Matthean posteriority: Mark's "Levi son of Alphaeus"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Matthean posteriority: Mark's "Levi son of Alphaeus"

Post by rgprice »

Well, as I've said in other threads, I see Luke as having three main layers. Luke 1, 2 & 24, Luke 3-5, and the rest (Luke 6-23) basically.

I'm not sure if Luke 3-5 was the original and was redacted in Marcion's Gospel, or if material in Luke 3-5 was added to Marcion's Gospel. But the scene is not a part of Marcion's Gospel. But Marcion's Gospel does list, "and Jacob (the son) of Alphai" in the list of the twelve (according to BeDuhn).

This actually makes me lean more in the direction of Luke 3-5 having material that was added to Marcion's. Luke 3-5 has several elements that are oddly out of sync with the rest of the work, such as how it refers simply to "John" instead of "John the Baptist" or John son of Zachariah.

Luke is actually very poorly edited and has many mistakes in it. This appears to be one of those.

But then it seems that Mark was edited in the presence of canonical Luke, and in this case Levi replaced James.

Now, my running hypothesis is that the "author" of canonical Luke and Acts, also wrote the Pastorals and edited the Pauline letters and is the same person who compiled the first edition of the NT. This person also edited Mark and really many of the works we find in the NT. But it was somewhat of a rush job and was thus not entirely thorough. I think the fact that there was a single editor who was in a hurry explains the inadequacy of the job. It was just too much material to deal with.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Matthean posteriority: Mark's "Levi son of Alphaeus"

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
imho there are very good arguments that “Levi” is original in GMark. As always, I'm a bit amazed at how easily some set aside the external textual attestation.

1) GMark
It is not only that the best textual witnesses of GMark (P 88, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) attest to "Levi", but also that most textual critics advocate “Levi”. Wieland Willker wrote: “clearly original”.

2) GLuke and GMarcion
We know Luke agrees with Mark. It is also more likely that Marcion had the reading "Levi". The pericope was present in GMarcion. Although Tertullian did not explicitly mention the name "Levi", it is more likely that he would have said something if Marcion did not have this name or even had a different one.

3) Gospel of Peter

14 Now it was the last day of the unleavened bread, and many were going forth, returning to their homes, as the feast was ended. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and were grieved: and each one, being grieved for that which was come to pass, departed to his home. But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord ...

One can see how the fragmentary Gospel of Peter agrees with GMark in the broken last sentence. There is a Levi, son of Alphaeus, who lives in the same place as Peter and Andrew and goes to the sea with them to fish. This agrees with Mark 2:1, 13-14.

1 And He having entered again into Capernaum after some days, …

13 And He went forth again beside the sea, and all the crowd was coming to Him, and He taught them. 14 And passing on, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus ...


4) GMatthew

Matthew 9:9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew (Μαθθαῖον λεγόμενον) sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.
Matthew 4:4 While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter (τὸν λεγόμενον Πέτρον) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.

A comparison with GMatthew 4:4 shows that the name "Matthew" in GMatthew 9:9 is probably the tax collector's nickname and was probably meant as such by the evangelist. This allows GMark’s readers to assume that “Levi” was nicknamed “Matthew”. GMatthew's list of apostles also shows that he juxtaposed Matthew the tax collector and James the son of Alphaeus. Readers of GMark could thus get the impression that Matthew is Levi and probably the brother of James.

It is therefore most likely that the author of GMatthew also had a version of the Gospel of Mark with the reading "Levi" in front of him.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Matthean posteriority: Mark's "Levi son of Alphaeus"

Post by rgprice »

Another possibility to throw out there, is that Levi was supposed to be the father of James. Is there any way to read the text that way?
imho there are very good arguments that “Levi” is original in GMark. As always, I'm a bit amazed at how easily some set aside the external textual attestation.
The problem is the nature of the witnesses.

We can't affirm its existence in Marcion.

The only versions of Luke, Matthew and Mark that we actually have all come from the NT collection.

The Gospel of Peter is interesting. But who is to say that it also is not derived from the canonical versions of the Gospels?

The issue is that if the "New Testament" was compiled in the mid-second century, as the evidence indicates, then virtually everything everyone writes about the Gospels, except Justin Martyr is likely derived from the NT versions of the works. And these works were certainly edited in the presence of each other.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Matthean posteriority: Mark's "Levi son of Alphaeus"

Post by gryan »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 11:09 am .
imho there are very good arguments that “Levi” is original in GMark. As always, I'm a bit amazed at how easily some set aside the external textual attestation.

1) GMark
It is not only that the best textual witnesses of GMark (P 88, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) attest to "Levi", but also that most textual critics advocate “Levi”. Wieland Willker wrote: “clearly original”.
Yes, I'm uneasy about my textual decision against the better attested "Levi son of Alphaeus":
viewtopic.php?p=143230#p143230

"the reading Ιακαβον instead of Λευι (or Λευιν or Λευειν) is as follows: D Θ ƒ13 565 it.":
https://brentnongbri.com/2018/05/21/mat ... and-james/

I'm interpreting D Θ ƒ13 565 as suggestive of a "living tradition" going back to authorial Mk (not a result of scribal error). I'm attempting a D. C. Parker style of "Living Tradition" argument, particularly in light of D. Does that seem plausible?

In favor of the James son of Alphaeus textual alternative:

1)Within the world of Mark's narrative, there would be no question that the follower in the call story and the member of the 12 are one and the same "James son of Alphaeus." By contrast, with the "Levi son of Alphaeus" reading, questions are raised but no explanation is given. Is Levi a nickname for James? Is it his brother? Did Levi become one of the 12? Not a word or a hint is given to answer these questions raised, which is very odd, if indeed Levi son of Alphaeus was actually named in authorial GMk.

2)Levi suggests a Levite, and if a later writer thought of James son of Alphaeus as a Levite in character or in fact, then this might be a logical substitution and also a harmonization with GMatt if both Matthew and James son of Alphaeus were men of priestly character.

3) Gospel of Peter

14 Now it was the last day of the unleavened bread, and many were going forth, returning to their homes, as the feast was ended. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and were grieved: and each one, being grieved for that which was come to pass, departed to his home. But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord ...

One can see how the fragmentary Gospel of Peter agrees with GMark in the broken last sentence. There is a Levi, son of Alphaeus, who lives in the same place as Peter and Andrew and goes to the sea with them to fish. This agrees with Mark 2:1, 13-14.
Yes, thank you for this quotation of a "Levi son of Alphaeus" text I was not aware of. I notice that it depends also on John 21:1f

"Later, by the Sea of Tiberias, Jesus again revealed Himself to the disciples. He made Himself known in this way: Simon Peter, Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. Simon Peter told them, 'I am going fishing.'"

I notice also that GJohn's resurrection scene (and his whole Gospel, for that matter) lacks a "Matthew", but it names a "Nathanael" (cf. the call story in John 1:46-50). This is striking because I am entertaining the argument that Nathanael was James son of Alphaeus by another name:

From "The Identity of John's Nathanael", by Hill, C E, Journal for the Study of the New Testament,1998
ABSTRACT:
"The paper argues that the first known identification of Nathanael outside of John's
Gospel equates him with James the son of Alphaeus (Ep. Apost. 2). It is then
observed that the several allusions to the Jacob narrative of Genesis found in the
story of Jesus' encounter with Nathanael (Jn 1.45-51) would be poignantly explained
by the supposition that Nathanael was also known by the name of Jacob/James.
Because John does not explicitly use the name of James for Nathanael, however, we
cannot be sure that he assumes it. Yet we find that he and his readers are acquainted
with considerable information about the original disciples of Jesus which are not
known from any other Gospel materials, and so the possibility cannot be ruled out.
The paper concludes that (1) the author of the Epistula Apostolorum identified
Nathanael as James son of Alphaeus, (2) this identification may have been supported
through an exegesis of Jn 1.45-51, (3) it may also have rested on Asian tradition,
and (4) less probably but still possibly, this identity for Nathanael was understood by
the author of the Fourth Gospel himself."

imho, maybe the author of GPeter had a text of Mark with "Levi son of Alphaeus" in it, but thought of him as GJohn's Nathanael aka James son of Alphaeus, not Matthew.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 11:09 am 4) GMatthew

Matthew 9:9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew (Μαθθαῖον λεγόμενον) sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.
Matthew 4:4 While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter (τὸν λεγόμενον Πέτρον) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.

A comparison with GMatthew 4:4 shows that the name "Matthew" in GMatthew 9:9 is probably the tax collector's nickname and was probably meant as such by the evangelist. This allows GMark’s readers to assume that “Levi” was nicknamed “Matthew”. GMatthew's list of apostles also shows that he juxtaposed Matthew the tax collector and James the son of Alphaeus. Readers of GMark could thus get the impression that Matthew is Levi and probably the brother of James.

It is therefore most likely that the author of GMatthew also had a version of the Gospel of Mark with the reading "Levi" in front of him.


Thanks for pointing out that GMatt alters Mk (and imho, sees and alters Lk too) by moving Matthew and James son of Alphaeus to be side by side; but now that you mention it, it strikes me that Matthew's list is given in pairs, through the use of καὶ and asyndeton:

πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος καὶ Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ Ἰωάνης ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ,Φίλιππος καὶ Βαρθολομαῖος, Θωμᾶς καὶ Μαθθαῖος ὁ τελώνης Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ἁλφαίου καὶ Θαδδαῖος, Σίμων ὁ Καναναῖος καὶ Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης...

The previously mentioned "brothers" are connected by καὶ : Πέτρος καὶ Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ Ἰωάνης ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ... By contrast, Matthew and James son of Alphaeus are connected not by καὶ, but by asyndeton.

There is nothing between Matthew and James but "tax collector"! This raises a question: Where should the comma go?

Critical text:
Μαθθαῖος ὁ τελώνης, Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ἁλφαίου

Not sure how one would punctuate the alternative idea, but could the label "the tax collector" (ὁ τελώνης) apply to James son of Alphaeus instead of Matthew? Maybe like this:

Θωμᾶς καὶ Μαθθαῖος, ὁ τελώνης Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ἁλφαίου καὶ Θαδδαῖος

...Thomas and Matthew, the-tax-collector-James-son-of-Alphaeus and Thaddaeus...

Readers of GMatt already know full well that Matthew is a tax collector! To say it again is redundant. But it is not redundant if the author of GMatt was admitting that, although his narrative robbs James of the place he had held in Mk and Lk's call stories, James son of Alphaeus was indeed a tax collector (as his copy of GMark had indicated)?
Last edited by gryan on Thu Sep 29, 2022 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Matthean posteriority: Mark's "Levi son of Alphaeus"

Post by gryan »

Narrative though experiment:

Suppose we had a narrative with the list of the 12 from Matt (minus some of the punctuation, but preserving word order of the Greek) preceded by the call story from Mk (featuring, not the "Levi son of Alphaeus" of prevailing textual tradition; but rather, the alternative textual tradition's, "James son of Alphaeus" D Θ ƒ13 565 it.)

The call of James, son of Alphaeus

Jesus went out again by the sea. The whole crowd came to him, and he taught them. As he went along,
he saw James, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the tax booth. “Follow me,” he said to him.
And he got up and followed him. And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the experts in the law and the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” When Jesus heard this he said to them, “Those who are healthy don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

The Twelve

Jesus called his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits so they could cast them out and heal every kind of disease and sickness. Now these are the names of the twelve apostles: first,

Simon (called Peter), and Andrew his brother;
James son of Zebedee and John his brother;
Philip and Bartholomew;
Thomas and Matthew the tax collector James the son of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus;
Θωμᾶς καὶ Μαθθαῖος ὁ τελώνης Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ἁλφαίου καὶ Θαδδαῖος
Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

-------------------

In this experimental narrative unity, which one of the 12 is "the tax collector"?
Last edited by gryan on Thu Sep 29, 2022 7:32 pm, edited 11 times in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Matthean posteriority: Mark's "Levi son of Alphaeus"

Post by neilgodfrey »

Can I put a plug in for my own earlier contribution to this discussion: my interpretation does have the advantage of what I would say is a coherent explanation of the text as we have it. Is not that a little point in favour against others that postulate other texts that we do not have?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Matthean posteriority: Mark's "Levi son of Alphaeus"

Post by gryan »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:45 pm Can I put a plug in for my own earlier contribution...
Yes, you can! With respect to your "coherent explanation of the text as we have it": I find your thoughts on the symbolic meaning of "Levi" intriguing!
viewtopic.php?p=143220#p143220

And I would also like to hear from you and others in response to my "narrative thought experiment" question:
viewtopic.php?p=143385#p143385
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Matthean posteriority: Mark's "Levi son of Alphaeus"

Post by neilgodfrey »

gryan wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:50 pm
And I would also like to hear from you and others in response to my "narrative thought experiment" question:
viewtopic.php?p=143385#p143385
How does that experiment explain how Levi entered the picture?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Matthean posteriority: Mark's "Levi son of Alphaeus"

Post by gryan »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:28 pm
gryan wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:50 pm
And I would also like to hear from you and others in response to my "narrative thought experiment" question:
viewtopic.php?p=143385#p143385
How does that experiment explain how Levi entered the picture?
May I take that as an implicit yes: It is possible that GMatt made a list of the 12 where "the tax collector" could be James son of Alphaeus?

Re: how Levi entered the picture

I don't know. But this much seems obvious: GMk and GMatt get along side by side in the canon better than they would have with James son of Alphaeus and Matthew featured in two nearly identical call stories. Maybe "Levi" was the former name of Matthew, as tradition holds. Or maybe Levi was the former name of James son of Alphaeus. Or maybe it was a symbolic invention, as you suggest.

Pondering. I wonder what a professional textual critic would say.

I would welcome feedback from others in response to my "narrative thought experiment" question:
viewtopic.php?p=143385#p143385
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Matthean posteriority: Mark's "Levi son of Alphaeus"

Post by gryan »

Notes on the name, Levi, used only three times in the NT, twice by Lk and once by Mk

Lk 5:27, call of Levi
Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξῆλθεν,
καὶ ἐθεάσατο τελώνην ὀνόματι Λευεὶν καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον,
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἀκολούθει μοι.

Matt, call of Matthew
Καὶ παράγων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐκεῖθεν εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον, Μαθθαῖον λεγόμενον,
καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Ἀκολούθει μοι.

Mk, call of Levi son of Alphaeus
καὶ παράγων εἶδεν Λευεὶν τὸν τοῦ Ἀλφαίου καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον,
καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Ἀκολούθει μοι.
καὶ ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ.


Lk 5:29, host named Levi
Καὶ ἐποίησεν δοχὴν μεγάλην Λευεὶς αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ·
καὶ ἦν ὄχλος πολὺς τελωνῶν καὶ ἄλλων οἳ ἦσαν μετ’ αὐτῶν κατακείμενοι.

Matt, host not named
Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ ἀνακειμένου ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ,
καὶ ἰδοὺ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἐλθόντες συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ.

Mk, host not named
Καὶ γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ,
καὶ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ.
Post Reply