז) ונקי וצדיק אל תהרוג אמרו לו אין נקאי יהרג דכתיב (תהלים י, ח) במסתרים יהרג נקי

Then they brought Nakai in to stand trial. Nakai said to the judges: Shall Nakai be executed? But isn’t it written: “And the innocent [naki] and righteous you shall not slay” (Exodus 23:7)? They said to him: Yes, Nakai shall be executed, as it is written: “In secret places he kills the innocent [naki]” (Psalms 10:8).

The roots behind both words are very similar and Qumran scholars suspect an interchange occurred in one of the fragments. Nun and zayin are very similar.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:36 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:56 pm
My current playing field involves the gospel characters known as Levi, Matthew, and Matthias.
Great thread and hard work.

btw Doesn't it look crazy how they fighted to substitute one name for another? :mrgreen:

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8643
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:50 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:36 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:56 pm
My current playing field involves the gospel characters known as Levi, Matthew, and Matthias.
Great thread and hard work.

btw Doesn't it look crazy how they fighted to substitute one name for another? :mrgreen:
Thanks. :)

I think the way the names are presented in most of these Christian materials is a bit crazy.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8643
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:54 pm

The stakes may have been pretty high in the early days to make sure that one's favorite teacher/preacher was one of the twelve.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1228
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by rakovsky » Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:32 pm

neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:27 am
Has anyone approached the question from the possibility that the literary Levi was replaced by the literary Matthew for an ideological/theological reason? -- The Call of Levi not to be one of the Twelve
I glanced through your article, which theorized that the calling of Levi was meant to refer to the calling of the gentiles.
Perhaps as you put it the call of Levi was not to be one of the Twelve, but the reason could be like the exclusion of "Levi" from the twelve Tribes of Israel. As I understand it, the descendants of the ancient Patriarch Levi made up the priesthood, and the twelve disciples were chosen in parallel with the Twelve Patriarchs of Israel. As such, the follower Levi could be paralleled to the ancient Israelite Patriarch Levi, who was not the forefather of a separate tribe.
I am just hypothesizing about the possibility of why Levi might not be a disciple due to an ideological/theological reason. My guess though is that the best way to harmonize the accounts is to equate Levi with Matthew since the callings are similar and in similar places if you arrange the Gospels side by side in a chronological harmony.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

Post Reply