Matthew vs Levi

[gmx]

What is the significance of the fact that "the tax collector" is called Matthew, not Levi, in Matthew's gospel? Could it have played a role in the original association of the first Gospel with Matthew? It has been suggested that Justin Martyr, though familiar with the gospels, was not aware of the association of each gospel with a particular apostle / author.

At what point in Christian history do we become aware of the association of a named author with each of the gospels, and what does textual criticism tell us about Matthew's gospel identifying the tax collector as "himself"?

[Ben C. Smith]

What is the significance of the fact that "the tax collector" is called Matthew, not Levi, in Matthew's gospel? Could it have played a role in the original association of the first Gospel with Matthew? It has been suggested that Justin Martyr, though familiar with the gospels, was not aware of the association of each gospel with a particular apostle / author.

Justin Martyr calls the gospels memoirs; he further suggests both that one of them belonged to Peter and that all of them belonged to apostles or to followers of the apostles.

As for the gospel of Matthew, indeed, the combination of (A) the naming of Matthew in Matthew 9.9 (= Mark 2.13-14 = Luke 5.27-28) instead of Levi with (B) Matthew being the name to which the gospel is attributed in the title is a coincidence begging to be explained; in other words, I doubt it is a coincidence at all; it is probably deliberate.

Here is my best reconstruction:

1. Our author was aware of the tradition, passed on by Papias as coming from the elder John, that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew which was several times translated into Greek.
2. Our author decided to give his gospel, based on Mark and filled out from other traditions (Q-like stuff, an infancy narrative, and so forth), the stamp of apostolic authority by passing it off as one of these Greek translations of Hebrew Matthew.
3. On the reasonable assumption that the apostle Matthew would have included the story of his own first encounter with Jesus in his gospel, he turned the call of Levi into the call of Matthew.
4. Why Levi? Or why a tax collector? Several options are available. Perhaps there was a tradition that the apostle Matthew himself was a tax collector (speculation, of course). Or perhaps our author simply sought a profession that would guarantee that Matthew was literate and thus able to write a gospel, and tax collector fit the bill. Or perhaps the assonance of the name Matthew with the Greek word for disciple (which appears twice in the ensuing pericope) suggested the fit here with Levi, who is called and does follow, yet does not appear on any list of the 12 disciples.

Alternate hypotheses welcome.

Ben.

[JoeWallack]

What is the significance of the fact that "the tax collector" is called Matthew, not Levi, in Matthew's gospel? Could it have played a role in the original association of the first Gospel with Matthew? It has been suggested that Justin Martyr, though familiar with the gospels, was not aware of the association of each gospel with a particular apostle / author.

Justin Martyr calls the gospels memoirs; he further suggests both that one of them belonged to Peter and that all of them belonged to apostles or to followers of the apostles.

As for the gospel of Matthew, indeed, the combination of (A) the naming of Matthew in Matthew 9.9 (= Mark 2.13-14 = Luke 5.27-28) instead of Levi with (B) Matthew being the name to which the gospel is attributed in the title is a coincidence begging to be explained; in other words, I doubt it is a coincidence at all; it is probably deliberate.

Here is my best reconstruction:

1. Our author was aware of the tradition, passed on by Papias as coming from the elder John, that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew which was several times translated into Greek.
2. Our author decided to give his gospel, based on Mark and filled out from other traditions (Q-like stuff, an infancy narrative, and so forth), the stamp of apostolic authority by passing it off as one of these Greek translations of Hebrew Matthew.
3. On the reasonable assumption that the apostle Matthew would have included the story of his own first encounter with Jesus in his gospel, he turned the call of Levi into the call of Matthew.
4. Why Levi? Or why a tax collector? Several options are available. Perhaps there was a tradition that the apostle Matthew himself was a tax collector (speculation, of course). Or perhaps our author simply sought a profession that would guarantee that Matthew was literate and thus able to write a gospel, and tax collector fit the bill. Or perhaps the assonance of the name Matthew with the Greek word for disciple (which appears twice in the ensuing pericope) suggested the fit here with Levi, who is called and does follow, yet does not appear on any list of the 12 disciples.

Alternate hypotheses welcome.

Ben.

JW:
You are guessing that the original author of GMatthew titled it *Matthew*?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Bernard Muller]

Here is an extract from http://historical-jesus.info/q.html:

>> Note: taking in consideration,
a) The author of GMatthew knew GMark and "Q" (as commonly accepted).
b) Matthew is one of the twelve disciples in GMark (3:18 "... Matthew, ...") (as also in GMatthew (10:3 "... Matthew the tax collector; ...") and GLuke (6:15 "... Matthew and ...")).
c) Tax collectors (publicans) had to be literate in order to perform their job.
d) The probability that Matthew (one of the twelve) was credited, early on, of recording "Q" sayings (as suggested from the aforementioned comments by Papias).
then that would explain why the author of GMatthew replaced 'Levi' (Mk2:14) by 'Matthew' (Mt9:9) as the tax collector in Capernaum: it was a way to ensure that Matthew could write!
Note: "Luke" kept Levi as the tax collector (5:27,29), according to GMark (but against GMatthew!).<<

Later, towards the end of the 2nd century, a whole canonical gospel was ascribed to Matthew.
Prior to the passage I just quoted, on the mentioned webpage, I explained my reasons why Papias was thinking about some Q document for the logias allegedly attributed to Matthew.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

You are guessing that the original author of GMatthew titled it *Matthew*?

No. I am suggesting that the author passed it off as a Greek translation of Hebrew Matthew. A title is not necessarily required for attribution; many attributed Hebrews to Paul, for example, despite neither the text nor the title (as found in the manuscripts) containing the name of Paul.

Ben.

[JoeWallack]

You are guessing that the original author of GMatthew titled it *Matthew*?

No. I am suggesting that the author passed it off as a Greek translation of Hebrew Matthew. A title is not necessarily required for attribution; many attributed Hebrews to Paul, for example, despite neither the text nor the title (as found in the manuscripts) containing the name of Paul.

Ben.

JW:

[Only for Secret AliAs]
Actually subsequent Christianity changed the name from Levi to "Matthew" because they thought "Levi" sounded "too Jewish"[/Only for Secret AliAs]

[For everyone else]
Ben, the author of GMatthew would have known that he used a Greek GMark as a base. It's more likely that the name tag "Matthew" would have been given by someone who did not know that.

Not coincidentally, we also appear to have tremendous coincidences here regarding name contrivance:

• 1) "Levi" the tax collector. Well the historical Levis were the tax collectors for Israel.
  
  2) "Matthew" the disciple. Consider that the original Gospel GMark could not have made it any clearer that it did not have a source of a disciple unless the original (and real) missing ending said "And as the women ran off into the settling son, the young man yelled after them, (removing the garments of Jesus) "Wait, it's me Paul. I wrote this Gospel.", so GMatthew is the first Gospel with an implication that it had a source of a disciple. Now to English speaking readers or non-English readers like Secret Alias who are clueless, "Matthew" just sounds like a name. But to a Greek speaker, the Greek "Matthew" sounds reMarkably like another likely contrived name we've discussed here recently.

[/For everyone else]



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben, the author of GMatthew would have known that he used a Greek GMark as a base. It's more likely that the name tag "Matthew" would have been given by someone who did not know that.

Look at you, Joe, arguing for a more innocent stream of transmission while I am arguing for the equivalent of forgery.

...so GMatthew is the first Gospel with an implication that it had a source of a disciple.

This is true only with the implication latent in the title or in the transmission, right? Without something indicating that Matthew wrote this gospel, what differentiates the call of Matthew from those of Peter or James or John or Andrew?

Ben.

[toejam]

My suspicion is that Q was originally attributed to Matthew, and that the 'Gospel of Matthew' started to become known by that title in order to distinguish it from 'Mark' and 'proto-Luke' - i.e "this is the gospel that includes the sayings from Matthew" eventually just got called the 'Gospel of Matthew'.

[gmx]

The author of GMatthew knew GMark and "Q" (as commonly accepted)

Agree that Markan priority is "commonly accepted", however the evidence supporting such is particularly flimsy. Would be heartwarming to think that the attribution of Matthew with the Gospel bearing the same name is not dependent on any particular source theory...

[JoeWallack]

My suspicion is that Q was originally attributed to Matthew, and that the 'Gospel of Matthew' started to become known by that title in order to distinguish it from 'Mark' and 'proto-Luke' - i.e "this is the gospel that includes the sayings from Matthew" eventually just got called the 'Gospel of Matthew'.

JW:
Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") looks like the earliest relatively complete claim of Gospel authorship:



Against Heresies Book III Chapter I ["Matthew" info in bold]

1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

The important information claimed by Irenaeus regarding the disciple, apostle and Gospel author Matthew:

• 1) Matthew wrote the first Gospel.
  
  2) Matthew wrote this Gospel in either Hebrew or Aramaic.
  
  3) What Matthew wrote is the canonical Matthew.

Regarding Irenaeus possible sources for this, in Irenaeus' writings he claims a successive link of historical witness from Jesus to himself without explicitly saying this is his source for identification of the Gospel authors.

The next Christian author of assistance in identifying possible sources for identification of Gospel authors is Eusebius:

History of the Church 3.39.1-17 ["Matthew" info in bold]

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.

Per Eusebius' quote of Papias, the important information claimed by Papias regarding the disciple and apostle Matthew:

• 1) Matthew wrote a book of Sayings.
  
  2) Matthew wrote this book of Sayings in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

We have no specific evidence that Irenaeus' identification of the Gospel authors was significantly based on anything other than what he and Eusebius identified as Papias' writings. There is likewise no extant evidence that anyone identified the four Gospel authors before Irenaeus. This suggests:

• 1) Papias wrote in the first half of the second century that the disciple and apostle Matthew wrote a book of Sayings of and/or about Jesus in Hebrew or Aramaic.
  
  2) 1) was the basis of Irenaeus' claiming that this Matthew wrote the canonical Matthew which was the first Gospel written.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki