“Stephen Boyce on Levi-Matthew” – Guest Post by Chrissy Hansen

Stephen Boyce has been doing a series of podcasts on the Twelve Apostles which, as far as apologetic works go, are fairly interesting. But on various occasions he asserts common traditions and conjectures as just fact and handwaves any issues at play.

In his most recent episode, Stephen asserts that we should have no real problem with identifying Matthew with the figure Levi. As is well known, Mark 2 has a section where Jesus calls a tax-collector named Levi into his service. This is copied and paralleled in Matthew 9, except in this case Matthew changes the name from Levi to the name… Matthew. Go figure. Stephen says:

But the reality is this: many of the apostles had a dual name… like, I mean this isn’t hard to understand. Peter was actually given an Aramaic name in addition to his Greek name Petras. Uh, I mean when you when you look at Simon there were two Simons, so you’re either given a description or your name is changed. [Goes on to list James the Just, James the son of Zebedee, etc. as examples]^[1]

To describe this bit as “the reality” of the situation is just absurd in my view. Let’s start with the fact that gMark actually has five Simons: Simon of Cyrene, Simon the Zealot, Simon Peter, Simon the brother of Jesus, and Simon the Leper. Evidently, Stephen forgot about all the different Simons. Stephen does note all of the different Jameses right after this. We will come back to this point though because it is pretty important.

Let’s firstly start with the fact that, as Kok notes via Richard Bauckham (who was relying on the comprehensive data from Tar Ilan), that dual names are typically Greek and then Aramaic/Hebrew… neither Levi nor Matthew are Greek.^[2] So, this actually violates our data. In fact, this fact is seen even in the very examples that Stephen Boyce cites! Simon Peter… one Jewish name (Simon) and one Greek name (Petras).^[3] The James examples also do not provide supporting evidence either. Here they are identified by familial connections or epithets, not dual names. I could also point to other examples. Saul (Jewish) who was renamed Paul (Greek). The list goes on, but what is clearly evident is that Stephen Boyce doesn’t realize the very data that he cites actually contradicts his own conclusion. The instances of the Jameses and Simons, as a result, all fail to be meaningful parallels. These people are either given epithets/familial relations or Greek secondary names to distinguish them, not dual Jewish names.

Kok lists tons of other reasons. Unlike with Simon, who was then named Peter, we have no tradition of the names of Levi or Matthew being bestowed by Jesus or having been a dual name early on. As Kok also notes, nicknames and titles were often prefaced by legomenos in the Greek in Matthew’s gospel.^[4] Why is there no case of Levi “who was called Matthew” or vice versa? In short, conflating Levi and Matthew violates all of the patterning and general behavior of the gospel authors up to this point.

There are other issues. Levi is designated a son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but traditionally there was only one son of Alphaeus, James (Mark 3:18). The desire for uniformity actually led some copyists of Mark to actually conflate Levi and James by renaming.^[5] In some manuscripts, the apostle Thaddeus’ name was replaced by Labbaeus, the Greek equivalent of Levi.^[6] Not only is this found in some manuscripts of the gospels, but also the Apostolic Constitutions as well.^[7] In short, the manuscript traditions are completely inconsistent on who they identify Levi with. Some with James, some with Thaddeus. Then gMatt with Matthew. What about the early Christians? Surely, if Levi and Matthew are the same person, they would have known this and it would not have been a controversial issue whatsoever! (… foreshadowing is a literary device)

Let’s start with the fact that Origen himself is confused. As Kok notes, while in his Commentary on Romans, Origen does identify the two, in his Contra Celsum, Origen actually says they were separate specifically to contradict Celsus’ degradation of the character and occupations of the disciples.^[8] Kok elsewhere,^[9] notes that Heracleon (as noted from Origen, Miscellanies 4.9), the Valentinian, also differentiated between Matthew and Levi. Ephraem Syrus in hisCommentary on the Diatessaron differentiates Matthew and Levi.^[10] Book of the Bee 48 differentiates Matthew and Levi, giving them differing deaths.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Matthew has done something like this. Kok notes that Matthew regularly consolidates and replaces figures with each other for his own literary purposes (for instance, swapping Salome for the mother of the sons of Zebedee).^[11] This is just a bit of a habit. Why would he do so here? Well, it would make for an interesting literary contrast. Kok specifically discusses how Matthew has a particularly strong anti-tax collector take more than any other gospel, so having one of the apostles then fit into this would be a strong and exemplary case of the redemption that came with Jesus’ ministry, bringing in the lowest of the low for the author of gMatt. Additionally, it helps on reducing the cast of main characters in storied events. So, there are plenty of literary reasons for doing this.

So… what do we conclude from this? Well, firstly, that there was no singular tradition that unified the early church on identifying Matthew and Levi. Church fathers and heretics alike expressed their confusion on this point. While most did come to identify Matthew with Levi, this was not universal and even some of the very same who did make this identification are elsewhere confused on it in refuting their critics (Origen as a key example). Additionally, the manuscript traditions are confused, often conflating Levi with different people altogether. And lastly, Boyce’s “dual name” excuse is just that, an excuse. When one actually looks at the data, it is, as Kok notes, virtually “unparalleled”^[12] to find dual naming utilize two Jewish names like this, instead of a Jewish and Greek name as is what is most commonly attested. In short, Stephen Boyce’s “reality” is wholly imaginary. We have an endless series of reasons to doubt any such identification of Matthew and Levi. And these are just my problems with this podcast in the first four minutes! This thing goes on nearly an hour and my problems from there are without bounds. I am relatively befuddled by the handwaving that occurred here. Boyce’s argument in favor of identification is simply faulty and lacks any real precedent and is just outright contradicted by his own examples and the data that we have on these points. The reality is this: there is no reason to accept Boyce’s identification of Levi and Matthew. He does it purely to avoid a contradiction and the conclusion that gMatthew reutilizes and alters passages to fit his literary agendas. This is another case as to why I just simply don’t really take apologetics seriously and why you shouldn’t either. This is why if an apologist says “this is the reality” or similar, never take them at their word. Chances are there is a really complicated set of issues underlying that statement which they have obscured (intentionally or not), and which undermines basically everything they say.

When Boyce goes on to say (ca 5min 30sec mark) “there was not some huge debate” or “drama” about who Levi and Matthew were, and that they were not thinking there was “two guys”… these are the words of an uneducated person, who hasn’t done the research, who hasn’t looked into the issue closely, and is thus either completely ignorant (and thus not worth listening to on the issue) or dishonest (and still not worth listening to), or both. I know Boyce, so on this issue I’m going with ignorant. The statement is wrong and misleading. There was most certainly drama and confusion on this issue. Origen, Heracleon, Ephraem Syrus, the Book of the Bee, and our various manuscripts all showcase these confusions. Boyce’s entire introduction is misleading. So if Boyce thinks all of this is a “waste of time” or similar, that is only him not knowing what he is even talking about. And I know that Stephen has a copy of Kok’s book, I have seen pictures of it, so either he just conveniently forgot about all of these issues or he didn’t actually read it.

Once again, a showcase as to how apologetics are hinged on poor scholarship.

But, on the converse, if you want some really good public work from one of the best scholars of this generation, Dr. Candida Moss recently did a Tiktok on Matthew! Go check it out.^[13]

---

^[1] See episode here: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/stephen623/episodes/The-Apostle-Matthew-Tax-Collector–Gospel-Writer–and-Church-Planter-e27qli7.

^[2] Michael J. Kok, Tax Collector to Gospel Writer: Patristic Traditions about the Evangelist Matthew (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2023), 8–28.

^[3] Stephen would of course object “well he had two Jewish names, Simon and Cephas” without realizing that there is immense dispute on whether Cephas and Peter are the same person. Bart Ehrman has argued against this view, see https://ehrmanblog.org/finally-cephas-and-peter-what-do-i-really-think/. Regardless, Peter is never known by the title “Cephas” in any of the Gospel writings, including Matthew, so Boyce’s citation of this example would be irrelevant.

^[4] Kok, Tax Collector to Gospel Writer, 10.

^[5] Kok, Tax Collector to Gospel Writer, 21.

^[6] See Kok’s essay here: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/patristic-traditions-about-evangelist-matthew.

^[7] A useful compilation of sources is here: https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3814.

^[8] Kok, Tax Collector to Gospel Writer, 8.

^[9] See Kok’s essay here: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/patristic-traditions-about-evangelist-matthew.

^[10] For these following sources, see https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3814.

^[11] See Kok’s essay here: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/patristic-traditions-about-evangelist-matthew.

^[12] Kok, Tax Collector to Gospel Writer, 8.

^[13] Video here: https://www.tiktok.com/@candidarmoss/video/7263556502852570410.