Re: Levi, Matthew, & Matthias.
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:20 pm
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
You made a good point that I did not think of. The Gospel According to the Hebrews was considered written in Hebrew (maybe actually Aramaic), so in that language Matthew the publican would be rendered in its Hebrew form that looks like Matthai. The Greek readers could interpret that as Matthai or Matthew, so we have a discrepancy between the interpretations by Didymus and Jerome, with Didymus reading Matthai and Jerome reading "Matthew."Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:56 pm 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.
I was just speculating on possible ideological reasons for Levi not to be one of the 12 apostles, and I thought of how the 12 apostles were based on the fact that there were 12 Patriarchs of Israel.
What does a "Christian name" mean in this context? Besides:rakovsky wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:23 pmAnyway, it looks like Levi was Matthew's original name and Matthew was his Christian name. The reasons for this are that:
(A) If you look at a chronological harmony of the gospels, Matthew's calling shows up where Levi's should be.
(B) Having Christian names as second names was common.
(C) In Matthew 9:9, Matthew refers to "a man called Matthew" instead of just saying "Matthew the publican".
Which I do not. Why would someone take them at face value?I get the theory that Matthew was rewriting Mark and switching himself in for Levi. But at least if you take the gospels at face value....
This is not correct. "Matthew" is an Anglicized version of the Hebrew name. Matthaios and Matthias are both Greek transliterations of the Hebrew name, just as Levi is a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew name. And this is exactly what Bauckham argues is practically unheard of: two common Hebrew names for the same individual....Levi simply is Matthew. I also understand what you said earlier about how Levi and Matthew are both Semitic names and it's weird to have two Semitic names. But Matthew is a Hellenized version of the Hebrew "Mattiyahu", and Matthai appears to be a closer translation.
No, of course not. But that is not the issue.Further, does a "Christian" name have to be a Greek one?
This is not correct. Cephas is not Greek for anything.Some of the Christians seemed to be in the habit of getting second names, and while Simon Peter's Christian name was Cephas (Greek for rock)....
Okay, I was not sure what you meant by "a separate tribe." You evidently meant "a landed tribe." I am not sure what that has to do with anything, but carry on.rakovsky wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:25 pmI was just speculating on possible ideological reasons for Levi not to be one of the 12 apostles, and I thought of how the 12 apostles were based on the fact that there were 12 Patriarchs of Israel.
There was a Tribe of Levi, the Kohanem, but it was not a landed tribe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Levi
Can you please link to or cite a relevant and authoritative source (such as a lexicon) confirming that the name or word Ἀλφαῖος (not the incorrectly accented Ἀλφαίος) means "yield" or "produce" in Greek?Martin Klatt wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:33 amThe key here is Alpheus which both Luke and Matthew leave out, because it is actually Ἀλφαίος and that is a Greek word meaning yield or produce usually from agriculture.
Yes, Cephas would be a nickname, as it is in the generally accepted version of the story.rakovsky wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:49 am Ben,
I thought Cephas must have been Peter's Greek name because Bauckham wrote that a Palestinian Jew wouldn't have two Semitic names. But in the case of Peter, it turns out that he did have two Semitic names, Simon and Cephas, with Cephas, Peter, being his Christian or spiritual name or nickname used in the Church.
The term λεγόμενος is indeterminate in that sense. Was Nazareth a nickname (Matthew 2.23)? Judas (Matthew 26.14; Luke 22.47)? Gethsemane (Matthew 26.36)? Sychar (John 4.5)? Jesus (John 9.11)? You get the point.Bauckham rules out that Matthew was a nickname. But it seems that it could have been, since Matthew 9 says in the story of Matthew's calling that he was "called Matthew", which reminds me of how Pilate said Jesus was "called the Messiah".
They do. All of them do: Matthew 4.18; Mark 3.16; Luke 6.14; John 1.42; Peter 15.60; Thomas 13.Bauckham also theorizes that Levi can't be Matthew because Matthew is listed in Mark's list of the 12 apostles and Mark never says they are the same person. I dont know if each of the gospels that use both the names Simon and Peter explain that they are the same person....
No, that is not correct. A "Simon" is given the name "Simon Peter" but the purpose is to hide identities:
I agree with none of this. I have done plenty of questioning of the unity of the figure whom we know as Simon Peter (= Cephas, = Symeon). But the gospel of John is part of the synthesis side of things, not part of the analysis side. I disagree that he was writing in the code that you attribute to him, a code so subtle that it took two millennia and singular mind to crack it.Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:05 amNo, that is not correct. A "Simon" is given the name "Simon Peter" but the purpose is to hide identities:
John 13: 5 - 9 (RSV):
[5] Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded.
[6] He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?"
[7] Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand."
[8] Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part in me."
[9] Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!"
John 18: 15 - 18, 25 (RSV):
[15] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus,
[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."
[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.
***
[25] Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not."
On the view that John "corrects" the Synoptics (Mark), John is telling us that the identities of "Peter" and "Simon Peter" have been merged for effect. We assume that "He came to Simon Peter" means that "Peter" is the same character and he then states, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" Similarly, because "Simon Peter" and "Peter" are both "standing" at the fire, these are the same character at the same time. This is a mistake.
The fire and the door have special meaning. On one side of the door is the "Chamber of the Hearth" and on the other is the "Chamber of the Flames". You may sit on the side of the Chamber of the Hearth but not the Chamber of the Flames. The Chamber of the Flames is for the Priesthood and select others. Peter is therefore shown to be Priestly.
There are two Stories here. Either "Peter" and "Simon Peter" are different characters or are indeed one character but at different times (LIke...12 years apart...). The "Confusion" over the Crucifixions points to the same idea. The Original Stories were compressed, telescoped and rewritten for effect.