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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:25 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:45 pm 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?
Of course!
Ah, a friend in a dark world! ;-)
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

If Lk copied the name "Levi" from Mk, but chose to erase Mk's account of his full name, "Levi son of Alphaeus" (according to the standard critical text), that means that Lk intentionally erased any obvious link between Levi and the 12, "James sons of Alphaeus" specifically.

Why would Lk erase "son of Alphaeus" from standard-text-Mk's Levi, the tax collector?

Here is my hunch: "The tax collector" is not an honorable title, and Lk wanted the 12 to be disconnected from the dishonorable association.

Matt, writing last,went the opposite direction by prefacing the name of James son of Alphaeus with the title, "the tax collector" in his list of the 12. Perhaps this is because, even after following Jesus, "the tax collector, James son of Alphaeus" was associated with raising money: He was the one who, according to Gal, asked Paul to "remember the poor" financially speaking; the same "James" who advised Paul to do a ritual that involved "paying expenses" to the temple. These are the sort tithe-collecting activities a Levite might gravitate toward.

Similarly, if the text Mk's story of the tax collector's call originally featured not Levi, but "James son of Alphaeus", Lk might have found it offensive to associate Roman tax collection with the 12. And so he invented the name "Levi" and put it in place of "James son of Alphaeus" for its association with collecting tithes.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

gryan wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:33 am
The Call of Levi, son of Alphaeus
Mark 2:14-17 (NET)
As he went along, he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the tax booth.
“Follow me,” he said to him. And he got up and followed him.

As Jesus was having a meal in [Levi’s] home, 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 call of Levi, paternity erased
Luke 5:27-32 (NET)
After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax booth.
“Follow me,” he said to him. And he got up and followed him, leaving everything behind.

Then Levi gave a great banquet in his house for Jesus, and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others (ἄλλων) sitting at the table with them.

But the Pharisees and their experts in the law complained to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

Jesus answered them,
“Those who are well don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do.
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

The Call of Matthew, Mercy, not Sacrifice
Matt 9:9 (NET)
As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax booth.
“Follow me,” he said to him. And he got up and followed him.

As Jesus was having a meal in [Matthew’s] house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with Jesus and his disciples.

When the Pharisees saw this they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

When Jesus heard this he said,
“Those who are healthy don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do.
Go and learn what this saying means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice.’
For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
If it is assumed that GLk copied the name "Levi" from GMk:

Why did Lk omit "son of Alphaeus"?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

There is no reason to doubt that authorial GMk wrote "son of Alphaeus". So by eliminating the difficult name "Levi" from the scenario, some things can be said about GMk's meaning:

GMk's call story:

As he went along, he saw... τὸν τοῦ Ἀλφαίου (the one of Alphaeus), sitting at the tax booth.
“Follow me,” he said to him. And he got up and followed him.

As Jesus was eating in the house of him (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ), 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.”

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

In every text of GMk, this much is clear: "the house of" the tax collector designated as, "the one of Alphaeus", was a gathering place for many who followed Jesus. And so, this has implications for the reputation of the one of the 12 named "James son of Alphaeus".

By contrast, in every text of GLk and GMatt: the designation, "the one of Alphaeus" is erased from the call story, and so the reputation of the one of the 12 named "James son of Alphaeus" has no association with "the tax collector" family.

Unless the label "the tax collector" between "Matthew" and "James son of Alphaeus" (uniquely in the GMatt list of the 12) is taken as referring to "the tax collector, James son of Alphaeus".
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

Re: "Levi" and "Matthew" and Matthean posteriority

The tax collector, "Levi son of Alphaeus" of GMk (presented as "Levi" in GLk) was not one of the 12.
The tax collector, "Matthew", of GMatt alone, was one of the 12.
"Levi" and "Matthew" are not the same person,
as argued in more detail here:
viewtopic.php?p=144156#p144156

I think this series of name changes fits the hypothesis of Matthean posteriority.

In text critical terms, Luke's "Levi" call story provides external support for "Levi son of Alphaeus" as the authentic text of GMark.

Luke's "Levi" call story and Mark's "Levi son of Alphaeus" call story are close to one another in meaning, and so I think Lk was dependent on Mk and not influenced by Matt.

GMatt's call story, with "Matthew" as the one called, departs from both GMk's "Levi son of Alphaeus" and GLk's "Levi". But GMatt's story may have been influenced by Lk's: Just as "Levi" is named simply, so also "Matthew" is name simply.
Last edited by gryan on Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:16 am, edited 8 times in total.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

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

Post by schillingklaus »

All these attributes can be easily posterior scribal glosses of translators and copyists.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

schillingklaus wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 4:54 am All these attributes can be easily posterior scribal glosses of translators and copyists.
True! I can see your point.

Nevertheless, within the current scholarly discussion of Lukan vs Matthean posteriority, I think the argument presented above (a few minutes ago) might still have some traction:
viewtopic.php?p=144184#p144184
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

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

Post by Ken Olson »

gryan wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 4:52 am I think this series of name changes fits the hypothesis of Matthean posteriority.
I don't think this series of name changes contradicts the theory of Matthean priority, but that seems trivial unless you can show it does contradict (or at least counts against) other Markan priority theories, such as Farrer or the 2DH.

Best,

Ken
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:56 am
gryan wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 4:52 am I think this series of name changes fits the hypothesis of Matthean posteriority.
I don't think this series of name changes contradicts the theory of Matthean priority, but that seems trivial unless you can show it does contradict (or at least counts against) other Markan priority theories, such as Farrer or the 2DH.
Ken,

I don't know if the Occam's razor argument works when Q is involved, but in passages like this one where there is clear literary dependence, and Markan priority is accepted, I think Farrar or Matthean Posteriority works best.

I think Matthean Posteriority is better than Farrar in this case since Lk's "Levi" is dependent on Mark, even while dropping "son of Alphaeus", whereas GMatt not only agrees on dropping "son of Alphaeus" but substitutes, "Matthew", a change which adds a creative twist. It seems unlikely that if the editor of GLk had seen GMatt, the GLk editor would have both preferred "Levi" and also, ignored "Matthew the tax collector James son of Alphaeus" in the list of the 12.

Those questionable arguments aside, my whole interest Matthean posteriority has to do with the relative treatment of the figure of "James son of Alphaeus" in the synoptic tradition.

Focusing on the series going back from
GMatt to GLk is to GMk at
"Matthew"/ "Levi"/"Levi son of Alphaeus" and
"the other Mary/"Mary mother of James"/"Mary mother of the James"

Mark gives readers a "James son of Alphaeus" with an interesting "son of Aphaeus" call/dining back-story, and a mother of James [imho, mostly likely, son of Alphaeus] at the empty tomb.

It seems to me that GLk is more in agreement with GMk in both mentions.

Whereas GMatt is downplaying the character of "James son of Alphaeus" by both erasing the "son of Alphaeus" presence in the call/dining story and the name of James in the mother mention.

This argument, of course, goes back to my reading of Galatians as portraying two Jameses (Mk's James son of Alphaeus as the Gal pillar and Mk's uniquely titled "James the less" as the Gal Lord's brother) in leadership in Paul's time.

So, as I see it, while no single points prove MPH decisively, my overall construal of the NT Jameses keeps on becoming more coherent, and does so best under the presumption of Matthean posteriority.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

Alternative Hypothesis:

"Levi son of Alphaeus" was:
1) a brother of "James son of Alphaeus" (gMark)
2) not one of the 12 (gMark and gLuke)
3) was also named Mattias (gHebrews, Cf. Acts):

"It seems that Matthew is named Levi in the Gospel of Luke.
But this is not he;
it is Matthias,
the one who replaced Judas,
who is the same as Levi, known by two names.
This appears in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
(Didymus the Blind, Commentary on the Psalms 184.9–10)
https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%93%D0% ... ations.pdf

Note that in both Acts and gMatt, the names of Matthew and James son of Alphaeus are side by side in the lists of the 12 (unlike the lists in gMk and gLk)

Acts

Πέτρος
καὶ Ἰωάνης
καὶ Ἰάκωβος
καὶ Ἀνδρέας,

Φίλιππος
καὶ Θωμᾶς,
Βαρθολομαῖος
καὶ Μαθθαῖος, (Matthew)

Ἰάκωβος Ἀλφαίου (James of Alpheaus)

καὶ Σίμων ὁ Ζηλωτὴς
καὶ Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου.

+Μαθθίαν (Mattias)

gMatthew

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 (Matthew the tax collector)

Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ἁλφαίου (James son of Alphaeus)

καὶ Θαδδαῖος
Σίμων ὁ Καναναῖος
καὶ Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης ὁ καὶ παραδοὺς αὐτόν.

Assumptions:

1. Levi son of Alphaeus, a tax collector, was indeed a follower of Jesus, though not officially counted among the 12 disciples. This makes him a potential candidate to replace Judas Iscariot.

2. Levi may have been referred to as Mattias (as per gHebrews), and he could have been the one chosen to replace Judas Iscariot, as suggested by Didymus the Blind.

3. The author of gMatthew was working with a post-resurrection list of the 12 disciples that included both Matthew and Mattias (who may have been the same person as Levi, the tax collector).

4. This list, akin to the one in Acts, placed Matthew and James son of Alphaeus side by side.

5. Mattias/Levi/the tax collector had a close association with Jesus, possibly making him functionally one of the 12 throughout Jesus' life.

6. Matthew and Mattias could be alternate Greek names for the same Hebrew name.

Given these considerations, it's reasonable to propose that the author of gMatthew included the tax collector, Levi (known by the same Hebrew name as Matthew), as one of the 12 disciples: "καὶ Μαθθαῖος ὁ τελώνης (Matthew the tax collector)".

At the very least, this hypothesis offers a plausible explanation for Didymus the Blind's commentary.
Post Reply