As a mere reporter, Mark failed to present these disconnected anecdotes in a rhetorically effective arrangement suntaxin. Although there has been ongoing debate about the extent to which Papias utilized rhetorical terminology e. June 24, pm. The first question, if one accepts the traditional authors of the Gospel, is why an apostle and eyewitness like Matthew would primarily rely on a non-apostle and non-eyewitness like Mark for his record of the life of Jesus?
- HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies.
- GIS Applications for Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Systems?
- Global Alliances in Tourism and Hospitality Management.
- Back From the Future: Cuba Under Castro;
Moreover, Papias could potentially be enlisted in support of such a scenario. Some scholars e. This may be a plausible scenario, but there have been some objections in response to it. Second, it is possible that it was Eusebius who juxtaposed these two quotations from Papias together and Papias may have been originally writing about Mark and Matthew in separate contexts. On this point, if Levi is the same person as Matthew, why does this individual have two Semitic names see how the early church wrestled with this here?
If Levi and Matthew were originally distinct individuals, why would Matthew not narrate his own call to discipleship? June 20, am. In the last several posts, we have looked at various theories behind why Levi was changed to Matthew in Matthew cf.
Was it felt to be necessary to include Levi in the list of twelve apostles? Did the evangelist connect the name Matthew to the Greek word for disciple? Were these verses designed to buttress the credibility of ascribing the Gospel to the Apostle Matthew? Was there a memory that the Apostle Matthew had really been a tax collector? Or is the change based on a simple scribal error?
June 17, am. June 13, am. Another theory for why the call story of the tax collector Levi cf. Mark ; Luke was turned into the call of the Apostle Matthew in Matthew and is presented in the Hermeneia commentary by Ulrich Luz. In his commentary on Matthew , Ulrich Luz makes the following argument on page Did it happen simply by accident? Or because the name of Matthew had symbolic significance?
Connect with the Journal
Or because Matthew was the ancestor and founding apostle of the area of the church in which our gospel was written? He does not know anything else to report about him. In short, it is improbable that the Matthean community venerated the apostle Matthew as its founding apostle and the guarantor of its tradition. Do you agree that there might have been a vague memory that Matthew had once been a tax collector before his apostolic calling, but the details of his life in that profession had long been forgotten and thus the call to discipleship of another tax-collector named Levi was transferred over to him?
Luz goes on to argue that the ascription of the New Testament Gospel to Matthew was made solely as an inference from the name change in Matthew p.
June 11, pm. In both cases, Jesus saw the individuals in question and issued the call to become his followers and there was an immediate positive response. Mark James and the textual change at Mark was intended to put Lebbaeus the Latinized name for Levi in the list of the Twelve. June 9, am.
According to George D. Kilpatrick The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew , pp. Kilpatrick also argues that the ascription of the Gospel to an apostolic author was a recognized literary convention cf. An official work whose pseudonymity was approved by the authorities of the church would not have to meet the guardians of canonicity.
Ultimately, however, I do not find this explanation to be convincing. If the Gospel writer wanted to identify Matthew as the author, simply changing the name of Levi to Matthew in Matthew cf.
Matthew does not seem to be making an explicit authorial claim as we find in the following examples:. Learn more. If you have previously obtained access with your personal account, Please log in. If you previously purchased this article, Log in to Readcube. Log out of Readcube.
Mark 16 - Wikipedia
Click on an option below to access. Log out of ReadCube. The full text of this article hosted at iucr.
If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account. If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username. Chapter Dennis C. Book Editor s : David E. Tools Request permission Export citation Add to favorites Track citation. Share Give access Share full text access.
Share full text access. Please review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article. Get access to the full version of this article. View access options below.
- ARM® Cortex® M4 Cookbook.
- The Gospel of Matthew, John the elder and the Papias tradition : a response to R H Gundry.
- Scripting Intelligence: Web 3.0 Information Gathering and Processing.
- Portals of Promise: Transforming Beliefs and Practices through a Curriculum of Parents;
- Foundations of Micropolar Mechanics?
- Cell Cycle Checkpoint Control Protocols (Methods in Molecular Biology Vol 241);
- Individual Offers.
- International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability. Smithsonian Institution Museum of History and Technology, Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C., April 9, 10 and 11, 1969.
- Papias-wrote-it theories!
- Purines and Myocardial Protection.
- Koke on Papias.
You previously purchased this article through ReadCube. Institutional Login.
Related The Gospel of Matthew, John the elder and the Papias tradition : a response to R H Gundry
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved