MATTHEW (DISCIPLE). One of the twelve apostles of Jesus according to the four NT lists found in Mark 3:18; Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:15; and Acts 1:13.
—
A. Etymology
B. Location of the name “Matthew”
C. Gospel parallels and textual variants
D. Solutions to variations
1. Levi = Matthew
2. “Matthew” was changed to “Levi”
3. “Levi” was changed to “Matthew”
E. Textual variants
1. “James” instead of “Levi”
2. “Lebbaeus / Labbaeus” (= Levi) instead of “Thaddaeus”
F. Editorial criticism
G. The name “Matthew”
H. “The Tax (Toll) Collector”
I. The tradition of the Church and the first evangelist
J. Conclusions
—
A. Etymology
The Greek Maththaios ( mss Sinaiticus, B, D) or Matthaios is derived from the Hebrew or Aramaic Matta˒i, Mattiya˒ or Mattiyah, short forms of Mattith-yah (u), which is based on the Hebrew words nātan, “he gave , -Y Yah (u), a shortened form of – Yahweh -; an etymological meaning is “gift from Yahweh” or simply “gift from God”.
B. Location of the name “Matthew”
The name “Matthew” is found in two places. The first location is in each of the four NT lists of the Twelve (eleven in Acts), close followers of Jesus (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1 :13). This group is usually called mathētai, -disciples- or -students- in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke; they are designated apostoloi, -apostles- or -missionaries-, at the beginning of at least two, and probably three, of the four lists (Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:14, mss Sinaiticus, B, etc.; Luke 6:13 ), in the Gospel of Luke somewhat more frequently, and in Acts, where the term -disciples- designates a larger group of followers (contrast with Paul, 1 Cor 15: 5-7). In the lists, the name “Matthew” is seventh in Mark 3:18 and Luke 6:15 and eighth in Matthew 10:3 and Acts 1:13. Therefore, the name is placed in a position of lower status than the brothers Pedro and Andrés or Santiago and Juan, who always form the first group of four names.
The second location of the name “Matthew” is in Matthew’s version of the call of the man sitting in the “toll booth” (Matthew 9:9; contrast Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27).
C. Gospel parallels and textual variants
The problem concerning Matthew can be clarified by looking closely at the most important parallel variations of the Gospel and its further variants.
According to the most reliable mss of gospel parallels, the relevant variations can be summarized as follows.
1. The lists consistently refer to -James the son of Alphaeus-, who is therefore distinguished in the same lists from -James the son of Zebedee- (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15) .
2. The lists do not refer to Levi, nor to -Levi son of Alphaeus- (see, however, the discussion of -Lebous- below).
3. The lists refer to a certain Matthew (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).
4. Only in the list of the Gospel of Matthew is this -Matthew- called -the tax collector- (Matthew 10: 3: mathētēs).
5. Only in Matthew’s version of Jesus’ call of the “man sitting at the toll booth” is the man called “Matthew” (Matthew 9:9), thus equating the Matthew in the call in ch. 9 with Matthew listed in ch. 10.
6. The one sitting on the toll booth in the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Peter (see PETER, GOSPEL OF) is not called “Matthew”, but “Levi”.
7. In Mark 2:14 and the Gospel of Peter 60, he is called “Levi son of Alphaeus”; in Luke 5:27 he is called “a tax collector named Levi.”
D. Solutions to variations
Some scholars conclude that the problem posed by parallels and variants is insoluble. Three main solutions to variations can be suggested.
1. Levi = Matthew. The first solution is that Levi and Matthew are the same person. One suggestion is that Jesus changed Levi’s name to “Matthew” after he was called to be a disciple, a theory sometimes attempted to be based on Jesus’ supposed change of names (eg, Heb/Aram Šim˓ōn = Gk Simōn; Heb/Aram Cephas = Gk Petros). A second suggestion is that “Matthew” was the name given at baptism, “Levi” arose because Matthew was from the tribe of Levi. Both of these suggestions have been linked to the traditional theory of Matthew’s gospel authorship, namely that the author Levi/Matthew is covertly referring to himself in the calling account of Matthew 9:9.
Both suggestions have difficulties. The former has to deal with the fact that no story about Levi renamed -Matthew- has survived and is therefore an argument from silence; that the names -Levi- and -Mateo- occur in different gospels; that the analogy with Cephas / Petros is not exact, that is, the latter is a special nickname built on a play on words of great symbolic meaning, namely “rock” (Heb / Aram kēpha˒ = Gk petra ); and that that name change story itself may have arisen in the early Church. The second suggestion is also an argument from the silence about names in different gospels. Both are conjectures that try to harmonize the matteano with Markan and Lukan’s accounts of the scene of the call. As far as the author’s covert allusion to himself is concerned, the call story does not mention authorship or point of view; furthermore, one would have to accept Matthew’s authorship of the first gospel, which is contested (see below). However, the denial of apostolic authorship does not at the same time answer the question of Matthew’s identity.
2. “Matthew” was changed to “Levi”. A second solution is that in the scene called -Matthew- (Matthew 9:9) it was changed to -Levi son of Alphaeus- (Mark 2:14) or -a tax collector named Levi- (Luke 5:27). This solution can be related to any hypothesis that defends the Gospel of Matthew as prior to the Gospel of Mark (the Traditional Hypothesis; the -Hypothesis of the Two Gospels- or the -Griesbach Hypothesis-). See SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. This solution runs into a major problem: the name of a disciple, Matthew, who also appears in Matthew’s list of disciples, where Matthew is called “the tax collector”, has been replaced by a disciple otherwise unknown. Another problem with the view that Mark chose and then modified Luke (“Two Gospels Hypothesis”) is that it would have to explain why the writer of Mark designates Levi, like James in the lists, “the son of Alphaeus”.
3. “Levi” was changed to “Matthew”. A third solution is that the writer Luke accepted “Levi” from Mark’s gospel, but dropped the description “the son of Alphaeus” (Luke 5:27; cf. “James the son of Alphaeus” in his list of disciples, Mark 3 :18 = Luke 6:15), while the writer of Matthew has changed “Levi” to “Matthew” (Matthew 9:9) and subsequently correlated the name with one of the Twelve in his list of disciples by describing this Matthew as “the collector’s tax -(Matthew 10:3). In this solution, only the writer of Matthew would have eliminated the thirteenth disciple, Levi. Such a solution would correspond with Origen’s 3d century view that Levi was not one of the twelve disciples (Origen, c. Cels.1,62) It also corresponds to the dominant modern view that the first gospel was Mark (the “Two-Source Theory”). This solution also has difficulties; however, before considering it further, it will be useful to point out some variants in the mss and some critical possibilities d and writing.
Table 1
Gospel Parallels (with textual variants)
Disciple Lists:
Matthew 10:3:
Y
Thomas
Y
Matthew the tax collector
James, son of Alphaeus,
and Thaddeus 2
Mark 3:18:
Y
Matthew 1
and Thomas and
James, son of Alphaeus,
and Thaddaeus 3
Luke 6:15:
Y
Matthew
and Thomas and
James, son of Alphaeus,
and Simon who was called
the fanatic
Acts 1:13:
Bartholomew
Y
Matthew
James the son of Alphaeus
and Simon
the fanatic
Man sitting in the toll booth:
Matthew 9:9:
a man . . .
called
Matthew
Mark 2:14:
Levi 4
the son of alphaeus
Luke 5:27:
a tax collector
called
Levi
Gos. Pet. 60:
Levi
the son of alphaeus
——–
1 The Tax Collector: Added in thēta, Ferrar Group, etc.
2 Lebbaeus (Greek) or Labbaeus (Latin): D, Old Latin “K”, Latin versions; Lebbaeus Called Thaddaeus: Some Later Greek Texts.
3 Lebbaeus (Greek) from Labbaeus (Latin): D and most Old Latin versions.
4 James: D, thēta, Ferrar Group, 565, Old Latin, Diatessaron, Origen, Ephraem, Photius.
E. Textual variants
1. “James” instead of “Levi”. In a few mss of the Markan call scene, “the son of Alphaeus” is James, as in the lists, instead of Levi (Mark 2:14 D, thēta, Ferrar Group, 565, Old Latin, Diatessaron, Origin, Ephraem, Photius). If this was what the original author of Markan wrote, there would be no thirteenth disciple; and the calling scene would correlate with the list by means of “James”, not “Matthew”, as in the Gospel of Matthew. However, the ms evidence for this variant is considered relatively weak. Also, Luke’s parallel to the Markan call scene still has “Levi the tax collector” and Luke’s reading has no more variants (Luke 5:27). Therefore, the problem is related to synoptic relationships, the usual conclusion being that later scribes have changed “Levi son of Alphaeus” in the calling scene to “James son of Alphaeus” (Mark 2:14) to which fits “James, son of Alphaeus” in the list of disciples (Mark 3:16). This argument is all the more compelling if the writer of Luke,
Interestingly, some of the same Mark manuscripts that have James at the tax booth in Mark 2:14 persist in calling Matthew -the tax collector- in the list of disciples in Mark 3:16 ( thēta, Ferrar Group, etc.). However, these variants are considered so weak that many modern Greek editions of the New Testament do not even consider them alternatives; they undoubtedly show an influence from Matthew’s gospel designation of Matthew as “the tax collector” (Matthew 10:3; cf. 9:9).
2. “Lebbaeus / Labbaeus” (= “Levi”) instead of “Thaddaeus”. Still other older mss seem to do the mapping by the reverse maneuver, that is, by including an equivalent of -Levi- in the list, which requires the removal of one of the Twelve. Thus some Western texts have the Greek “Lebbaeus” or the Latin “Labbaeus” for “Thaddaeus” in the disciple lists of the Gospels of Mark (cf. Mark 3:18D) and Matthew (cf. Matthew 10:3D , Africa Old Latin, “K”, Latin versions; Latin for Origen); some later caesarean section and koinē The Greek mss explain with the words “Lebbaeus, who is called Thaddaeus”. This is a correlation only if “Lebbaeus/Labbaeus” can be identified with certainty with “Levi”. Not all modern scholars have accepted this identification. Nevertheless,…