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.
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?
Thanks for pointing this out. However, the thrust of my argument I think still works: “The name Levi was not intended to disambiguate the apostle from other Matthews, rather it was intended to associate him with the Levite family.” The common name Levi was not intended to be a disambiguier for the common name Matthew, rather it’s a family name.
Yes I agree. At first I was worried, but after some conversation with Dr McGrew and thinking on it myself, I came to the conclusion that Bauckham was overreaching in his conclusion. He has one reason to suppose that Levi and Matthew were different people, but he mistakenly treats that as the sole piece of evidence worthy in evaluation.
Rather, what he ought to do is look at the total evidence and all the likely possibilities. It seems to me that using the same story, but changing the names is more indicative of it being the same person than of it appropriating another story for Matthew. It seems to me he could have just said "And he called Matthew, who was a tax collector."
Ockhams Razor, then, it seems, favors them being the same person.
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.
Maybe an unbeliever could take such a position, but it’s not open to faithful Christians.
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?
Thanks for pointing this out. However, the thrust of my argument I think still works: “The name Levi was not intended to disambiguate the apostle from other Matthews, rather it was intended to associate him with the Levite family.” The common name Levi was not intended to be a disambiguier for the common name Matthew, rather it’s a family name.
Yes I agree. At first I was worried, but after some conversation with Dr McGrew and thinking on it myself, I came to the conclusion that Bauckham was overreaching in his conclusion. He has one reason to suppose that Levi and Matthew were different people, but he mistakenly treats that as the sole piece of evidence worthy in evaluation.
Rather, what he ought to do is look at the total evidence and all the likely possibilities. It seems to me that using the same story, but changing the names is more indicative of it being the same person than of it appropriating another story for Matthew. It seems to me he could have just said "And he called Matthew, who was a tax collector."
Ockhams Razor, then, it seems, favors them being the same person.