For those of us who think that there are probably lost texts and traditions behind all of our extant gospel materials, trying to figure out what those lost texts and traditions might have looked like can prove an irresistable temptation. By definition, we do not possess the purported lost materials, and it is not impossible that we are mistaken about their very existence, so by necessity we are relying mainly upon internal evidence rather than external. That is just the nature of the sport. It is a matter of coming up with informed and cohesive conjectures.
My current playing field involves the gospel characters known as Levi, Matthew, and Matthias. A couple of other characters will have to be brought in off the bench, as well, in due time. I will divide my efforts into sections, each section bearing a title which either equates two characters or refutes the equation.
For reference, I use the English name Matthew for the Greek names Μαθθαῖος, Ματθαῖος, and Μάθθεος (and their equivalents), but the Anglicized name Matthias for the Greek names Μαθθίας and Ματθίας (and their equivalents).
Levi is not Matthew.
It eventually became something of a commonplace among the church fathers that Matthew and Levi are alternate names for the same apostle. The basic reason for this is that the calling of Matthew (in the gospel of Matthew) and the calling of Levi (in the gospels of Mark and Luke) are virtually identical:
Mark 2.13-14: 13 And He went out again by the seashore; and all the people were coming to Him, and He was teaching them. 14 As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He says to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him.
Luke 5.27-28: 27 After that He went out and noticed a publican named Levi sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, "Follow Me." 28 And he left everything behind, and got up and began to follow Him.
But it seems unlikely that a Palestinian man would bear these two names. Richard Bauckham is well known for his work with Palestinian names; his conclusions can be controversial, but his analysis and data are very valuable. He writes in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses that "if Matthew and Levi were the same person, we should be confronted with the virtually unparalleled phenomenon of a Palestinian Jew bearing two common Semitic personal names (Matthew: ninth most popular, 62 occurrences; Levi: seventeenth most common, 25 occurrences). This is a quite different case from that of an individual having both a Semitic and a Greek or Latin name, as well as from that of an individual having a Semitic name and also a nickname or family name."
I regard it, therefore, as more likely that Levi and Matthew are two different people, and that one has been switched out for the other for some reason in one or two of the gospels.
Of the two men, Matthew is by far the more notable. As I mentioned, most of the church fathers thought of Levi and Matthew as the same person, but they used the name Matthew far more often than they used the name Levi. For example:
Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.16: 16 περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαίου ταῦτ' εἴρηται· «Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ' αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος». / 16 These things therefore are recorded by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew he says these: "Matthew therefore in the Hebrew dialect ordered together the oracles, and each one interpreted them as he was able."
Matthew, of course, came to be universally regarded as the author of the first canonical gospel. His rank among both the Twelve Apostles and the Four Evangelists secured him everlasting fame in Christendom.
Levi, on the other hand, is rarely mentioned by name. There are only rare occasions when he does not find himself being folded into Matthew, or where he is at least being called by his given name. But it does happen:
Mary 18: 18 Then [M]ary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what are you imagining? Do you think that I have thought up these things by myself in my heart or that I am telling lies about the Savior?" Levi [Λευε(ὶ)ς, papyrus Rylands 463, verso] answered, speaking to Peter, "Peter, you have always been a wrathful person. Now I see you contending against the woman like the Adversaries. For if the Savior made her worthy, who are you then for your part to reject her? Assuredly the Savior's knowledge of her is completely reliable. That is why he loved her more than us. Rather we should be ashamed. We should clothe ourselves with the perfect Human, acquire it for ourselves as he commanded us, and announce the good news, not laying down any other rule or law that differs from what the Savior said. After 19 [he had said these] things, they [in the Greek, Levi] started going out [to] teach and to preach.
Didascalia: He suffered, then, at the sixth hour on Friday. And these hours wherein our Lord was crucified were reckoned a day. And afterwards, again, there was darkness for three hours; and it was reckoned a night. And again, from the ninth hour until evening, three hours, (reckoned) a day. And afterwards again, (there was) the night of the Sabbath of the Passion. But in the Gospel of Matthew it is thus written: At even on the sabbath, when the first day of the week drew on, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the tomb. And there was a great earthquake: for an angel of the Lord came down and rolled away the stone. And again (there was) the day of the Sabbath; and then three hours of the night after the Sabbath, wherein our Lord slept. And that was fulfilled which He said: The Son of man must pass three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, as it is written in the Gospel. And again it is written in David: Behold, thou hast set my days in measure. Now because those days and nights came short, it was so written. In the night, therefore, when the first day of the week drew on, He appeared to Mary Magdalene and to Mary the daughter of James; and in the morning of the first day of the week He went in to (the house of) Levi [compare Peter 14.60 above]; and then He appeared also to us ourselves. [Link: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... calia.html.]
Book of the Bee 48: Matthew the Evangelist was from Nazareth, of the tribe of Issachar. He preached in Palestine, Tyre, and Sidon, and went as far as Gabbûlâ. He died and was buried in Antioch, a city of Pisidia. .... Levi was slain by Charmus while he was teaching in Paneas.
[Link: https://archive.org/stream/Budge1886The ... 1/mode/2up. This text also distinguishes between Simon (Peter) and Cephas; refer to viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2767&p=61756#p61756.]
Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 4.9: 9 Τοῦτον ἐξηγούμενος τὸν τόπον Ἡρακλέων ὁ τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς δοκιμώτατος κατὰ λέξιν φησὶν ὁμολογίαν εἶναι τὴν μὲν ἐν πίστει καὶ πολιτείᾳ, τὴν δὲ ἐν φωνῇ. «ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐν φωνῇ ὁμολογία καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν γίνεται, ἣν μόνην, φησίν, ὁμολογίαν ἡγοῦνται εἶναι οἱ πολλοὶ οὐχ ὑγιῶς, δύνανται δὲ ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν καὶ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ὁμολογεῖν. ἀλλ' οὐδ' εὑρεθήσεται οὗτος ὁ λόγος καθολικῶς εἰρημένος· οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ σῳζόμενοι ὡμολόγησαν τὴν διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογίαν καὶ ἐξῆλθον, ἐξ ὧν Ματθαῖος, Φίλιππος, Θωμᾶς, Λευῒς καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί. καὶ ἔστιν ἡ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογία οὐ καθολική, ἀλλὰ μερική. καθολικὴ δὲ ἣν νῦν λέγει, ἡ ἐν ἔργοις καὶ πράξεσι καταλλήλοις τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίστεως. ἕπεται δὲ ταύτῃ τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ καὶ ἡ μερικὴ ἡ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν, ἐὰν δέῃ καὶ ὁ λόγος αἱρῇ. ὁμολογήσει γὰρ οὗτος καὶ τῇ φωνῇ, ὀρθῶς προομολογήσας πρότερον τῇ διαθέσει. καὶ καλῶς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ὁμολογούντων «ἐν ἐμοὶ» εἶπεν, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀρνουμένων τὸ «ἐμὲ» προσέθηκεν. οὗτοι γάρ, κἂν τῇ φωνῇ ὁμολογήσωσιν αὐτόν, ἀρνοῦνται αὐτόν, τῇ πράξει μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες. μόνοι δ' ἐν αὐτῷ ὁμολογοῦσιν οἱ ἐν τῇ κατ' αὐτὸν πολιτείᾳ καὶ πράξει βιοῦντες, ἐν οἷς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁμολογεῖ ἐνειλημμένος αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐχόμενος ὑπὸ τούτων. διόπερ ἀρνήσασθαι αὐτὸν οὐδέποτε δύνανται· ἀρνοῦνται δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ μὴ ὄντες ἐν αὐτῷ. οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν «ὃς ἀρνήσηται ἐν ἐμοί», ἀλλ' «ἐμέ»· οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε ὢν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀρνεῖται αὐτόν. τὸ δὲ «ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,» καὶ τῶν σῳζομένων καὶ τῶν ἐθνικῶν δὲ ὁμοίως παρ' οἷς μὲν καὶ τῇ πολιτείᾳ, παρ' οἷς δὲ καὶ τῇ φωνῇ. [διόπερ ἀρνήσασθαι αὐτὸν οὐδέποτε δύνανται· ἀρνοῦνται δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ μὴ ὄντες ἐν αὐτῷ.]» Ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Ἡρακλέων. / 9 .... In explanation of this passage [Luke 12.11-12], Heracleon, the most distinguished of the school of Valentinians, says expressly, that "there is a confession by faith and conduct, and one with the voice. The confession that is made with the voice, and before the authorities, is what the most reckon the only confession. Not soundly: and hypocrites also can confess with this confession. But neither will this utterance be found to be spoken universally; for all the saved have confessed with the confession made by the voice, and departed, of whom are Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levis, and many others. And confession by the lip is not universal, but partial. But that which He specifies now is universal, that which is by deeds and actions corresponding to faith in Him. This confession is followed by that which is partial, that before the authorities, if necessary, and reason dictate. For he will confess rightly with his voice who has first confessed by his disposition. And he has well used, with regard to those who confess, the expression 'in Me,' and applied to those who deny the expression 'Me.' For those, though they confess Him with the voice, yet deny Him, not confessing Him in their conduct. But those alone confess 'in Him,' who live in the confession and conduct according to Him, in which He also confesses, who is contained in them and held by them. Wherefore 'He never can deny Himself.' And those deny Him who are not in Him. For He said not, 'Whosoever shall deny' in Me, but 'Me.' For no one who is in Him will ever deny Him. And the expression 'before men?' applies both to the saved and the heathen similarly by conduct before the one, and by voice before the other. Wherefore they never can deny Him. But those deny Him who are not in Him." So far Heracleon.
Origen, Against Celsus 1.62: 62 Μετὰ ταῦτα δ' ἐπεὶ μηδὲ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐπιστάμενος δέκα εἶπεν ἢ ἕνδεκά τινας ἐξαρτησάμενον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἑαυτῷ ἐπιρρήτους ἀνθρώπους, τελώνας καὶ ναύτας τοὺς πονηροτάτους, μετὰ τούτων τῇδε κἀκεῖσε αὐτὸν ἀποδεδρακέναι, αἰσχρῶς καὶ γλίσχρως τροφὰς συνάγοντα⌋, φέρε καὶ περὶ τούτων κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν διαλάβωμεν. Φανερὸν δέ ἐστι τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν εὐαγγελικοῖς λόγοις, οὓς ⌊οὐδ' ἀνεγνωκέναι ὁ Κέλσος φαίνεται, ὅτι δώδεκα ἀποστόλους ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐπελέξατο, τελώνην μὲν τὸν Ματθαῖον, οὓς δ' εἶπε συγκεχυμένως ναύτας τάχα τὸν Ἰάκωβον καὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην φησίν, ἐπεὶ καταλιπόντες τὸ πλοῖον καὶ «τὸν πατέρα αὐτῶν Ζεβεδαῖον» ἠκολούθησαν τῷ Ἰησοῦ. Τὸν γὰρ Πέτρον καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ Ἀνδρέαν, ἀμφιβλήστρῳ χρωμένους διὰ τὰς ἀναγκαίας τροφάς, οὐκ ἐν ναύταις ἀλλ' ὡς ἀνέγραψεν ἡ γραφή, ἐν ἁλιεῦσιν ἀριθμητέον. Ἔστω δὲ καὶ ὁ Λευὴς τελώνης ἀκολουθήσας τῷ Ἰησοῦ· ἀλλ' οὔτι γε τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ ἦν εἰ μὴ κατά τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου. Τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν οὐ μεμαθήκαμεν τὰ ἔργα, ὅθεν πρὸ τῆς μαθητείας τοῦ Ἰησοῦ περιεποίουν ἑαυτοῖς τὰς τροφάς. / 62 And after such statements, showing his ignorance even of the number of the apostles, he proceeds thus: "Jesus having gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious character, the very wickedest of publicans and sailors, fled in company with them from place to place, and obtained his living in a shameful and importunate manner." Let us to the best of our power see what truth there is in such a statement. It is manifest to us all who possess the Gospel narratives, which Celsus does not appear even to have read, that Jesus selected twelve apostles, and that of these Matthew alone was a publican; that when he calls them indiscriminately sailors, he probably means James and John, because they left their ship and their father Zebedee, and followed Jesus; for Peter and his brother Andrew, who employed a net to gain their necessary subsistence, must be classed not as sailors, but as the Scripture describes them, as fishermen. And Leves also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a publican; but he was not of the number of the apostles, except according to a statement in one of the copies of Mark's Gospel. And we have not ascertained the employments of the remaining disciples, by which they earned their livelihood before becoming disciples of Jesus.
That last passage, the one from Origen, is of interest for several reasons.
First, Origen upbraids Celsus for saying that Jesus gathered "ten or eleven" persons to himself, instead of specifying twelve. What I wonder, I suppose, is whether the apostolic lists and mentions of the Twelve might not be among the last parts of the gospel narratives to have been added. What if Celsus used gospel proto-texts which did not have Twelve official disciples? Collecting just speaking or acting parts from our four canonical gospels, one can conjure a list of around 10 or 11, more or less: Levi, Matthew, James, John, Andrew, Peter, Judas, Philip, Thomas, Nathanael, and Nicodemus? Of course, this list comes from our extant canonical gospels; if proto-gospels existed, it would not be easy to be sure which disciples were named as having roles in the narrative. In a post which is going to indulge in more than its fair share of conjecture already, this particular notion is even further afield than the rest will be. But I do wonder why Celsus would not specify 12, assuming he is being cited fairly.
Second, Celsus seems to have written about publicans (plural) among Jesus' followers. Origen again upbraids him for this, conceding that both Matthew and Levi may have been publicans, but then averring that only the former was an apostle, thus robbing Celsus of Levi as a possible referent for the plural noun. Origen seems to assume that the ten or eleven worthless fellows which Celsus mentions must rank as apostles or not count at all, but on what basis ought we to follow him in this judgment, given that it seems to rather unfairly import a concept into Celsus' thinking which may not have been there? In our extant texts, Jesus tells Levi to follow him, and Levi does so. If that does not count as Jesus gathering Levi to himself, what would? Rather, if we let Celsus' statement stand, and if we take it seriously (pressing the plural for its literal meaning), there is no reason for him not to have meant precisely Matthew and Levi as the publicans and James and John as the sailors (since they seem to own a boat).
Third, Origen states that he knew a copy of Mark in which Levi was an apostle! I will return to this matter below.
One more patristic notice which separates Levi from Matthew: in his Commentary on the Diatessaron Ephraem Syrus writes that Matthew evangelized amongst the Indians and in Judea, but that Levi (later down the list of names) evangelized below Pontus (Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, page 560).
To get back to the issue of Matthew and Levi, however, my guess would be that Levi held his place first in the gospel narrative of his calling, before Matthew took over his story in Matthew 9.9. If Matthew had been there first, why would Levi have been ushered in to replace him? I can think of one reason, especially in the case of someone like Marcion: Matthew may have been viewed as a rival evangelist. So I would not say it is impossible for Matthew to have been the converted publican before Levi, but I do think it is less likely. Once Matthew had found a place in the gospel narrative, it seems unlikely that he should have been displaced for the much less illustrious Levi.
Levi may be Lebbaeus.
The spelling of the name Levi evinces some variation. The gospels have Λευί or Λευίς. Clement has the latter. A certain kind of phonetic overlap can yield Λευείς. Origen has Λευὴς.
The pronunciation of this name can start to tilt a bit toward the pronunciation of another name, one which appears only in certain gospel manuscripts. I refer to Lebbaeus:
Mark 3.16-19: 16 And He appointed the twelve; and to Simon he gave the name Peter, 17 and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder"); 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus [D Λεββαῖον], and Simon the Zealot; 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.
Luke 6.13-16: 13 And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles: 14 Simon, whom He also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James and John; and Philip and Bartholomew; 15 and Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot; 16 Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
Acts 1.13: 13 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.
Apostolic Constitutions 6.14: 14 On whose account also we, who are now assembled in one place — Peter and Andrew; James and John, sons of Zebedee; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus [Λεββαῖος, codex h Λευαῖος] who is surnamed Thaddaeus; and Simon the Canaanite, and Matthias, who instead of Judas was numbered with us; and James the brother of the Lord and bishop of Jerusalem, and Paul the teacher of the Gentiles, the chosen vessel, having all met together — have written to you this Catholic doctrine for the confirmation of you, to whom the oversight of the universal Church is committed....
Apostolic Constitutions 8.25: 25 And I, Lebbaeus [Λεββαῖος, codex d Λεβαῖος], surnamed Thaddaeus [Θαδδαῖος, codex a Θαδαῖος], make this constitution in regard to widows....
Where Luke and Acts have Jude/Judas of James, and where most manuscripts of Matthew and Mark have Thaddaeus, certain manuscripts of Matthew and Mark (notably Bezae) have Lebbaeus instead. Some of them equate Thaddaeus with Lebbaeus. The Apostolic Constitutions make this same equation; the spelling of Lebbaeus in codex h of 6.14, Λευαῖος, comes very close to looking and sounding something like Λευείς. It has accordingly been suggested by several scholars that Lebbaeus is an attempt to draw Levi into the circle of the twelve, seeing as how his calling by Jesus was given such a specialized treatment in all three synoptics.
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?
My thoughts on this point go in different directions.
On the one hand, as I intimated above, perhaps the apostolic lists were among the last elements added to the gospels, and by the time they were inserted Matthew was already thought to be another name for Levi; hence Levi's absence in favor of the preferred name of Matthew. Mark's apostolic list is embedded in a patch of text which is simply swarming with textual variants, and the list itself begins with possibly the worst example of anacoluthon in the entire gospel. Perhaps both the anacoluthon and the textual variants are the result of the list having been artificially inserted and then possibly tinkered with.
On the other hand, perhaps Levi was on the original list, and Origen still had a copy of Mark in which this was so; at this early stage Levi and Matthew were not yet conflated, so Levi enjoyed his own listing. Once the two men were thought to be one, there was nothing to tie Levi's name to the Levi who was called in Mark 2.13-14 anymore, since that man was thought to be Matthew and Matthew was already on the list, and Levi eventually morphed into Lebbaeus, perhaps under the influence of confusion with Thaddaeus.
I will return to this matter once I have had a chance to lay out some more information about Matthew.
In the meantime, Thaddaeus is not the only apostle equated with Lebbaeus. Pseudo-Hippolytus equates Lebbaeus with Jude/Judas. Luke's apostolic list (along with the list in Acts) lists neither Thaddaeus nor Lebbaeus, but rather Jude/Judas of James. Therefore it must have been a tremendous temptation to equate Jude/Judas with Thaddaeus/Lebbaeus. I imagine this move was made later rather than sooner, however, in the spirit of harmonizing the various gospel accounts.
Matthew is Matthias.
Matthew makes every list of the twelve apostles known to me. Matthias, however, joins the gang only in Acts 1.21-26, after the defection of Judas Iscariot and in order to replace him. This passage creates apologetic work for the likes of Origen, who is left explaining how Jesus can have appeared to the twelve, as 1 Corinthians 15.5 has it, if Judas had already defected:
He does the best he can with what he has to work with, I suppose, but his inclusion of Matthias with the twelve during their resurrection appearance defies the chronology of Luke-Acts, which postpones Matthias' election to the apostolate until after Jesus' ascension. But it is not my purpose here to clear up those kinds of chronological discrepancies.
Matthew, of course, is known as one of the principal tradents of the Jesus tradition. Papias, on the authority of his elder John, names Matthew as the author of a collection of logia. Whether that collection is to be equated with our first canonical gospel or not, of course Matthew was named as that gospel's author, as well.
Matthias, interestingly, is also known as an important tradent of the Jesus tradition:
Eusebius, History of the Church 3.25.6: 6 But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers — we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them [ὡς Πέτρου καὶ Θωμᾶ καὶ Ματθία ἢ καί τινων παρὰ τούτους ἄλλων εὐαγγέλια περιεχούσας], and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.
The "gospel according to Matthew" is still extant, of course, but there was, according to Origen, also a "gospel according to Matthias." One cannot be sure whether Origen was thinking of the same text which Clement calls the "traditions of Matthias," but it is clear that Matthias was viewed as a fountainhead of dominical traditions:
Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 3.4, writing of the gnostics: 4 .... They say that Matthias [τὸν Ματθίαν] also taught thus: "To fight against the flesh and misuse it, in no way giving in to it for unchastised pleasure, and to increase the soul through faith and knowledge." ....
Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 7.13: 13 .... And they say that Matthias the apostle in the traditions [Ματθίαν τὸν ἀπόστολον ἐν ταῖς Παραδόσεσι] says at every turn, "If the neighbor of an elect one sins, the elect one sins. For, if he had led himself as the word dictates, the neighbor would have been ashamed of his life so as not to sin."
Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 7.17: 17 .... But some of the heresies are addressed by the name [of the founder], as that of Valentinus and that of Marcion and that of Basilides, and they boast that the glory of Matthias [Ματθίου] is attached to them. For, just as the teaching of all the apostles is one, so also the tradition. ....
Matthias seems to have been especially important for gnostics like Basilides:
The book of Thomas the Contender opens with the following: "The secret words that the savior spoke to Judas Thomas which I, even I, Mathaias, wrote down, while I was walking, listening to them speak with one another." Here Matthias is associated with Thomas, reminding me of how Origen in his homily on Luke (the quotation of which I gave above) mentioned the spurious gospels of Thomas and Matthias in the same breath. Recall also that Eusebius (as quoted above) mentioned the spurious gospels of Peter, of Thomas, and of Matthias in the same breath. So Matthias can find himself paired either with Thomas or with both Thomas and Peter as key tradents for what the orthodox church fathers would consider spurious tradition from and about Jesus.
It is notable, then, that in all three of the synoptic apostolic lists Matthew is listed side by side with Thomas (the same is true of the list given in the Apostolic Constitutions). And it is notable that the gospel of Thomas links Matthias both with Peter and with Thomas:
And it is notable that Matthew and Matthias are actually just Greek variants of the same Hebrew name!
* This is not the place to look at the problem related to Acts 1,12-26, but we wonder whether this story and the identification of Levi and Matthew in the Gospel of Matthew are not two independent efforts to legitimize a certain "Matthew" who was only known from the traditional lists of the apostles.
"Matthias in this context seems to be no one other than Matthew." Didymus the Blind reports of the gospel of the Hebrews:
It is not clear to me whether this Jewish-Christian gospel actually made a point of identifying Matthias with Levi instead of Matthew or whether it merely used the Greek form Matthias and Didymus assumed that it was the Matthias of Acts 1.21-26 instead of the apostle Matthew. At any rate, both Matthew and Matthias were valued as tradents of Christian tradition, both were said to have written texts that could be called gospels, both were associated with Peter and especially with Thomas in their capacity as tradents, and both share the same Hebrew name. I am inclined to agree with Klijn and suppose that Matthew and Matthias are both shadows of the same original figure. And even more evidence for their identity will be given later in altogether a different context.
If Matthew and Matthias are originally the same person, however, what is to explain Matthias taking over Judas' vacant seat among the apostles while Matthew makes every single list from the beginning? My suggested answer to this question involves taking a very close look at the apostolic lists.
I start with Judas. As evidenced by the traditional material in 1 Corinthians 15.3-11, Judas was not originally conceived of as one of the twelve:
Judas' name must have been elbowed into the lists somehow. But notice that, if we remove Judas' name from the synoptic lists, there are actually still twelve names to account for in the Eastern text tradition, the result of Matthew and Mark naming Thaddaeus where Luke-Acts names Jude of James:
Mark: Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot.
Luke: Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Jude of James, and Judas Iscariot.
Acts: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Jude of James.
All the rest of the names line up perfectly (cananaean [קַנָאַן] being the Aramaic term for a zealot). What I think has happened is that, when Judas' name was added to the list of twelve (in order to ramp up the degree of betrayal when he turns Jesus over to the authorities), in one line of the tradition Jude/Judas of James was nudged out (probably because he and Judas unfortunately shared a name) while in another line it was Thaddaeus who was nudged out. So now we have the following hypothetical list of apostles from before the time when Judas was given the rank:
Given what we have learned so far with regard to Levi, however, I think we can go further. Recall that the Western text tradition had Lebbaeus for Thaddaeus. Recall also Klijn's suggestion that Matthew (figuratively) taking over Levi's tax booth in Matthew 9.9 and Matthias (literally) taking over Judas' apostolic commission in Acts 1.21-26 were independent efforts to legitimize Matthew. Well, if we include the name Lebbaeus (= Levi?) as one to be accounted for, we still have one too many for our apostolic list. But, granting the basic identity of Matthew and Matthias, we have evidence that this Matthew/Matthias was not originally one of the twelve, do we not?
So, if we remove Matthew/Matthias from the list, we now finally have 12 names, including Levi/Lebbaeus:
The overall progress of these replacements would look something like this:
Simon/Peter, Andrew, James, John;
Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Levi/Lebbaeus;
James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Jude of James, Simon the Cananaean.
Stage 2a: Matthew takes Levi/Lebbaeus' spot on the list.
Simon/Peter, Andrew, James, John;
Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew;
James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Jude of James, Simon the Cananaean.
Stage 2b: Matthew takes a spot on the list, and Lebbaeus moves over to replace Thaddaeus.
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.
Matthew
Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John;
Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew;
James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, Judas Iscariot.
Mark
Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew;
Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas;
James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, Judas Iscariot.
Stage 3b: Judas takes Thaddaeus' spot on the list.
Luke
Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John;
Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas;
James of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Jude of James, Judas Iscariot.
Acts
Peter, John, James, Andrew;
Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew;
James of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Jude of James. [Judas noted as having defected.]
An alternate reconstruction might have the lists being composed only after both Matthew/Matthias and Judas Iscariot were thought to have been members of the twelve (maybe even composed by the evangelists themselves), with the name variations (Thaddaeus, Lebbaeus, Jude of James) coming into being for unrelated reasons. My reconstruction has the advantage of explaining the different names at the same time as it explains why Matthew and Matthias are so similar and why 1 Corinthians 15.5 does not seem to know that Judas had betrayed Jesus and was no longer around to receive an appearance with the rest of the twelve. It also explains why Levi is not on the list: by the time the list surfaces in our extant gospels, he had already been identified either with Matthew (stage 2a) or with Thaddaeus (stage 2b, to make room for Matthew).
To be continued in the next post....