Publication Assumptions Even Impact Matthew’s Name

How do assumptions regarding the publication date of Matthew’s Gospel and Matthean priority affect our interpretation of the book? Previously, we looked at how J. Oliver Buswell’s belief that Matthew was published after Paul’s writings impacted his identification of the elect in the Olivet Discourse.¹

Today, we consider the identity of the tax collector in Capernaum. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus passes by a man sitting in the local tax booth:

As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called (legomenon) Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him. (Matthew 9:9 ESV)

A similar encounter is reported in Mark’s Gospel:

And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him. (Mark 2:14 ESV)

Is this the same person? Why does he have two names? How do date assumptions influence the answers to these questions?

A selection of perspectives are offered below.

For example, Richard Bauckham finds the traditional “identification of Matthew with Levi the son of Alphaeus” to be implausible.² Bauckham argues that since Mark identifies the tax-collector as Levi (Mark 2:14), but then lists someone named Matthew as one of the Twelve (3:18), “it is clear that Mark did not himself consider these two [to be] the same person.”³ Especially, given that Mark provides clarifying details for others in the list of the Twelve, but not for Matthew.⁴ Bauckham is working on the premise that Mark was published in the AD 60s and that Matthew and Luke were likely published in the AD 80s.⁵

Consider also Ben Witherington III, who contends that the unknown author of the Gospel of Matthew, whose Markan “source he normally follows quite closely,” evidently had “access to some special Matthean material and knew that the man’s [Levi’s] personal name, the name by which Jesus called him, was Matthew.”⁶ Witherington is working on the premise that Mark was published around AD 70 and that Matthew was written “in the last couple decades of the first century.”⁷

John Nolland is also noteworthy, for contending that the unknown author of Matthew’s Gospel has replaced Levi with Matthew (Matt. 9:9) for the sake of “explicitly working toward the completion of the Twelve (Matt. 10:1–4).”⁸ The author “secures the link” by adding “tax collector” to the identification of Matthew in the list of the Twelve.⁹ Nolland is working on the premise that Matthew was published after Mark, but “before the beginnings of the buildup to the Jewish War” which resulted in “the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70.”¹⁰

On the other hand, Craig Blomberg understands Matthew and Levi to be the same person, who is also the “most plausible choice for author” of the Gospel.¹¹ However, when speculating on how Levi might have come to have the name Matthew, Blomberg suggests that “perhaps it was the name he came to be more known by in his later ministry.”¹² By “later ministry,” Blomberg has the AD 50s of 60s in view, given his premise that Matthew was published in the late AD 50s to 60s, sometime after Mark.¹³

I tend to favor Matthew Henry’s view: “perhaps Matthew was the name he was most known by as a publican, and, therefore, in his humility, he called himself by that name, rather than by the more honorable name of Levi.”¹⁴ On my premise that Matthew was published within a decade of the resurrection and ascension, it is reasonable to assume that this alternative name was that which he used when serving as a tax collector and then as a disciple.

I am not claiming here that all those who subscribe to later dates dismiss the possibility that Matthew and Levi are the same person or necessarily claim that some unknown author made an editorial decision—for whatever reason—to identify Matthew as the tax collector in Matthew 9:9. However, there does appear to be a bias against accepting that Matthew had both names at the time when he was called by Jesus, per our limited sampling above. My point is simply that publication assumptions sometimes do impact our understanding of the biblical text. In this case, the identity of the man whom Jesus calls in Matthew 9:9.

1. https://atrustworthygospel.com/publication-assumptions-impact-buswells-interpretation-of-the-olivet-discourse/ ↩︎
2. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 108 ↩︎
3. Ibid. ↩︎
4. Bauckham also argues that it would be a “virtually unparalleled phenomenon of a Palestinian Jew bearing two common Semitic personal names.” Ibid., 108–09. ↩︎
5. Ibid., 14, 19–20. Bauckham also claims that an anonymous author stands behind Matthew’s Gospel, who modified Mark’s account by naming Matthew as the tax-collector (Matt. 9:9) to help justify the attribution of the Gospel to Matthew and likewise added “the tax-collector” to Matthew’s version of the list of the Twelve (Matt. 10:3). Ibid., 110–12. ↩︎
6. Ben Witherington III, Matthew (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2006), 5, 198. ↩︎
7. Ibid., 30. ↩︎
8. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 4, 385. ↩︎
9. Ibid. ↩︎
10. Ibid., 12, 17. ↩︎
11. Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 44. ↩︎
12. Ibid., 155. ↩︎
13. Ibid., 41–42. ↩︎
14. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), Matthew 9:9–13. ↩︎