In his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham surprisingly argues that the difference between Matthew on the one hand, and Mark and Luke on the other, over the name of the apostle “Matthew” (Matt. 9:9-13) or “Levi” (Lk. 5:27-32, Mk. 2:13-17) is an irreconcilable contradiction. He believes that, unlike other apparent contradictions in New Testament names, such as the different names given to “Judas, not Iscariot” or “Thaddeus,” Matthew and Levi cannot be thought of as two different names for the same person. This is because, while it’s true that it was not uncommon for people in 1st century Judea to go by several different names, there was always a reason for why they would do this. In the case of the non-traitor Judas, his second name was Greek and not Semitic, as was Saul’s second name “Paul.” In the book of Acts, we also encounter a man named Silas who had a Latin name, Silvanus, in addition to his Semitic one.
Matthew and Levi, on the other hand, are both Semitic names, and very uncommon ones at that. While there are a few examples of Jewish men in that time period going by two Semitic names, Bauckham points out how all of these examples consist of one of those names being a very common one like Simon or Joseph. Thus, if Matthew and Levi are the same person, they would represent the only example in all of ancient Jewish literature of a man going by two unique Semitic names. While not impossible, Bauckham finds the likelihood of this to be very low, meaning that we truly have a biblical contradiction on our hands. It seems that the author of Matthew really did just replace one of the apostles, Levi, with a non-apostle, Matthew.
However, I don’t think this is a necessary conclusion from the evidence. For one, Bauckham himself spends a great deal of time in his book defending the thesis that the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry, and the Twelve in particular, had such a prominence in the early church that, in his words, “we should expect them all to have been remembered accurately.” If such an expectation is warranted from the reverence and respect with which the Twelve were treated in early Christian communities, why would we expect anyone to feel comfortable changing one of their identities, and for no reason at that? As Bauckham himself also argues, if the goal of ascribing a false title to the Gospel of Matthew was to give it a stamp of authenticity, why on earth would you choose Matthew? Why not someone like Peter (who plays a much more prominent role in Matthew’s Gospel than Matthew himself does). This same line of reasoning can be used to discredit the notion that the author of Matthew had a motivation to replace Levi with Matthew.
Moreover, there is actually a naming scheme that can, in my opinion, account for Matthew and Levi referring to the same person, and that is the convention of family names. As Bauckham explains in chapter four of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, there were a select few “socially important families” that had family names, and we see an example of this in the New Testament. The infamous high priest who put Jesus on trial, Caiaphas, was not, in fact, named Caiaphas. Instead, this was a family name, and we know from Josephus that Caiaphas’ actual name was Joseph, with his ossuary bearing the name Joseph bar Caiaphas. Despite this, “the New Testament references show how he could be known by his family name alone—not even bar Caiaphas, but just Caiaphas.” In other words, Caiaphas was not called this unique Semitic name to distinguish him from his more common Semitic name, rather he was called this because the name Caiaphas associated him with his powerful family.
We see another example of this, albeit in Greek, with the Herodian dynasty. The descendants of Herod the Great, such as Herod Archelaus, Herod Agrippa and others, went by two (sometimes three) different Greek names, not because they couldn’t otherwise be identified, but again to associate themselves with the powerful name of Herod. It is rather telling, then, that the New Testament can refer to any members of the Herodian dynasty simply as “Herod,” without disambiguating who’s who (e.g. Matt. 2:1, Lk. 23:12, Acts 12:1, etc.). The fact that the different Herods cause so much confusion for average readers of the New Testament further underscores the point that, unlike other dual names in 1st century Judea, family names were not intended to disambiguate otherwise ambiguous names.
This, I would argue, is what explains Matthew also having the name Levi. If Matthew belonged to a powerful family named Levi, then it would make perfect sense for him to have two unique Semitic names. The name Levi was not intended to disambiguate the apostle from other Matthews, rather it was intended to associate him with the Levite family.
Perhaps this would shed light on why Matthew/Levi was even a tax-collector to begin with. It’s easy to imagine that, if your father was a socially important Jewish man under Roman occupation, he would want to demonstrate his loyalty by keeping his son on team Roma. Perhaps this would also explain Levi’s apparent influence over other tax-collectors and “sinners” (other members of the upper-class?) who all came to dine with Jesus in Levi’s probably opulent house (Mk. 4:15).
Maybe this is also why Matthew decided to use his real name instead of his family name in his own Gospel. One can imagine that a member of a powerful Jewish family who left in order to follow a seemingly anti-Roman Rabbi would not maintain the best relationship with that family, perhaps not wanting to associate with them at all. Though the other Evangelists would remember Matthew for his membership in the Levite household, Matthew himself would probably want to leave that identity in the past, making sense of why “Levi” seems to drop out of existence in Matthew’s Gospel. In any case, this obviously wouldn't be the last time members of a powerful household became Christians (Phil. 4:22).
It's also possible that Bauckham is correct that Matthew and Levi are 2 different individuals, but rather than Bauckham's conclusion that Matthew's author effectively changes the name from Levi to Matthew, it is the apostle Matthew who is correcting Mark's version, which he wasnt exactly reluctant to do. I could imagine Matthew on reading Mark and when he came to that passage re Levi's calling he exclaims, no that's my story! He thus corrects the record in his own Gospel.
One correction, you state that Matthew and Levi were both uncommon names. Bauckham, however, notes that they are both common names (top of page 109).
Thanks for this post. I suppose this is a possibility. I must admit the idea of Levi and Matthew being separate people doesn't sit well with me, for one because it pretty much eliminates Matthew from being an author of the gospel bearing his name, as Bauckham points out.
Perhaps Levi was a family name, and this is why Mark says "Levi, Son of Alphaeus" to distinguish which Levi he was talking about.
I wonder, do you have any other sources that respond to Bauckham here?