Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

[John2]

Ah, and as Burkitt notes, the "strongest external testimony" for Levi is Luke. Yeah, that seems to close the case. So I guess all I'm left with is: Levi (in Mark) is not Matthew or James. Then Matthew (or as I see it, the translator who created the NT Matthew) decided to change it to Matthew for some reason, which resulted in confusion about the identity of Levi and Matthew (and James). I'm almost content to let the confusion be and only worry about why Mark has a special calling for Levi but doesn't list him (at least by that name) as one of the Twelve. Is it really that big of a deal?

[Ben C. Smith]

Ah, and as Burkitt notes, the "strongest external testimony" for Levi is Luke. Yeah, that seems to close the case. So I guess all I'm left with is: Levi (in Mark) is not Matthew or James. Then Matthew (or as I see it, the translator who created the NT Matthew) decided to change it for some reason, which resulted in confusion about the identity of Levi and Matthew (and James). I'm almost content to let the confusion be and only worry about why Mark has a special calling for Levi but doesn't list him (at least by that name) as one of the Twelve. Is it really that big of a deal?

Nothing we do on this forum is "that big a deal." It is all for fun and mental exercise, from my perspective. (Not that the mental exercise is of no benefit; it certainly can be.)

But my theory from the OP is that Levi/Lebbaeus was originally on the list, and that the tradition gave him a calling in Jericho. But the list added to Mark is secondary (as implied by the grammatical chaos involved in its insertion), and came from a time when Matthew and Judas had already pushed two people off the list, including poor Levi. Levi's calling, however, remained, and was eventually moved forward in the gospel to a less suitable location than its original spot.

[John2]

But my theory from the OP is that Levi/Lebbaeus was originally on the list, and that the tradition gave him a calling in Jericho. But the list added to Mark is secondary (as implied by the grammatical chaos involved in its insertion), and came from a time when Matthew and Judas had already pushed two people off the list, including poor Levi. Levi's calling, however, remained, and was eventually moved forward in the gospel to a less suitable location than its original spot.

But if I've followed your thread correctly, isn't Levi still on the list of the Twelve in Mark via a roundabout way, as Thaddaeus/Lebbaeus? Is the question then why Levi is also called Thaddaeus/Lebbaeus in Mark rather than why was Levi pushed off the list?

[Ben C. Smith]

But my theory from the OP is that Levi/Lebbaeus was originally on the list, and that the tradition gave him a calling in Jericho. But the list added to Mark is secondary (as implied by the grammatical chaos involved in its insertion), and came from a time when Matthew and Judas had already pushed two people off the list, including poor Levi. Levi's calling, however, remained, and was eventually moved forward in the gospel to a less suitable location than its original spot.

But if I've followed your thread correctly, isn't Levi still on the list of the Twelve in Mark via a roundabout way, as Thaddaeus/Lebbaeus? Is the question then why Levi is also called Thaddaeus/Lebbaeus in Mark rather than why was Levi pushed off the list?

I do not take Thaddaeus and Lebbaeus to be the same person; rather, Levi and Lebbaeus may well be.

I do think that Lebbaeus/Levi were originally on the list, yes, and of course all of this requires the list to have been transmitted on its own account apart from its gospel context(s). So the Western list in Mark 3 would reflect a slight and very predictable adjustment to my stage 2b, as follows:

Stage 2b: Matthew takes a spot on the list, and Lebbaeus moves over to replace Thaddaeus.

Hypothetical Reconstruction
Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew;
Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas;
James of Alphaeus, Lebbaeus, Jude of James, Simon the Cananaean.

Stage 3a: Judas takes Jude/Judas of James' spot on the list.

Mark apud Vaticanus
Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew;
Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas;
James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, Judas Iscariot.

Stage 3c: Judas takes Jude/Judas of James' spot on the list.

Mark apud Bezae
Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew;
Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas;
James of Alphaeus, Lebbaeus, Simon the Cananaean, Judas Iscariot.

In other words, a Western scribe faced with the 2b list on its own and a different list (our canonical one) in Mark 3 took Thaddaeus to be a mistake for Lebbaeus.

On the other hand, maybe Lebbaeus was in the Marcan list from its very insertion, but was corrected to Thaddaeus from the Matthean list by assimilation (an extremely common phenomenon from Matthew to Mark). This may be a simpler scenario:

Mark apud Bezae
Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew;
Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas;
James of Alphaeus, Lebbaeus, Simon the Cananaean, Judas Iscariot.

Matthew
Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John;
Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew;
James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, Judas Iscariot.

Mark apud Vaticanus
Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew;
Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas;
James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, Judas Iscariot.

But then we would need to explain why Matthew, finding Lebbaeus in Mark, went with Thaddaeus instead.

[mlinssen]

Diagram 1:


Levi, Matthew, & Matthias 1.png

A Quickie, Ben you sure know how to dump tons of info in one lil post LOL

A thought: perhaps Matthias was not to be taken seriously?
James David Audlin recently published a fun paper on "Simon Peter's name totally Rocks!" and I'm thinking of doing a shameless plug on that:


Simon Petros, The Rock - and yes that is exactly what Thomas means. The Tanakh Rock, God, YHWH - that one. The same Rock of logion 9 that offers no depth, that didn't give you access to earth - the earth you need to work so it brings forth fruit, the branch (notice that TAR is only one letter from THR, The All of logion 1)

Simon gives the expected answer in logion 13, the Judaic answer: a Righteous messenger. Righteous - no explanation needed there. 

Matthew? Noticed the quote in the middle: the very last three letters, and the apostrophe, in https://www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos ... can/03.jpg and then the word continues on the next page https://www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos ... can/04.jpg

ⲙⲁⲑⲧ https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C9683 is short for disciple, ⲑⲁⲓⲟⲥ is the extension of -an, -ew, in Roman, Hebrew, and ⲅⲉⲑ-ⲑⲁⲓⲟⲥ is the perfect example of how it works: Git-tite https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C8658

Mat-thew thus is the proverbial disciple, and gives the proverbial answer in logion 13: a wise philosopher

EDIT start: And thus it is that Thomas once again ridicules what is valued by most: religion and philosophy. Hidden of course, and the casual observer wouldn't notice. This is how Thomas operates, and he is full of wordplay like this. Vile, hidden, secret wordplay that ridicules, continuously. EDIT end

Did they spot that, and thence exclude him? I find that hard to believe, given all their sloppiness, but it would be a plausible reason. Likewise for Jacob the Righteous perhaps, the so very evident pointer to the Jacob of Isaac? Perhaps

Now, I'm going to read the remainder of your post. I think

[gryan]

Gospel of the Hebrews 3: 3 [Οὔχ ὁ Μαθθαῖος ἀλλὰ] Μαθθίας [καὶ ὁ̣ Λ̣ε̣υ̣ὶς εἷς διώνυμοί εἰσιν.] .... / 3 [Not Matthew but rather] Matthias [and Levi are one person with a double name.] ....

It is not clear to me whether this Jewish-Christian gospel actually made a point of identifying Matthias with Levi instead of Matthew...

Re: Was Matthias Levi?
;
This is a great thread by Ben Smith. I'm with him until this point in the OP; however, in my view, it is clear that Levi was Matthias, not Matthew, according to GHebrews 3:

“It seems that Matthew is named Levi in the Gospel of Luke. But this is not he; it is Matthias, the one who replaced Judas, who is the same as Levi, known by two names. This appears in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.” (Didymus the Blind, Commentary on the Psalms 184.9–10, in B. Ehrman and Z. Pleše, Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations)
https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%93%D0% ... ations.pdf