Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:59 pmIf it is the case that Levi is not Matthew, then the only question would be why did (in my view) whoever translated and combined Matthew with Mark change Levi to Matthew? I'm thinking this was not the case in the original Hebrew Matthew, since I suspect only the NT Matthew was combined with Mark.

In other words, in my view the change from Levi to Matthew would have been made second hand, by the translator/combiner, and not the Matthew that Papias says wrote the original Hebrew version. How everything else would shake out under this scenario is beyond me at the moment.
As per the OP, the clear motive would be to make sure that Matthew, the famed author of an early gospel text, was a disciple and therefore an eyewitness. Two steps were taken in this direction:
  1. Add Matthew's name to the list of 12 where it was once lacking.
  2. Give Matthew a personal calling by Jesus himself.
Unfortunately for Levi, the easiest way to do #2 was to simply switch out a name (rather than to invent a completely new story).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Charles Wilson wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:24 amStephen Martyr "...went to sleep". Do you go to sleep when you are stoned?
Insofar as sleep is a metaphor for death, yes, one falls asleep when one is killed:

2 Maccabees 12.38-45: 38 Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was approaching, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there. 39 On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs. 40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. 42 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had fallen asleep [κοιμωμένοις] in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.

Yes, throwing stones is a common motif - in describing Judean sensibilities. How do we know which event is being described?

Alfred North Whitehead, "Nature Alive":

"The extension of observation waits upon some dim apprehension of reasonable connection. For example, the observation of insects on flowers dimly suggests some congruity between the natures of insects and of flowers, and thus leads to a wealth of observation from which whole branches of science have developed. But a consistent positivist should be content with the observed facts, namely insects visiting flowers. It is a fact of charming simplicity. There is nothing further to be said upon the matter, according to the doctrine of a positivist."

As we move to the Main Body of the Analysis, whether we come to ANY agreement will depend on how far you are willing to go in taking charming stories and seeing them as inverted stories, often involving Death.

Is the "Vinegar on a sponge on a hyssop stick" motif actually a (Coded!) vicious satire of the homosexual Vitellius? How about:

Matthew 25: 1, 10 - 11, 13 (RSV):

[1] "Then the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.
***
[10] And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut.
[11] Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.'
***
[13] Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

Mark 13: 33 - 37 (RSV):

[33] Take heed, watch; for you do not know when the time will come.
[34] It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch.
[35] Watch therefore -- for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning --
[36] lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.
[37] And what I say to you I say to all: Watch."

Can you see these as parts of the same Story?
Apparently not, no.
If you cannot, if every instance offered is rejected, there is nothing more to say. Go your way and I'll go mine.
I think you are correct. I thank you for the polite exchange.
Thank you, Ben.
Likewise.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:16 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:59 pmIf it is the case that Levi is not Matthew, then the only question would be why did (in my view) whoever translated and combined Matthew with Mark change Levi to Matthew? I'm thinking this was not the case in the original Hebrew Matthew, since I suspect only the NT Matthew was combined with Mark.

In other words, in my view the change from Levi to Matthew would have been made second hand, by the translator/combiner, and not the Matthew that Papias says wrote the original Hebrew version. How everything else would shake out under this scenario is beyond me at the moment.
As per the OP, the clear motive would be to make sure that Matthew, the famed author of an early gospel text, was a disciple and therefore an eyewitness. Two steps were taken in this direction:
  1. Add Matthew's name to the list of 12 where it was once lacking.
  2. Give Matthew a personal calling by Jesus himself.
Unfortunately for Levi, the easiest way to do #2 was to simply switch out a name (rather than to invent a completely new story).

I'm confused about what you mean by # 1. Maybe I missed something, but you say in the OP, "Matthew makes every list of the twelve apostles known to me." if this is the case, then doesn't Matthew's name in the list of the Twelve alone imply that he had a personal calling by Jesus?

You also wrote in the OP:
I have to admit that it has long bothered me that Levi of Alphaeus does not appear in the apostolic lists, especially in Mark (yet a certain James of Alphaeus does make the list). He is one of only five disciples (alongside Peter, Andrew, James, and John) whose personal calling is narrated; he obeys the summons; why is he not an apostle? Why was his calling narrated instead of, say, that of Simon the Zealot or Philip or Thomas?



I came across something I don't recall anyone mentioning here:

There is a well known various reading in Mk ii 14, where instead of Levi (or Levis) son of Alphaeus ... texts have 'James son of Alphaeus' ...

https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-ab ... edFrom=PDF



Would it help if Mark originally said "James" instead of "Levi"?
Last edited by John2 on Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:14 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:16 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:59 pmIf it is the case that Levi is not Matthew, then the only question would be why did (in my view) whoever translated and combined Matthew with Mark change Levi to Matthew? I'm thinking this was not the case in the original Hebrew Matthew, since I suspect only the NT Matthew was combined with Mark.

In other words, in my view the change from Levi to Matthew would have been made second hand, by the translator/combiner, and not the Matthew that Papias says wrote the original Hebrew version. How everything else would shake out under this scenario is beyond me at the moment.
As per the OP, the clear motive would be to make sure that Matthew, the famed author of an early gospel text, was a disciple and therefore an eyewitness. Two steps were taken in this direction:
  1. Add Matthew's name to the list of 12 where it was once lacking.
  2. Give Matthew a personal calling by Jesus himself.
Unfortunately for Levi, the easiest way to do #2 was to simply switch out a name (rather than to invent a completely new story).
I'm confused about what you mean by # 1. Maybe I missed something, but you say in the OP, "Matthew makes every list of the twelve apostles known to me."
Yes, but the OP offers the hypothesis that the original list lacked his name (and also lacked Judas Iscariot's name). This would explain why we have a total of 14 names (Simon/Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, Levi/Lebbaeus, James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Jude of James, Simon the Cananaean, Judas Iscariot) among the various lists: two of them were added later, pushing previous ones out. But which two? Judas is probably one of them because 1 Corinthians 15.5 mentions an appearance to "the twelve," implying a state of affairs in which none of the twelve is known to be a traitor. And I also argue in the OP that Matthias = Matthew, implying that Matthew was added to the list only later, to follow a suggestion by Klijn to the effect that both the Matthean takeover of Levi's calling and the election of Matthias are independent ways to insert the gospel author into the apostolic band.
So why would there be any need to steal Levi's big scene?
Actually describing the scene is more potent than merely adding a name to a list.
I came across something I don't recall anyone mentioning here:
There is a well known various reading in Mk ii 14, where instead of Levi (or Levis) son of Alphaeus the Western texts have 'James son of Alphaeus' ...

https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-ab ... edFrom=PDF
I mention this datum in the OP. But I offer no hypothesis about it.
Would it help if Mark originally said "James" instead of "Levi"?
Give me a trajectory and accompanying reasons for it. I would love to see the Western text explained here. :)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by John2 »

Give me a trajectory and accompanying reasons for it. I would love to see the Western text explained here
You were too fast for me (I'm at work). I edited my citation to better reflect that other texts have the same variant (both copies of the Arabic Diatessaron and Origen). I just saw it today and I don't know what to make of it.
Last edited by John2 on Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:14 pmWould it help if Mark originally said "James" instead of "Levi"?
For whatever it may be worth, my current opinion on this issue is the boring one. Basically, I am not the only one who has been confused that Levi receives a personal calling in the gospel while simultaneously not making the list of the twelve; some ancient scribe noticed this too, and also noticed that Levi was called the son of Alphaeus in Mark 2.14, so s/he assumed that Levi was a mistake for James. Voilà, problem solved. Everybody who receives a personal calling also makes the list of the twelve.

What this hypothesis does not explain, of course, is why there is a Levi of Alphaeus and a James of Alphaeus to meld in the first place. Is it the same Alphaeus? Who is he, anyway?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by John2 »

Who is he, anyway?
I know! I've been wondering that all day.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:35 pm
Give me a trajectory and accompanying reasons for it. I would love to see the Western text explained here
You were too fast for me (I'm at work). I edited my citation to better reflect that other texts have the same variant (both copies of the Arabic Diatessaron and Origen). I just saw it today and I don't know what to make of it.
Here is Burkitt's entire note (composite image):

Levi Son of Alphaeus, by F. C. Burkitt.jpg
Levi Son of Alphaeus, by F. C. Burkitt.jpg (287.96 KiB) Viewed 7751 times
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I did not know that about the Arabic Diatessaron! I have added an ETA to the OP on this point. Thanks, John!
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:36 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:14 pmWould it help if Mark originally said "James" instead of "Levi"?
For whatever it may be worth, my current opinion on this issue is the boring one. Basically, I am not the only one who has been confused that Levi receives a personal calling in the gospel while simultaneously not making the list of the twelve; some ancient scribe noticed this too, and also noticed that Levi was called the son of Alphaeus in Mark 2.14, so s/he assumed that Levi was a mistake for James. Voilà, problem solved. Everybody who receives a personal calling also makes the list of the twelve.
Burkitt argues much the same thing in his note, it turns out.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply